lol, without China or India on board, it’s all for nothing.

Smells like another tax grab coming.

Yes, we do not need great big 8 cylinder vehicles…. We can do fine with high performance 4 and 6 bangers. All of Europe and most of Asia runs on it. Those cars have no problem doing 24o km/hr on the Autoban

We are just programed to believe that we need a big 8 cylinder engine in every truck. We as consumers need to change this thought pattern.

What would be ideal is, GM starts putting in the baby duramax into the half ton. So we can pull a trailer with it, and be assured that the torque is there to lug us up mud river hill…., I know they are throwing them in the Colorado to test the waters. But I would like to see about a V-6, 3.5 Litre, 280 HP, 500 ft/lbs. Fuel economy on the highway empty at under 10 litres per 100km. Than you have a winner.

Looks like they have a V6 diesel, with 320 Hp, but only 270 ft lbs. Throw a turbo on it, and it will be ready for a half ton. Reinstate the heavy half for this baby, and people with the 6500# trailers will be snapping these babies up. Only if Allison will make the Allison lite transmission. Or have they.

I have three Duramax from brand new, total of 800,000 km. Never been in a shop to work on the running gear…. Knock on wood. Duramax rules.

Who cares if it measured by amount per person or just how much is released… As long as there is a reduction we are heading in the right direction. Countries like China and India dont have to follow the same rules and that’s just crazy.

Quote “But I would like to see about a V-6, 3.5 Litre, 280 HP, 500 ft/lbs. Fuel economy on the highway empty at under 10 litres per 100km. Than you have a winner.”

How about a 3.5 V6 with 365hp and 425 ft/lb and 11 litres per hundred empty and 10,000lb tow rating? I’ve been driving one for a few years, just head to your Ford dealer :P

Mr. Skakun, 2% of the world’s total population is about 140 million people. You are saying that Canada is responsible for a bit less than 2% of the total GHG emissions globally. Do you see the problem? Our population is only 34 million! So we are polluting about 4 times more than could be *justified* considering the size of our population! Divide 2% by 4 and you get about 1/2 of one percent! We should try to be even better than that – like 1/4 of one percent, or even less.

Noooo, is there not anyone on this council with any sense at all.
Koehler so are you saying there was no climate before man came along? Skakun you are a power engineer you should know better. Merrick has shown she does not research a subject before commenting so her comment is understandable.

Climate change that term arose because the term used before, global warming was not working out since there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 20 years as shown by two satellite measuring systems which are much more accurate compared to sparse adjusted ground measuring. I see science is not these councillors strong suite.

Mans contribution to C02 is 4% of total, the rest 96%, is natural and no one studies the effect of the natural c02. Think about it 96% is natural. Of that 4% Canada’s contribution is 1%, yes 1%. Now if Canada lower its c02 production by 20% as some rent seekers call for what will be the effect on temperature, .001 degree, wow that will save mother earth. I the mean time billions will have been spent industry, manufacturing jobs will be reduced for what. So some politician can make a splash. Oh by the way water vapour is by far the largest GHG. Back to c02 no one has proved how much of an effect mans contribution has if any at all. Heck the rent seekers can’t figure out how much effect natural c02 has. “climate change” only exists in computer models, and the models cannot even show past climate let alone future. The models never predicted the present hiatus in warming and the rent seekers have been coming up with all sorts of excuses for the so called pause.

There are over 1000 coal fired power plants being built around the world, the bulk of them in China and India, heck even that bastion of green energy is building coal plants to back up their inefficient very costly so called green power.
C02 is essential for life and it has been much higher in the past, why do you think green houses pump in c02 at around 1000 ppm, plants love it, they evolved with higher c02. Skakun can you show me one proven negative effect of higher c02. What higher temperatures you say, hey do you go some where warm in the winter? That is if c02 is will raise the temperatures. 20 times more people die from the cold than heat.

Have you folks heard of these terms, PDO,AMO, ENSO, Milankovitch cycles if not you should not be commenting on so call “climate change” Ever hear of the Holocene optimum, Roman warm period, medieval warm period, times when it was warmer than now. How about the dark ages, when it was generally cooler than now.

“Per capita, Canada has some of the largest footprints in carbon emissions. So as a country as a whole, certainly China is a large emitter, but Canada, per person, is way up there as well. It may be a drop in the bucket, but there are a lot of buckets at play here.”
Wow that is some statement. Well take a look at a map of Canada, see its size compared to population and don’t forget it gets very cold. Now compare population to size with other developed countries. Now rethink your statement.

Hey how come we never hear anything about that little electric go cart that the city and UNBC spent thousands on. lots of fanfare at the beginning then nothing. Haven’t seen UNBC or the city switch over to all electric vehicles yet so my guess is not working out so well. Hey a trailer can always be bought for it to haul a generator to plug into the car with some jugs of gasoline, nope bad, diesel, nope badder yet hey natural gas that’s the ticket. Then the heater and wipers can be run unlimited.

