Do you think it will effect us? - Page 3 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-02-2012, 07:00 PM   #21 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
extra0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
Yeah...no.

NASA says that the pollution caused by the oil sands is comparable to a large sized coal fired generating plant or a moderate sized city. There are 600 coal-fired generating plants in the US alone...
granted, I have no reference to that statistic...but it appears neither do you to yours...and I don't know how old your stats are.

I can, however, reference the fact that oil sands are planning to destroy 25k acres of forest for expansion. The Canadian Boreal forest is the world’s largest terrestrial carbon storehouse and home to the largest forest wetland ecosystems left on the planet, so their environmental impact will be exponential.

http://dirtyoilsands.org/thedirt/article/quick_facts
extra0 is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 07:15 PM   #22 (permalink)
Drunk with power...er beer.
 
Donutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,457
Blog Entries: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
And a reply just for Donutz.
Can't argue with anything you said, and I agree strongly with a lot of it. You hit the nail on the thumb especially with the "can't prove it" comment. It's like that commercial (can't remember what for) where one guy says "I'm 99% certain it's this" and the other guy says "So you don't know." And the problem with evidence like that physorg article I posted is that it's too abstract and theoretical. Most people want something you can drop on their toes like a brick before they'll accept something they don't want to accept. And even then, they're liable to say "I didn't feel anything" with tears running down their faces.
__________________

I hate the parts between winter
Donutz is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 07:17 PM   #23 (permalink)
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
ARSENALFAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donutz View Post
Can't argue with anything you said, and I agree strongly with a lot of it. You hit the nail on the thumb especially with the "can't prove it" comment. It's like that commercial (can't remember what for) where one guy says "I'm 99% certain it's this" and the other guy says "So you don't know." And the problem with evidence like that physorg article I posted is that it's too abstract and theoretical. Most people want something you can drop on their toes like a brick before they'll accept something they don't want to accept. And even then, they're liable to say "I didn't feel anything" with tears running down their faces.

Shall we take this over into the religion section? ROTFL! Off to Sunday night mass I go. I will pray for Colorado snow as promised.
ARSENALFAN is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 07:17 PM   #24 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboMaster View Post
You can blame one country or another but the reality is that as long as we have a global market and culture based on over-consumption someone's gonna be fucking something up somewhere.

Supply and demand
This is the part of the global warming/climate change debate that drives me nuts.

The hypocrisy of suburban soccer moms pointing the finger at "Big Oil" while driving around in a V8 SUV that could house a small family.

Golfers in Arizona buying an acre of Amazonian Rain Forest so they can feel better about spending millions on building a fake course in the desert.

Consumers who buy every new electronic gadget that comes out bitching about open-pit cooper mining.

Home owners who think that installing a few compact florescent lights somehow makes them an "environmentalist" All the while keeping their house heated or a/c'd to 70F all year round. And who wouldn't even consider taking the bus to work.

Snowboarders who bitch about the lack of snow due to climate change, but still drive their SUV's to hill, want more lifts, more skiable acreage, fewer crowds and cheaper lift tickets
Bones is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 07:19 PM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
C.B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern MN
Posts: 332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donutz View Post
Maybe we're misunderstanding each other, but that's what I said. So I'm misinformed but you agree with me???



Oh for Christs sake. So where are all the people living now that weren't here 100 years ago? In the desert? In the bottom of the rivers? C.B., I'm old enough to remember the lower mainland in the 60's and there's NO FUCKING WAY there's more trees here now. I have pictures in my photo album of the north shore with almost no houses on it (now it's houses almost all the way up).

Ever heard of clearcuts? BC in particular is lousy with them. The natives in the Amazon are being forced out of their traditional lands by deforestation. There are satellite pix showing before and after, and there are a lot less trees than before. So where are all these magical new trees going in? The desert, again?

Sometimes the bullshit that comes out of the republitard grist mill just drives me goofy.

And with this post, I realize I'm going to have to move this thread. Sorry, OP. You've been threadjacked.
Actually I was saying there's less wild fires now than there was in the past, which is true partially because of our suppression efforts, and partially the because forest in noth America is maturing (relative to 100 years ago).

Clear cuts are often the best way to harvest trees because they mimick catastrophic fires. That's basically the only way we harest trees in the lake states (the primary exception being when the water table comes into play)

I'm actually a forestry student at a very liberal college, and anything but a "republitard" nothing I ever said was politically motivated. I was simply providing some information about things that I study every day that is mostly missunderstood by the general public.

