I think we need to discuss why they're pushing "green energy" as a solution, when wind & solar are intermittent and require the existing systems anyways. Why are they getting pushed as the solution? Seems like certain people are getting rich off of it, instead of actually solving anything. We don't have the infrastructure to make/dispose the batteries required for wind & solar to be the actual solution. Why don't we get to discuss all the other problems of wind & solar? Why doesn't nuclear power get discussed? Is it because the "green energy" people won't get paid, and they can prey on people's uneducated fears about nuclear reactors exploding? Why doesn't the CO2 get used in greenhouses/etc, and we don't restrict farmers from using fertilizers on growing food? It's really funny that CO2 is referred to as a "greenhouse gas", but no one ever realizes how literal that is, as we literally pump it into greenhouses to make the plants grow better. Why not do research into making our plant life do more CO2 capture, and plant more plants, instead of wasting it on a bunch of technology solutions that you even admit might not work? We have Arbor Day in Canada, but I never hear anyone saying why plants and trees aren't the solution. Only "we have to spend more money on all these technology ideas" and "you have to suffer while the rulers don't listen". But more importantly, why is it the average person that has to make these sacrifices, while our politicians aren't? They're flying everywhere, and wasting our money driving empty vehicles between cities, instead of using local transportation? The climate change can't be that serious of an issue, if the politicians enacting these restrictions on the average Canadian, aren't following their own restrictions. Beyond all that, why are Canadians being punished, when we only produce a small amount of the world's CO2? You should be working towards making places like China and India do a better job. Not us. You're not leaving the world a better place, when you're disproportionately punishing the wrong people, when you "elites" don't even listen to what you say. Let's ban private jets and all other rich elite luxuries, before ever again discussing the average Canadian's responsibility. The rich elites aren't interested in doing their part, and want us to suffer instead. I'd rather have working power, heating, and food growing, than listen to another person tell me that climate change is a problem. Until every rich person, comes down to our level, there's no more you need to ask of us. The Carbon Taxes are already damaging to Canadians, you're not making the world better for us. You're hurting us. Fossil fuels have inelastic demand for us. We can't not use them, and you have no solutions beyond punish us for doing something that we literally have to do. Carbon Taxes aren't Cigarette & Alcohol Taxes, we don't need to smoke and drink, but we need everything that the Carbon Taxes restrict. How many people are actually dying of over-heating in Canada vs how many will suffer from malnutrition or die from the cold? I don't care about the climate more than I care about actual people suffering from your ideas. Can we have an actually qualified to tell us about this topic? Why is Kim Campbell telling us? Why does anyone care what she has to say about science? All of her past, says she's not qualified to talk about this. Her qualifications are political, not scientific. Let's have a real discussion about this topic, instead of politicians telling us what to do. Does the average person even understand what you're all doing? Because I'd bet that most of us don't, and you intentionally keep it that way, so we don't realize how bad of an idea everything is. Edit: I'd also like an actual discussion on why the 1.5C before Industrial Revolution is your goal, because I remember being told it's the plan, but not a good reason for why it's the plan. I was alive for the agreement being signed, and no one's ever done a good job explaining why the goal is actually to return to the 1700s levels. I've heard about the reflective ability of CO2, but no one's ever explained why it actually matters so much, when the Earth's had life on it before, when it was much higher than now. We also need to talk about why other scientists are now saying that all the data that was pushed on us, was bias towards pushing your narrative. Edit2: Also any plans to solve it by population reduction go against the entire retirement system you boomers made for yourselves. Bringing in more people won't solve the lack of babies problem, it just makes sure that you boomers get to have full benefits, before dying. We need more babies, not bringing in more people. Because unfortunately, we don't have enough homes being built for the current demand, and our government's solution is to keep bringing in more people. Supply of homes isn't meeting demand, keeping the costs high. Stop producing a society that demonizes having babies, because we need babies more than we need boomers telling us what's going to happen.
I think we'd be bettrr off discussing why people like you keep dismissing any and all attempts at anything with no clear alternatives? Wind and solar are fantastic, where you getting your bs from?
@@JFB1111 Congratulations on ignoring what I said. I even suggested alternatives. Nuclear power especially. Wind and solar aren't. They're intermittent, and neither has end of life plans for disposal/recycling the most toxic parts. That's over and above the problems of mining the minerals for solar are done in open mines, without proper safety equipment, and done by children. But that's not a problem you want to talk about, because it's something that exists in Africa, and you don't care about African children. Or the fact that wind turbine blades kill lots of birds. Since they're intermittent, they require other fuel sources, like coal. The hypothetical solution of lithium ion battery storage is closer to a nightmare of rows of bombs, waiting to explode, and since I understand chemistry, I know how much of a nightmare it would be to put that fire out. Thats before having to allocate massive amounts of land for batteries. But go ahead and dismiss me, you've drank the activist Kool-Aid, so there's not much chance of actually having a productive conversation with you.