Oh if you folks quote Suzuki or Gore they are making good coin on saving the world and considering where their houses are situated not worried about sea level rise. Good coin very good coin. As for UNBC and it rent seekers they are not doing to bad either in the coin department and getting to travel to exotic locations. Hey how many are traveling to the big climate party in Paris? First class all the way? I guess they will balance off their carbon emissions with their electric go cart.

Here are some sources of information.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://judithcurry.com/
http://joannenova.com.au/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
http://climateaudit.org/

Remember all this climate change hype is about politics, power and money not science.

City council instead of these nonsense feel good posts how about dealing with the meat of the city as in this post, Posted on Monday, August 17, 2015 @ 6:30 PM by sparrow

One of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases are cows. There are approx. 1.5 billion on the earth and between burping and flatulence they are emitting huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is 5 times worse than carbon dioxide. One cow will emit about the same amount of pollution per day as a car.

So, the question is. Do we stop eating beef to reduce greenhouse gases. Hmmm not bloody likely. The cattle industry would go ape s..t, it we even suggested reducing the amount of beef we eat, or milk we drink.

So we cherry pick our bad emitters like vehicles and wax philosophically about the evils of cars, while we eat steak, hamburgers, etc. In fact we sit with our cars running waiting for a hamburger in a fast food drive through.

To suggest that the average person in Canada gives a hoot about greenhouse gas emissions is one thing. To give any evidence that they are doing anything about it is another thing.

60 percent of the fuel burned in any given day is burned by people doing recreational driving.

Have a nice day.

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide, and the Director of Multiple Mineral Exploration and Mining Companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you’ve read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.

PLIMER: “Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.

Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know….it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution”
science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad!!!

Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs…..well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days. The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.

I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it. Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-caused’ climate-change scenario. Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention ‘Global Warming’ anymore, but just ‘Climate Change’ – you know why?

It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming ‘BS’ artists got caught with their pants down. And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.

It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure!!!

But, hey, relax…… and have a nice day!”

He spoke trucks in Europe are smaller.

Palopu Termites release more CH4 than all of human activity put together. It’s a non-issue as CH4 oxidizes to CO2 rather quickly.

PG Well take a look at a map of Canada, see its size compared to population and don’t forget it gets very cold. Now compare population to size with other developed countries. Transportation is an issue in Canada because of its rural size.

Seamutt:”Koehler so are you saying there was no climate before man came along?”

If you read the story slowly and carefully you will agree that Koehler said no such crazy thing! He mentioned climate change! Where did he say that there was no climate before man came along? The earth had a climate hundreds of millions of years ago, if not billions.

Per capita emissions are clearly nonsensical when comparing Canada to other countries. Small population, big territory = high per capita energy consumption. it doesn’t take a mental giant to see the difference between Canada and Belgium. we are cold and big.

peeval read seamuts post and wake up. Everybody gets a vote in this country, there should be a inelegance test prior. You would not pass.

PG read the article again very very slowly, he says climate change, not global warming which implies he denies climate change before man. Do you deny the climate changes naturally.

Oh I do not deny there is warming just none or a tiny little bit for almost the last 20 years. Hey the globe has warmed about .8 degrees since the little ice age. It is just warming from its cool down. The UN picked a date before the start of the industrial revolution for the start of mans so called warming conveniently leaving out the part man’s contribution to C02 did not start until the fifties. Another thing about the start date about when the earth was cooler from the LIA, talk about cherry picking. Heck scientist cannot even agree what caused the LIA or how it ended.

You have to stop getting your information from the very biased agenda driven CBC and broaden your knowledge base. Did you know the earth was warmer 7000 years ago and has been in a cooling trend ever since. What are we heading for another LIA or a full out glaciation. What would you rather have cool or warm, winter or summer, two miles of ice on your head.

Remember climate scientists make a living on research well they are making a bundle on the mann caused warming scam. So they profit by promoting the scam. Suzuki and Gore sure are making a killing saving the world for a fee.

PG Canada is 9.985 million km2, China is 9.597 million km2.

Let us say for arguments sake on average a hectare of forest will sequester 300 tonnes of carbon per year

Then Canada has 340 million hectares at 300 tonnes or 102,000 million tonnes sequestered per year just in forests. Canada produces 500 million tonnes of co2 per year give or take.

China has 195 million hectares at 300 tonnes or 58,500 million tonnes sequestered per year just in its forests. China produces 9,500 million tonnes of co2 annually (from the source of these numbers, they in fact are over a million more tonnes per year).

Canada produces .49 percent of what its forested land can sequester annually.

China produces 16.24 percent of what its forested land can sequester annually.

What does the carbon emissions per capita have to do with the tea in China? Canada gives what the rest of the world taketh away. Numbers can be made to bolster any point of view, you just need to know how to manipulate them for your gain.

In effect Jillian Merrick’s comment says that she thinks China is an environmental steward with a per capita emissions of only 7.2 tonnes of co2 annually. When in fact China increased its production of co2 between 2010 and 2012 by 1,500 million tonnes – in two years – that is ALL of Canada x3. We could reduce to zero and it would make absolutely no difference in the grand scheme of things – absolutely 3 times less than nothing.