RE:Comments on the IEA postVery well said. So how is it possible that peoplekind can't see this.
masfortuna wrote: The problem with the post from the IEA is that it makes several assumptions:
1. The reference it makes to "world" is very naive. As it stands, China and India are averaging 1 coal generated power plant being built every 2 weeks. Even if the "WESTERN WORLD" reduces emmisions, these would be offset by these 2 nations.
2. Dropping the temperature by 1.5 degrees is assuming that the temperature increase is dictated by carbon emmisions and mostly by fossil fuel consumption. The last time I checked, carbon makes up .0001 of our atmosphere. Reducing our carbon footprint to net zero In Canada would impact the carbon footprint insignificantly. In addition, the usage of crabon free producing energy sources require carbon emmisions to produce and pollute the atmosphere with other green house gases.
3. *** Canada has 9.5 million square kilometres of which 5 million are covered in forest. Each mature tree consumes 48 pounds of carbon. Based on the number of trees that exist in Canada ( nevermind any other form of vegetation that also consumes carbon) we are already at "CARBON NEGATIVE" as a nation.
In other words our carbon emmision is insignificant due to our tiny population and the carbon emmision is absorbed by our trees. Since oil is a major driver of our economy, our federal policies are impacting our net wealth with no appreciative gain. Can you say virtue signalling???