Amazing the extent of information being silenced on this video,
I think we need to discuss why they're pushing "green energy" as a solution, when wind & solar are intermittent and require the existing systems anyways. Why are they getting pushed as the solution? Seems like certain people are getting rich off of it, instead of actually solving anything. We don't have the infrastructure to make/dispose the batteries required for wind & solar to be the actual solution. Why don't we get to discuss all the other problems of wind & solar?
Why doesn't nuclear power get discussed? Is it because the "green energy" people won't get paid, and they can prey on people's uneducated fears about nuclear reactors exploding? Why doesn't the CO2 get used in greenhouses/etc, and we don't restrict farmers from using fertilizers on growing food? It's really funny that CO2 is referred to as a "greenhouse gas", but no one ever realizes how literal that is, as we literally pump it into greenhouses to make the plants grow better. Why not do research into making our plant life do more CO2 capture, and plant more plants, instead of wasting it on a bunch of technology solutions that you even admit might not work? We have Arbor Day in Canada, but I never hear anyone saying why plants and trees aren't the solution. Only "we have to spend more money on all these technology ideas" and "you have to suffer while the rulers don't listen".
But more importantly, why is it the average person that has to make these sacrifices, while our politicians aren't? They're flying everywhere, and wasting our money driving empty vehicles between cities, instead of using local transportation? The climate change can't be that serious of an issue, if the politicians enacting these restrictions on the average Canadian, aren't following their own restrictions.
Beyond all that, why are Canadians being punished, when we only produce a small amount of the world's CO2? You should be working towards making places like China and India do a better job. Not us. You're not leaving the world a better place, when you're disproportionately punishing the wrong people, when you "elites" don't even listen to what you say. Let's ban private jets and all other rich elite luxuries, before ever again discussing the average Canadian's responsibility. The rich elites aren't interested in doing their part, and want us to suffer instead.
I'd rather have working power, heating, and food growing, than listen to another person tell me that climate change is a problem. Until every rich person, comes down to our level, there's no more you need to ask of us. The Carbon Taxes are already damaging to Canadians, you're not making the world better for us. You're hurting us. Fossil fuels have inelastic demand for us. We can't not use them, and you have no solutions beyond punish us for doing something that we literally have to do. Carbon Taxes aren't Cigarette & Alcohol Taxes, we don't need to smoke and drink, but we need everything that the Carbon Taxes restrict. How many people are actually dying of over-heating in Canada vs how many will suffer from malnutrition or die from the cold? I don't care about the climate more than I care about actual people suffering from your ideas.
Can we have an actually qualified to tell us about this topic? Why is Kim Campbell telling us? Why does anyone care what she has to say about science? All of her past, says she's not qualified to talk about this. Her qualifications are political, not scientific. Let's have a real discussion about this topic, instead of politicians telling us what to do. Does the average person even understand what you're all doing? Because I'd bet that most of us don't, and you intentionally keep it that way, so we don't realize how bad of an idea everything is.
Edit: I'd also like an actual discussion on why the 1.5C before Industrial Revolution is your goal, because I remember being told it's the plan, but not a good reason for why it's the plan. I was alive for the agreement being signed, and no one's ever done a good job explaining why the goal is actually to return to the 1700s levels. I've heard about the reflective ability of CO2, but no one's ever explained why it actually matters so much, when the Earth's had life on it before, when it was much higher than now.
We also need to talk about why other scientists are now saying that all the data that was pushed on us, was bias towards pushing your narrative.
Edit2: Also any plans to solve it by population reduction go against the entire retirement system you boomers made for yourselves. Bringing in more people won't solve the lack of babies problem, it just makes sure that you boomers get to have full benefits, before dying. We need more babies, not bringing in more people. Because unfortunately, we don't have enough homes being built for the current demand, and our government's solution is to keep bringing in more people. Supply of homes isn't meeting demand, keeping the costs high. Stop producing a society that demonizes having babies, because we need babies more than we need boomers telling us what's going to happen.
I think we'd be bettrr off discussing why people like you keep dismissing any and all attempts at anything with no clear alternatives? Wind and solar are fantastic, where you getting your bs from?
@@JFB1111 Congratulations on ignoring what I said. I even suggested alternatives. Nuclear power especially.
Wind and solar aren't. They're intermittent, and neither has end of life plans for disposal/recycling the most toxic parts. That's over and above the problems of mining the minerals for solar are done in open mines, without proper safety equipment, and done by children. But that's not a problem you want to talk about, because it's something that exists in Africa, and you don't care about African children. Or the fact that wind turbine blades kill lots of birds. Since they're intermittent, they require other fuel sources, like coal. The hypothetical solution of lithium ion battery storage is closer to a nightmare of rows of bombs, waiting to explode, and since I understand chemistry, I know how much of a nightmare it would be to put that fire out. Thats before having to allocate massive amounts of land for batteries.
But go ahead and dismiss me, you've drank the activist Kool-Aid, so there's not much chance of actually having a productive conversation with you.
What this means is this generation screwing next and all future generations. 😥
She was by far the worst Prime Minister in Canadian history
If your parents fought in the war, how come you turned nahzi
Wtf I talking about?