Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "Canada will seem "weak" unless they raise tariffs in lockstep with US. So higher prices, forever." video.

Getting 60 percent electricity from hydro and another 15 percent from nuclear would mean no cleaner electricity would be available, a lot better than an ice car in its place with about 640 kilowatts of energy in each tank of diesel. A 100 kilowatt battery is going to need less energy overall even if plugged in, JUST, to keep it warm, don't worry about plugging it in to charge that warms it, putting a bar heater beside it and the energy coming from hydro would still be better than a fossil fuel replacement.
1
@DailyBeatings Which is such a stupid argument when there 1.4 billion of them versus 38 million
1
@DailyBeatings No you don't, overall emissions are the important measure, saying three people emit 500 tons per day while a thousand emit 300, does not in any way make the thousand better or not to be looked at, overall.
1
@DailyBeatings If total carbon means nothing, please... tell the world that they have nothing to worry about because the amount is greater coming from one country than another. You could get rid of Canada's emissions and it wouldn't change much overall, China's emissions on the other hand..The fact you have gone through school and can't see the logic of that might be a result of the lack of critical thinking taught.
1
@DW-op7ly No green energy is effective at reducing overall emissions, they are an addition to the coal and it still gets used. You are talking about a future that you don't know of, just imagining. China is due to lose half its pop by 2100, effectively doubling their per capita in that time.
1
@DW-op7ly Today their emissions have increased from a decade ago and with ch due to lose 50% of their popualtion over the next 80 years their per capita is going to double if all things remain the same.
1
@DailyBeatings Yes, basic math of totals and with ch due to lose fifty percent of the population over the next 80 years will mean their per capita is going to double if they keep the same amount of production.
1
@DW-op7ly PS In 2014 was declared the war on pollution, in that time all green energy has not decreased overall emissions.
1
@DW-op7ly If it has doubled in 50 years, plateaued now sinking, declines 50 percent in 80 years, will the decline be as attractive as the rise?
1
@DW-op7ly Plantation forests or new planting account for 3% of worldwide forest. China being responsible for 0.75% doesn't impress me even if it sounds high. Considering the deforestation within china is 0.20% plus for china it's a great statistic but overall meaningless.
1
@DW-op7ly You communicate like a robot.
1
@DW-op7ly What indignation do you think is happening when somebody states facts? I merely ask the question of how china will be with the same problem that is happening elsewhere, a halving of the population and stating the fact that if emissions stay the same then per capita will double. China has supplied the west, and africa may not be able to consume as much so the toxic waste will become less, but please point me to where once I have given you any snow report?
1