Comments by "Darlene" (@darlene2709) on "Global National: Dec. 13, 2023 | COP28 pact agrees to “transition away” from fossil fuels" video.

Extreme weather events have consequences. The properties lost to floods and fires have to be rebuilt. Some insurance companies in the United States are not renewing homeowner policies in riskier areas. Since we're going to pay a price, wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money on mitigating climate change instead? Even if you don't directly suffer from the storms, you will notice the increase in food prices.
3
Extreme weather events happening more often are quite real. The properties lost to floods and fires have to be rebuilt. Some insurance companies in the United States are not renewing homeowner policies in riskier areas. Since we're going to pay a price, wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money on mitigating climate change instead? Even if you don't directly suffer from the storms, you will notice the increase in food prices.
1
@ar6888 The collapse of the prices of oil and other Canadian commodity exports compounded the effects of the financial crisis, and the Canadian economy fell into recession in October 2008. Conservative Stephen Harper was in office.
1
The properties lost to floods and fires have to be rebuilt. Some insurance companies in the United States are not renewing homeowner policies in riskier areas. Since we're going to pay a price, wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money on mitigating climate change instead? Even if you don't directly suffer from the storms, you will notice the increase in food prices.
1
@tonybaloney8401 How else would you encourage the change to clean energy if not with financial incentives?
1
@PropagandaBurnerTheThird Sounds good. Start lobbying the government to build more nuclear plants.
1
@PropagandaBurnerTheThird Please share the good news with Danielle Smith. We need nuclear reactors all across the country.
1
The properties lost to floods and fires have to be rebuilt. Some insurance companies in the United States are not renewing homeowner policies in riskier areas. Since we're going to pay a price, wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money on mitigating climate change instead? Even if you don't directly suffer from the storms, you will notice the increase in food prices.
1
@bcanuck Sure. As long as there are no droughts or floods. That would ruin your crops.
1
What corruption? Don't forget the evidence.
1
I don't think it's possible to drive to China.
1
The properties lost to floods and fires have to be rebuilt. Some insurance companies in the United States are not renewing homeowner policies in riskier areas. Since we're going to pay a price, wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money on mitigating climate change instead? Even if you don't directly suffer from the storms, you will notice the increase in food prices.
1
Climate change is not about the temperature on any given day. It's about the average global temperature. Think of it like a fever. Even a degree makes a big difference to plants and animals.
1
@harleyfdxc You are wrong and here is why. "Earth is at its hottest in thousands of years. Here’s how we know. Observations are enough to make scientists confident that the current period of warming is exceptional. Observations from both satellites and the Earth’s surface are indisputable — the planet has warmed rapidly over the past 44 years. As far back as 1850, data from weather stations all over the globe make clear the Earth’s average temperature has been rising. In recent days, as the Earth has reached its highest average temperatures in recorded history, scientists have made a bolder claim: It may well be warmer than any time in the last 125,000 years. There is no evidence anywhere in scientists’ understanding of Earth’s history of warming that occurred nearly as rapidly as the ongoing spike in temperatures, caused by the burning of fossil fuels and emissions of greenhouse gases. If a hotter day happened on Earth anytime in the past, it was the result of natural processes. The current rise is not natural, but caused by us." Skeptical Science
1
@TheRantingCabbie You are wrong and here is why. "It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that climate change is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity. But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.) Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results. In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.” The Guardian
1
@JackieBillyTom The people who live in Florida and California and can't afford to renew their insurance are definitely paying attention to climate change. The properties lost to floods and fires have to be rebuilt. Some insurance companies in the United States are not renewing homeowner policies in riskier areas. Since we're going to pay a price, wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money on mitigating climate change instead? Even if you don't directly suffer from the storms, you will notice the increase in food prices.
1
@colingryms3373 That’s a very immature response. Just because others are doing something wrong doesn't mean you should do the same.
1
@colingryms3373 Those are completely separate issues that all need to be solved. Universal Basic Income would be helpful in terms of lifting those who rely on the food bank out of poverty.
1
@colingryms3373 As long as enough of the population understands the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we should be fine without your cooperation. The next generation would like a planet not consumed by severe weather events and fires.
1
@colingryms3373 If you really want to eliminate poverty, you should support Universal Basic Income. Vote NDP.
