[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

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.

Go back and read the question again, I asked what lies the evironmentalists have told. You haven't pointed out any.

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.

Sure, it would have meant more revenue for the government. But let not kid ourselves here, the lion's share of the extra money from the oil sales would have ended up as increased profits for O&G companies and their shareholders.



Are we supposed to ignore the pipeline leaks that happen all the time, and pretend that they don't? Are we supposed to ignore the poisonous and destructive effects they have on the environment and local communities?

Were we supposed to get our country even more addicted to oil revenue, just so we could turn around and say "woe is us, how are we supposed to survive without all this oil money"?

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 cost of doing it pales in comparison to the cost of not avoiding the worst case climate scenarios.

We're in a predicament here - there is no truly good option. We need to choose the least bad option. Avoiding the worst case climate scenarios is the least bad option. There will be major difficulties and sacrifices along the way, but it's still far better than the alternative.

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

To charge ahead with endless burning of fossil fuels knowing it will lead to calamity, chaos, and suffering on a scale unprecedented in the history of our species, seems somewhat imprudent IMO.

You asked about what happens when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. It's obvious that wind & solar can't by themselves be the entire answer to the energy transition. Baseload sources like nuclear and geothermal must play a huge role too. Are there big input costs? Of course there are. But it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of not doing it.

What do you suggest should take its place?

Canada's O&G sector doesn't appear to be going anywhere this decade or the next, so nothing is going to take its place right now.

But the day will eventually come where their current business model collapses. When that happens, there obviously won't be one single thing that simply replaces the O&G sector and brings in comparable revenue.

Will this mean a total economic collapse and the end of Canada? Heck no. Some of us may have to get used to living a lifestyle that isn't as lavish as before. But I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who refuse to see that there are more important things in life than money.

It sure seems like there are plenty of countries that get by without relying on massive O&G exports. I wonder how they manage to survive?

That said, it does seem like a good idea for Canada to try to be one of the leading countries when it comes to developing green energy technologies and innovations.

People have to survive while the transition is happening.

Exactly. That's why it's called a transition and not a sudden stoppage.

But there really is no excuse for not developing, improving, and innovating green energy technology as quickly as we feasibly can.

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?

This discussion is strictly about the burning of fossil fuels. Other uses of fossil fuels are not nearly as pressing of a concern and will of course continue for far longer.

The geothermal industry is well suited to provide for all of humanity's heating needs. Plus there are also heat pumps to fill in the gaps.

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?.

All of these problems get harder and harder to deal with the more fail to act on climate change. These are difficult questions to answer, but by no means can we avoid answering them by simply continuing to burn fossil fuels.

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

Well, the tone of your words toward environmentalists sounds rather hostile. The difference is we're trying to protect the earth's ability to sustain us as a species (and ecosystems in general), wereas the O&G industry has only cared about profit and largely ignored all other considerations.

The two sides aren't equally deserving of scrutiny.

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

Sure but what is their actual case here? What are their arguments?

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

If all coal burning worldwide gets replaced with LNG burning, that's a net positive. Without a doubt.

But what will be the far-reaching consquences of exporting LNG all over the world? Will it lead to a slowdown in reaching global net zero? There's reason to believe it might. The argument will be "oh, we're so addicted to this gas money, what will we ever do without it?" Meanwhile, gas companies will use some of their massive profits to lobby against carbon taxes, environmental regulations, etc.

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.

My goal was never to target Canadian companies specifically. (honestly baffled if you ever thought that was my goal)

I just want the world to get to net zero as quickly as it feasibly can. That's my only motivation here.