If anything we should be utilizing our forest as a sustainable resource, and that's my point.
C.B. is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 07:43 PM   #26 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by extra0 View Post
granted, I have no reference to that statistic...but it appears neither do you to yours...and I don't know how old your stats are.
Oil sands pollution comparable to ‘large power plant’, NASA data shows | News | Financial Post

25,000 ka of boreal forest to be destroyed? That's nothing. Canada has over 1 billion acres of boreal forest and that's only about 30% of the world's total.

25,000ka is the figure if the Oil Sands are expanded to maximum capacity and that can't happen for a long time even if it is economically viable. That's potential, not actual. By contrast, some estimates have over 50 million acres of rain forest being cleared annually right now, some 600 coal plants operate in the US right now, 52 coal mines producing 4 million tons of coal annually in the US are running right now.

The % of boreal forest that could affected by oil sands expansion is miniscule. The boreal forest extends around the world, part of it in Canada and the oil sands area is a small part of the Canadian Part.

If you want a target, then take a look in the mirror. You want to have an immediate effect? Close all coal fired generating stations in the US.

Not politically palatable to be sure. I wouldn't want to be the one to tell all those coal miners that they're out of a job. But to bitch about the potential future effects of the oil sands when there's immediate things you could do but won't is hypocritical. In terms of CO2 emissions (2008 UN numbers), China produces 23.53%, USA 18.27%, the EU 13.98% and Canada a mere 1.82%. It's pretty obvious that the problem lies south of the 49th parallel, not north.

Last edited by Bones; 12-02-2012 at 08:23 PM.
Bones is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 08:08 PM   #27 (permalink)
Drunk with power...er beer.
 
Donutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,457
Blog Entries: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by C.B. View Post
I'm actually a forestry student at a very liberal college, and anything but a "republitard" nothing I ever said was politically motivated. I was simply providing some information about things that I study every day that is mostly missunderstood by the general public.
Sorry, your statement set me off because it sounded too much like the old denialist canard about how global warming is a myth because the population of polar bears has actually doubled in historical times.

Anyway, my objection is still valid. If there are more trees now than there were a hundred years ago, and if there are more clearcuts now, and if there are more developed areas, then the supposed additional trees have to also make up for the clearcuts and developed areas. So where are these new trees?

I suspect the answer is similar to the polar bear claim -- a cherry picked statistic designed to imply a conclusion that simply isn't true.
__________________

I hate the parts between winter
Donutz is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 08:36 PM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
C.B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Northern MN
Posts: 332
Default

Well clear cuts grow back, more often than not it is a better harvest method than selective harvest, it's a way for us to mimic a forest natural disturbances while still utilizing forest products.

There's a flip side to developments as well. While developments aren't exactly Ecofriendly, peple generally like to have trees in their yards. There are a lot of urban forests in places that didn't traditionally have trees.

You also have to look at the 100's of thousands of acers of tree plantations in places like north Dakota and Nebraska that never had trees pre human development.

Last edited by C.B.; 12-02-2012 at 09:22 PM.
C.B. is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 09:20 PM   #29 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
extra0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 624
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
Oil sands pollution comparable to ‘large power plant’, NASA data shows | News | Financial Post

...But to bitch about the potential future effects of the oil sands when there's immediate things you could do but won't is hypocritical...
o.k. you proved your point, but getting personal on my on me is strange. You know nothing about me other than I like to snowboard. I work from my home and rarely drive anywhere - pretty much only for the occasional surf and snowboard sesh and to take my father to the doctor. I actually walk or ride my bike to get groceries and anything/everything else I can do that doesn't involve driving. My carbon footprint is undoubtedly smaller than yours, so chill.
extra0 is offline  
Old 12-02-2012, 09:52 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
HoboMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 2,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by extra0 View Post
o.k. you proved your point, but getting personal on my on me is strange. You know nothing about me other than I like to snowboard. I work from my home and rarely drive anywhere - pretty much only for the occasional surf and snowboard sesh and to take my father to the doctor. I actually walk or ride my bike to get groceries and anything/everything else I can do that doesn't involve driving. My carbon footprint is undoubtedly smaller than yours, so chill.
I don't think he is personally attacking you, he is attacking the reality that you are an American, which means that unless you live 100% off-the-grid you have an unsustainable footprint.

Simply using basic services we have developed and take for granted spawn from unsustainable processes. He's just trying to demystify the ideology many Americans have that if they shop at the CO-OP and ride their bicycle to work they magically become exempt from the over-consumption conversation. Not saying that those things don't make a difference or that you should just be apathetic, it's just important to realize you are likely buying into "green" propaganda.
__________________
PowderHound and TreeNinja
HoboMaster is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums