triplenickel
Well-Known Member
Holy cow boys you've been busy today at least 3 pages I admire the passion! I better make a big post to catch up. Thank you for also pointing out why these projects are still being considered and likely built.
Unwillingness to change.
And basic economics;
Just so we're clear we have a household that can afford new vehicles every few years, a boat, a new homes, fuel to enjoy the toys, and god knows what other luxuries and the economics still don't add up.
Not to mention you're waiting for China to drop prices so you can buy, that is so full of hilarious irony I don't even know where to start but thank you for the smiles. I think in this case though it's a matter of choices, willingness to change and priorities not economics. Could you get by and have the same enjoyable experience with a boat worth $10k less? GLG not an attack even though it really comes off like it but this scenario is far from isolated I suspect, if you actually wanted to do it you could with almost zero impact on quality of life, it is just that simple. I hear what you're saying on hydro, those projects are always well received and the public would likely love more dams. I used to feel pretty good about living in an area fed by hydro until I looked a little further into the big world. We're part of the same grid as everyone who gets their power from nuke, coal, or methane therefor every Kwh I use is one that needs to be made up somewhere/somehow else. It's all the same, you and I own a share of the emissions and waste from every source. I heat electrically too, but with the money spent in the crawl space, insulation above and beyond minimum code, a heat pump and an energuide rating of 82 I'm about $100 a month for power and heat in a 2500' house.
More thoughts on economics from AA;
And to Seadna;
But we are the collective, who do you think it is if it isn't us? I don't understand what you're getting at if you aren't saying we need the government to get us to start making changes at home. Just like the example above there is only one person keeping you from adopting these things at home and it isn't Harper or Clark. I interpreted your posts as saying we need the government to somehow force people to make the changes. It seems like you were pointing the finger at the governments lack of action as being the problem.
The assumption came from reading things like you said here;
and here;
Another thought for GLG
We all have our impact, glad to see your acknowledging yours. My high horse comments came after you've (more than once) told other people that "they're the problem" as if you are somehow better.
Kudos good job, I hope I can keep a good enough job to allow me the free time later in life to participate but in the meantime I'll make my little contributions somehow.
For AA;
AA this is what I was referring to when I reminded you of my occupation not the apology post, to me it reads like you think I work in Ft. Mac.
Ya gotta keep up man, at least with your own posts!
I disagree with your summary of economics, capitalism, and market adaptation driven by consumers. If we start buying solar or alternative energies and less carbon. The powers that be in the evil corporations will certainly see their profits evaporating while others increase and take the obvious steps needed to protect their interests. I hope you don't go into the conspiracy theories about the 100mpg carb that never made it to market because the evil gobbled the patents and product up so it wouldn't reach the market.
Better hope not GLG, it might not work out for your solar panels plan if they did. You may be forced to buy Canadian!
I'd have to check but I'd be surprised if it was even that much, I probably put more on my 1982 Honda 70 then my tow/dump/camping rig. Once at work camp is less than 1km from my plant and a few of us ride in the same truck and make sure things are done as well as possible. The airplane thing is legit, I'd like to know what one of them burned and factor in other passengers to see what my share is. I don't live here because it's too cold, expensive, mosquito infested, limited recreation opportunities, limited education for the spawn and the fishing sucks. I wish they'd drill some wells and build some plants on the island closer to home. That would solve some carbon and pipeline problems. It would certainly reduce the need for companies like Spectra which you pointed out earlier as large emitters in our province. Man that's a pretty good idea the more I think about it, the coal beds on the Island are full of methane, heck it's right behind the CR airport. Think of how much better it would be if we produced the gas consumed on the Island right here on the Island. Some local jobs, lower net carbon footprint, I mean it sounds so good and it would go so well with the local movement that's all the rage these days. Oh wait, my bad too many NIMBYs.
In the meantime I'll just keep continuing my education and networking in hopes of landing a job at Discovery LNG when it gets going. I will continue my education unlike those that are gonna sit around crying saying the job went to someone from Alberta when they can barely spell LNG let alone operate a facility and were given all kinds of advanced notice about what's on the horizon.
Oh yeah at less than 5000kms per year tell me more about the payout of the truck upgrade on mileage alone, lets not even debate the net footprint from building a new truck and shipping components from all around the world so the factories can make big claims about domestic emissions. By my math (limited as it may be) payout is more than double what you had claimed earlier in this thread, something isn't adding up in one claim or the other.
And what is this supposed to mean? Don't like being reminded of what you typed, was what I said untrue? Wanna get me banned or something?
PS; sorry about using that bad word, I can't believe I tainted the pristine nature of the interwebs with such a vile word.
Unwillingness to change.
