[flamesfever]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Name one lie that environmentalists have ever told that has caused even a fraction of the harm to society that climate change denial has caused.

Canada has missed out on enormous amounts of lost opportunity money by environmentalists getting in the way of building important pipelines, restricting tanker traffic on the west coast, encouraging First Nation people to obstruct development, etc. This money and investment would have gone a long way to reduce our debt, and help the funding of things like our universal healthcare system.

Well, when the decision was made to dig up massive amounts of fossil fuels and burn them to build up the modern world, there was absolutely no plan regarding what the long term impacts would be, how potential problems would be dealt with, or how to transition as quickly as possible to non-polluting alternatives. Humanity basically said #### it and forged ahead without giving the slightest care about the consequences. So pardon me if I think it sounds rich when people turn to the environmental movement and demand a perfect plan laid out with every single detail ironed out.

Most of the oil and gas comes from drilling holes. As a math expert, one would expect your plan would address some of the economic consequences of ending the production of oil and gas. How many trillion dollars do you think it would take? I seem to recall we have spent over a trillion so far to get our renewables to a few percentage points of the total energy production.

The solution there will have to come from technological advancements. It is a fallacy to look at the limitations of today's green technology and assume those limitations won't be overcome in the coming decades.

To charge ahead with large expensive programs with the idea that in order to make them viable, something will have to be invented along the way seems somewhat imprudent IMO

We need to be diversifying our economy and weaning ourselves off our reliance on O&G revenues
.

What do you suggest should take its place?

There's nothing wrong with profits per se. There's everything wrong with profiting at the direct expense of our ability to keep living on this planet.

People have to survive while the transition is happening.

Unfortunately, we need the entire world to be carbon neutral by 2050 or sooner if we are to have a chance at avoiding the worst case climate scenarios
.

The idea of ending the use of oil and gas by 2050 is difficult for me to grasp. How will we manage without the myriad of products that come from oil and gas?. What impact will it have on food production?. How will we keep sufficiently warm or cool? How will the world economics be affected? How will we stop the biggest energy users from being materialistic, and wanting to travel so much?. What about wars, pandemics, economic downturns, etc. which are bound to happen?. How do we feed, cloth and provide shelter for the 75 million people added to our planet each year?.

At some point, morally reprehensible actions have to be met with a reponse of disapproval. I'm sorry if you misconstrue that as hatred.

The tone of your words certainly didn't sound like disapproval.

What "other side" am I supposedly not seeing? What context have I supposedly missed?

The side from the people who work in the Canadian oil and gas industry

Is it that you want LNG exported all over the world? I've already explained my concerns in an earlier post. No one has responded to those for some reason.

IMO LNG will become the most important energy commodity to get us where we need to go by 2050

I want collaboration. O&G companies are the ones who have never shown a willigness to work together with anyone in a serious way. All they've ever strived to do is maximize profits, regardless of the consequences for humanity.

Canadian oil and gas companies are just ordinary people trying to make a living and doing their best to reduce emissions. By stopping the Canadian production, it will just be displaced by oil and gas coming from much more polluting countries.