[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The tribalism with "environmentalist vs Oil & Gas" arguments isn't grounded in reality. There's ridiculousness on both sides of these debates. As with most issues, both sides miss important nuance,

I invite you to quote which ridiculous things I've said (I'll explain why they aren't) and tell me what nuance I've supposedly missed.

On the flip side, o&g companies have (mostly) stopped trying to spend money to deny the science.

Doubtful; social media is still littered with climate change denial talking points, anti-green-tech hit pieces, and other ignorant nonsense. Are O&G companies secretly funding this stuff? I don't know, but it wouldn't suprise me. Even if it's not the companies themselves giving money to people directly for the favors per se, it seems like a lot of people who work in the fossil fuel industry take matters into their own hands and spread denial and propaganda on their own volition. After all, they see it as protecting their own livelihood. Even though they see their actions as benign and justified, it doesn't in any way diminish the real life harm they are doing.

The climate change debate is settled and at least in Canada

As a resident of Alberta, you should know this isn't true.

efforts are being made to curb production emissions.

Here in Canada, yes. But emissions continue to climb worldwide.

The key problem that we're facing is that the technology for transitioning away from fossil fuels is significantly further behind where it ought to be at this time. This is why major action is needed now to make up for lost time. And the people most responsible for causing the delay in action over the past 30 years should be the ones shouldering the lion's share of the cost of cleaning up the mess they've made. It is their moral responsibility. If they won't do it voluntarily, then maybe government needs to step in and directly tax their massive profits and use those funds to help speed up the development of the technology.

First, let's start with what the core issue is: 1) climate change is real and urgently needs to be addressed, and 2) burning fossil fuels is responsible for almost all of it. Therefore, it stands to reason that we need to stop burning fossil fuels urgently.

Number two is where most reasonable people disagree with each other. There's a lot of grey area here and many different ways to skin the cat and end up in the same place.

Nope. The science is clear - both 1 and 2 are completely true.

That said, as long as people agree that major action is needed immediately, that's what's ultimately matters at this point.

Where some in O&G in Alberta get upset is that lots of effort is being made to lower scope 1 and 2 emissions from production, yet Canada doesn't seem to get any recognition for it. This is true. Canada has done well to decrease emissions intensity of their productions. The oil sands have really high emissions because of the energy intensive way they're extracted so they started off with a big knock against them, but have made and have plans for major reductions. Emissions from oil production are responsible for almost 15% of global ghg emissions! Reductions in this are very good!

Of course any and all efforts made to reduce emissions should be applauded. Where I take issue though is with the attitude of this in and of itself being sufficient.

I am of the firm belief that we shouldn't be asking oil companies to fund clean energy. It makes no sense. They're companies that invest in volatile commodity extraction with large but risky ROI. Why should they try to become companies that invest in capital projects with low but secure ROI? It's not in their wheelhouse and it doesn't align with their reason for existing and they have very little in house expertise in the fields required.

True, if we're talking wind & solar.

But they have tremendous drilling experience, so their help will be needed in a huge way if geothermal power is going to be a thing in most parts of the world.

Look, I want collaboration. I want cooperation. I want everyone to work together to get us out of this predicament. But first I want to see that O&G companies are actually serious about working to help solve climate change. They haven't shown me that seriousness yet.

That's not to say we're shouldn't welcome that investment, but we shouldn't count on it or try to make it reality with policy. We do need to hold any company accountable for spending money to influence public debate and policy in unethical ways. It's really unethical to have your own scientists ring alarm bells about climate change and then spend money to slow action and change public opinion on matters as important as this. It's it legal? Yes. Doesn't make it less loathsome or awful. We didn't try to get fishing companies to become fishery guardians when we saw Atlantic cod fisheries dying, and we don't need to save o&g companies by changing them. Work on lowering demand and let the rest sort it itself out. We do need to work on making sure the transition is fair for people working in the industry and that there are options for them when needed

Absolutely. But, in your view, what does "holding them accountable" actually look like in this case?