And basic economics;
Just so we're clear we have a household that can afford new vehicles every few years, a boat, a new homes, fuel to enjoy the toys, and god knows what other luxuries and the economics still don't add up.
Not to mention you're waiting for China to drop prices so you can buy, that is so full of hilarious irony I don't even know where to start but thank you for the smiles. I think in this case though it's a matter of choices, willingness to change and priorities not economics. Could you get by and have the same enjoyable experience with a boat worth $10k less? GLG not an attack even though it really comes off like it but this scenario is far from isolated I suspect, if you actually wanted to do it you could with almost zero impact on quality of life, it is just that simple. I hear what you're saying on hydro, those projects are always well received and the public would likely love more dams. I used to feel pretty good about living in an area fed by hydro until I looked a little further into the big world. We're part of the same grid as everyone who gets their power from nuke, coal, or methane therefor every Kwh I use is one that needs to be made up somewhere/somehow else. It's all the same, you and I own a share of the emissions and waste from every source. I heat electrically too, but with the money spent in the crawl space, insulation above and beyond minimum code, a heat pump and an energuide rating of 82 I'm about $100 a month for power and heat in a 2500' house.
More thoughts on economics from AA;
And to Seadna;
But we are the collective, who do you think it is if it isn't us? I don't understand what you're getting at if you aren't saying we need the government to get us to start making changes at home. Just like the example above there is only one person keeping you from adopting these things at home and it isn't Harper or Clark. I interpreted your posts as saying we need the government to somehow force people to make the changes. It seems like you were pointing the finger at the governments lack of action as being the problem.
The assumption came from reading things like you said here;
and here;
Another thought for GLG
We all have our impact, glad to see your acknowledging yours. My high horse comments came after you've (more than once) told other people that "they're the problem" as if you are somehow better.
Kudos good job, I hope I can keep a good enough job to allow me the free time later in life to participate but in the meantime I'll make my little contributions somehow.
For AA;
AA this is what I was referring to when I reminded you of my occupation not the apology post, to me it reads like you think I work in Ft. Mac.
Ya gotta keep up man, at least with your own posts!
I disagree with your summary of economics, capitalism, and market adaptation driven by consumers. If we start buying solar or alternative energies and less carbon. The powers that be in the evil corporations will certainly see their profits evaporating while others increase and take the obvious steps needed to protect their interests. I hope you don't go into the conspiracy theories about the 100mpg carb that never made it to market because the evil gobbled the patents and product up so it wouldn't reach the market.
Better hope not GLG, it might not work out for your solar panels plan if they did. You may be forced to buy Canadian!
I'd have to check but I'd be surprised if it was even that much, I probably put more on my 1982 Honda 70 then my tow/dump/camping rig. Once at work camp is less than 1km from my plant and a few of us ride in the same truck and make sure things are done as well as possible. The airplane thing is legit, I'd like to know what one of them burned and factor in other passengers to see what my share is. I don't live here because it's too cold, expensive, mosquito infested, limited recreation opportunities, limited education for the spawn and the fishing sucks. I wish they'd drill some wells and build some plants on the island closer to home. That would solve some carbon and pipeline problems. It would certainly reduce the need for companies like Spectra which you pointed out earlier as large emitters in our province. Man that's a pretty good idea the more I think about it, the coal beds on the Island are full of methane, heck it's right behind the CR airport. Think of how much better it would be if we produced the gas consumed on the Island right here on the Island. Some local jobs, lower net carbon footprint, I mean it sounds so good and it would go so well with the local movement that's all the rage these days. Oh wait, my bad too many NIMBYs.
In the meantime I'll just keep continuing my education and networking in hopes of landing a job at Discovery LNG when it gets going. I will continue my education unlike those that are gonna sit around crying saying the job went to someone from Alberta when they can barely spell LNG let alone operate a facility and were given all kinds of advanced notice about what's on the horizon.
Oh yeah at less than 5000kms per year tell me more about the payout of the truck upgrade on mileage alone, lets not even debate the net footprint from building a new truck and shipping components from all around the world so the factories can make big claims about domestic emissions. By my math (limited as it may be) payout is more than double what you had claimed earlier in this thread, something isn't adding up in one claim or the other.
And what is this supposed to mean? Don't like being reminded of what you typed, was what I said untrue? Wanna get me banned or something?
PS; sorry about using that bad word, I can't believe I tainted the pristine nature of the interwebs with such a vile word.
Last edited by a moderator:
But seriously, there isn't an unwillingness to change. I have already made changes and will continue to make changes to reduce my own carbon footprint. As I said above, my own little contribution could be completely zero and it still wouldn't have much impact on the bigger problem. But apparently, by your logic, I'm only allowed to be concerned about how we (me + others) treat the planet when I'm perfect.
