Climate change and human responsibility

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The argument is not against Climate Change, but how we can go about fighting it in a manner that is economically and practically feasible and acceptable, and does not massively disrupt the world economy and people's lives.

I'm happy to see we both agree that Canada can play a part in the fight. We have been blessed with very large reserves of natural gas, and using this to displace coal would be a large contribution.

The affordability part of the energy transition and specifically the mid-transition is a big issue. My former employer was quite concerned about it and have done everything they could to keep their rates flat.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

This trope is a bit silly. If someone wants to have an impact on reducing emissions by swaying public opinion and policy they necessarily need to meet the key people involved. Total football jet fuel consumption emissions pale in comparison to many other activities. It's not hypocritical.

Having said that, I have no time for those particular sanctimonious idiots (actually don't mind Gore)

They can fly commercial then. COP sees thousands of private aircraft come in, many who typically fly commercial anyway (world heads of state are different). The hypocrisy is outstanding.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Leondros

They can fly commercial then. COP sees thousands of private aircraft come in, many who typically fly commercial anyway (world heads of state are different). The hypocrisy is outstanding.

Its stupid I agree - but its also immaterial in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure all the eco warrior posters set their thermostat one degree higher in the winter (or lower in the summer) than they could for comfort reasons. Its a drip in an ocean worth of problems.

[Azure]

Not a drip in the ocean when many of those same people that fly on private jets to climate change meetings are telling us how we should be restricted from flying, not have a gas stove and should be forced to pay a luxury tax when we buy a truck.

[PepsiFree]

Curious what the Venn diagram looks like with people who don’t think Canada should do anything “because China” and people who complain about a handful of high profile environmental activists flying private jets.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Its stupid I agree - but its also immaterial in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure all the eco warrior posters set their thermostat one degree higher in the winter (or lower in the summer) than they could for comfort reasons. Its a drip in an ocean worth of problems.

Everything is immaterial when you look at it on a case by case basis. That is the problem. Its the message it sends that its important along with optics. These people claim to care about the environment but do not care enough to reduce their emissions by flying in more responsible ways. Why should the masses by into that then?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Everything is immaterial when you look at it on a case by case basis. That is the problem. Its the message it sends that its important along with optics. These people claim to care about the environment but do not care enough to reduce their emissions by flying in more responsible ways. Why should the masses by into that then?

Its the world's most obvious distraction argument. You can make it if you want but you can be sure 97% of the people making it would just move on to the next reason why the masses won't buy in if everyone said they were going to ride a bike a land and row a boat on sea to the next conference.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Its the world's most obvious distraction argument. You can make it if you want but you can be sure 97% of the people making it would just move on to the next reason why the masses won't buy in if everyone said they were going to ride a bike a land and row a boat on sea to the next conference.

Look, its leadership/communication/government relations 101. I do not mean it as a distraction argument. Lead by example, if you are going to do the opposite of what you are suggesting others do, how are they going to take you seriously?

If Greta Thunberg is seen driving a huge F350 diesel truck do you not think that weakens her position as an environmentalist?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Look, its leadership/communication/government relations 101. I do not mean it as a distraction argument. Lead by example, if you are going to do the opposite of what you are suggesting others do, how are they going to take you seriously?

If Greta Thunberg is seen driving a huge F350 diesel truck do you not think that weakens her position as an environmentalist?

I don't disagree with you on your point.

But if my house is on fire - I don't want to argue with some bylaw guy about how I parked in front of a fire hydrant. I want the fire put out and then we can talk about my dumb parking habits.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I don't disagree with you on your point.

But if my house is on fire - I don't want to argue with some bylaw guy about how I parked in front of a fire hydrant. I want the fire put out and then we can talk about my dumb parking habits.

More like you lighting up a cigarette and throwing the butt in the bushes beside the neighbors house, but point taken.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Curious what the Venn diagram looks like with people who don’t think Canada should do anything “because China” and people who complain about a handful of high profile environmental activists flying private jets.

They love hypocrisy. It doesn’t matter if someone speaks the truth or not. They get to judge the hypocrites when they’d be living the same lifestyle if their financial situation was the same.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Their profits are already taxed, and the tax money helps the government to provide the services we need. The money that is left goes to maintain the reserves of oil and gas that keeps them in business, and a portion goes to pay off debt, overhead, and to give dividends to shareholders.

The argument is not against Climate Change, but how we can go about fighting it in a manner that is economically and practically feasible and acceptable, and does not massively disrupt the world economy and people's lives.

I'm happy to see we both agree that Canada can play a part in the fight. We have been blessed with very large reserves of natural gas, and using this to displace coal would be a large contribution.

Our energy workforce in Canada have always been at the forefront of the energy geoscience and engineering technology, and I am confident will play a significant part in things like thermal energy, carbon capture, various emission reducing techniques, nuclear energy, etc.

Originally Posted by Leondros

Most Canadian oil companies are just using up their tax pools this year or last. Meaning most Canadian oil and gas companies were not profitable when factoring in their capital spend until recently. Shareholders of oil and gas companies over the last 30 years have actually seen a worse investment than that of the average treasury bond. It was not until coming out of COVID that there has been a large push for dividends and share buybacks. To say “continue to post ludicrous profits” is disingenuous.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...inc/net-income

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...gy-/net-income

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...oil/net-income


There have been some ups and downs. But these companies have been very profitable more often than not. And what they all have in common is a big surge in profits over the past 2 years. We need a profit windfall tax and we need it now IMO. Canada is leaving billions on the table by not doing it.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/202...lion-canadians

The argument is not against Climate Change, but how we can go about fighting it in a manner that is economically and practically feasible and acceptable, and does not massively disrupt the world economy and people's lives.

Well the unfortunate reality is that some amount of "unacceptable" disruption to people's lives is completely inevitable at this point, it's just a question of what form will it take. Would we rather it to come in the form of taxes that cause people in rich countries to have to live less oputently and extravagently? Or do we it instead want it to come in the form of frequent and severe droughts, wildfires and famines, vanishing rivers and reservoirs, heat stress, soil salination, rising sea levels, and massively increased flooding, that will unleash a wave of upheaval and human suffering on a scale never before seen?

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...inc/net-income

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...gy-/net-income

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...oil/net-income


There have been some ups and downs. But these companies have been very profitable more often than not. And what they all have in common is a big surge in profits over the past 2 years. We need a profit windfall tax and we need it now IMO. Canada is leaving billions on the table by not doing it.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/202...lion-canadians



Well the unfortunate reality is that some amount of "unacceptable" disruption to people's lives is completely inevitable at this point, it's just a question of what form will it take. Would we rather it to come in the form of taxes that cause people in rich countries to have to live less oputently and extravagently? Or do we it instead want it to come in the form of frequent and severe droughts, wildfires and famines, vanishing rivers and reservoirs, heat stress, soil salination, rising sea levels, and massively increased flooding, that will unleash a wave of upheaval and human suffering on a scale never before seen?

I don't have time to give you a full lesson on accounting nor do I really want to. But your graphs really just reinforce my point - it was not until the past 3 years that companies have been able to generate actual shareholder value. To get to this point they have had to spend an immense amount of capital that is still being depreciated and depleted.

Windfall taxes are being implemented across the world - and I support them. I warn you that too high of a tax will hamper capital investment and if supply drops enough you will see energy poverty and with it death. It is a very fine line. I don't think the average person truly appreciates just how much of a fine line balancing the 104 MMBOE demand with supply is. Saudi Arabia has the excess capacity but at one point in the middle of the year there was shear panic on the supply side. North Americans would be just fine - but poorer nations around the world would not and would just look back to coal if they cannot trust the supply chain.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Well the unfortunate reality is that some amount of "unacceptable" disruption to people's lives is completely inevitable at this point, it's just a question of what form will it take. Would we rather it to come in the form of taxes that cause people in rich countries to have to live less oputently and extravagently? Or do we it instead want it to come in the form of frequent and severe droughts, wildfires and famines, vanishing rivers and reservoirs, heat stress, soil salination, rising sea levels, and massively increased flooding, that will unleash a wave of upheaval and human suffering on a scale never before seen?

I'm pretty certain between the climate change-induced disasters you described and the specter of increased taxation, the majority will choose the famine and fires and flooding every time.

[Faust]

Alberta Sets a Methane ‘Super-Emitter’ Record

https://thetyee.ca/News/2023/12/11/A...Super-Emitter/

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...inc/net-income

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...gy-/net-income

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...oil/net-income


There have been some ups and downs. But these companies have been very profitable more often than not. And what they all have in common is a big surge in profits over the past 2 years. We need a profit windfall tax and we need it now IMO. Canada is leaving billions on the table by not doing it.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/202...lion-canadians



Well the unfortunate reality is that some amount of "unacceptable" disruption to people's lives is completely inevitable at this point, it's just a question of what form will it take. Would we rather it to come in the form of taxes that cause people in rich countries to have to live less oputently and extravagently? Or do we it instead want it to come in the form of frequent and severe droughts, wildfires and famines, vanishing rivers and reservoirs, heat stress, soil salination, rising sea levels, and massively increased flooding, that will unleash a wave of upheaval and human suffering on a scale never before seen?

What do you honestly think happens if Canada becomes less of an attractive place for oil and gas companies to operate? They will spend less here. So then what happens? Well since the demand is still there because people need the product it gets produced elsewhere, with an almost virtual certainty that it’s being done in a jurisdiction with weaker protections - environmental and human rights. So the same amount is getting burnt by the end consumer, there is likely more harm to the environment and Canada harms itself in the process. That is Canada leaving billions on the table and probably hurting the environment.

Clearly you are frustrated with the corporations here but those same profits in a lot of companies are fueling investment in transition.

[Street Pharmacist]

This thread has mostly been a discussion on how we got here and how to solve it. There are so many positive things happening and milestones hit, but I kind of feel like this isn't the right place to put them all. Would anyone be interested in a good news climate thread, or should I just post that stuff here?

[blender]

I'd vote to post the good news here. I'm not a fan of ultra-specific threads in general. The board/discussion gets too fragmented. We are talking climate changein general here. If there is good news, let's talk about it here, too.

[Ozy_Flame]

Yeah let's talk about the great things moving climate responsibility forward. It's happening whether people agree with the principles behind it or not, so let's get some of good emerging trends coming from it. There's enough negativity in people's lives.

[Street Pharmacist]

That's fair. I'll post here. My only concern was the good news getting lost with all the "yeah but..." stuff. We already know the "yeah, but". Let's celebrate the good stuff still!


In the US, solar and wind will overtake coal for generation, not just capacity:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1734625781773410554



Closing in on peak emissions in the power sector:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1732973691862954380



EV sales in the world's largest vehicle market are pacing well ahead of what's required by Chinese transport emissions targets:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1732725539524194774



COP28 finished with a target of tripling of renewables and doubling of efficiency by 2030. We're already on target for the first one:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1732686849032835078



1 in 5 vehicles sold in 2023 are electric and it's rising quickly despite the headlines suggesting otherwise

https://twitter.com/user/status/1730258891785617463



Canada on target for current goals and on track to meet many current emissions decreases:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/en...ss-report.html



The world's largest country CO2 emitter (China) is likely looking at a structural decline in emissions starting NEXT year, not their stated target of 2030:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1723953038010863947