1
@colingryms3373 That is true for most Canadians. Conservatives and Liberals have more in common than Republicans and Democrats. "The Carbon Tax was once a policy championed by Conservative/Republican political parties, in fact employed to help combat the acid rain crisis in the 1980’s. With the demise of the Progressive Conservatives and rise of the Reform Party, Canadian conservatism took on a strong western bias, nearly completely beholden to Oil and Gas interests. Conservatives in Canada now fight the Carbon Tax with a existential fervor once reserved for taxation, and the Carbon Tax has become a tool to combat climate for those on the center-left. That is a perfect example with how the Overton window has moved to the right on environmental issues." Toronto Guardian
1
@schtuga "The vaccine is one of the greatest achievements of mankind,” Trump said. “I came up with a vaccine — with three vaccines — all are very, very good … in less than nine months. It was supposed to take five to 12 years.” “And if you take the vaccine, you’re protected," Trump went on. "The results of the vaccine are very good. And if you do get it, it’s a very minor form. People aren’t dying when they take their vaccine. The vaccine worked, but some people aren’t taking it,” he said. “The ones that get very sick and go to the hospital are the ones who don’t take their vaccine.”
1
@schtuga The online publication Skeptical Science says you are wrong. "How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures? While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions. Climate Myth... Medieval Warm Period was warmer "For now, though, it is enough just to see the Medieval WARM Period shown to be global, and warmer than today." (Musings from the Chiefio) One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking? Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013. Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms. Overall, our conclusions are: a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming."
1
The properties lost to floods and fires have to be rebuilt. Some insurance companies in the United States are not renewing homeowner policies in riskier areas. Since we're going to pay a price, wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money on mitigating climate change instead? Even if you don't directly suffer from the storms, you will notice the increase in food prices.
1
The properties lost to floods and fires have to be rebuilt. Some insurance companies in the United States are not renewing homeowner policies in riskier areas. Since we're going to pay a price, wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money on mitigating climate change instead? Even if you don't directly suffer from the storms, you will notice the increase in food prices.
1
You are wrong and here is why. "Electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging. The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when accounting for manufacturing. Electric vehicles have charging strategies that can prevent overloading the grid, and, in some cases, support grid reliability. Electric vehicles can be plugged into the same type of outlet as your toaster! When you need to charge while on the road, you’ll find over 51,000 stations in the U.S. available to the public. Electric vehicle range is more than enough for typical daily use in the U.S. Electric vehicles now come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Electric vehicles must meet the same safety standards as conventional vehicles." EPA
1
We have the GST thanks to the Conservatives.
1
Communism is the economic system where the government owns the means of production.
1
The properties lost to floods and fires have to be rebuilt. Some insurance companies in the United States are not renewing homeowner policies in riskier areas. Since we're going to pay a price, wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money on mitigating climate change instead? Even if you don't directly suffer from the storms, you will notice the increase in food prices.
1
@jiggycalzone8585 Finish your thought. What do we get?
1
@Resurrection9 Actually, floods and droughts are the natural consequence of extreme weather events. That's something.
1
@johncowper7982 You are wrong and here is why. "Earth is at its hottest in thousands of years. Here’s how we know. Observations are enough to make scientists confident that the current period of warming is exceptional. Observations from both satellites and the Earth’s surface are indisputable — the planet has warmed rapidly over the past 44 years. As far back as 1850, data from weather stations all over the globe make clear the Earth’s average temperature has been rising. In recent days, as the Earth has reached its highest average temperatures in recorded history, scientists have made a bolder claim: It may well be warmer than any time in the last 125,000 years. There is no evidence anywhere in scientists’ understanding of Earth’s history of warming that occurred nearly as rapidly as the ongoing spike in temperatures, caused by the burning of fossil fuels and emissions of greenhouse gases. If a hotter day happened on Earth anytime in the past, it was the result of natural processes. The current rise is not natural, but caused by us." Skeptical Science
1
@fistmcstrongpunch2776 You are conflating separate issues as a turkey would do.
1
The properties lost to floods and fires have to be rebuilt. Some insurance companies in the United States are not renewing homeowner policies in riskier areas. Since we're going to pay a price, wouldn't it make more sense to spend that money on mitigating climate change instead? Even if you don't directly suffer from the storms, you will notice the increase in food prices.
1
It's far more likely that it's Amazon's fault. Online shopping is leading brick and mortar stores to close. See Mastermind Toys for another example.
1