Climate change and human responsibility

[Azure]

Fossil fuels are also responsible for a major part of our way of life, and are part of our daily lives in ways we couldn't live without.

I agree we have to find ways to reduce emissions, however I think its completely false to think that it will happen without moving to LNG, and then further.

We have billions of people in 3rd world countries who will have expanded energy needs in the next century, and right now hopes and dreams seem to be how the anti-fossil fuel crowd thinks that will happen.

The reason LNG is such a great solution is because we are still capable of producing & burning it with lower and lower emissions. Canada has shown its ability to be on the forefront of this push.

Unfortunately as a country we are also not serious about our role in the world, and our unique position as the holder of massive natural resources. To a certain degree it is our duty to extract and share them with the world, because if we do it, we do it with less emissions, and lessor emissions over time as technology gets better.

[DownInFlames]

What line of business are you in, Azure?

[Azure]

Manufacturing.

The industry who still has to make product, even if every year we can find ways to do it more sustainably. But it certainly isn't an option to just STOP producing.

[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?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

You don't think environmentalists would stoop to lie or deceive the public?

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.

I don't believe there has ever been any economical and practical plan laid out to allow for the displacement of oil and gas as the main energy source for the world.

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.

And most plans for the renewables do not take into account all the input costs, and problems when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

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.

What about all the good that comes out of the money from the sale of our oil and gas? How are we going to do without it? Our healthcare is underfunded and on the verge of collapse. We are continually running large deficits. And profit is not a dirty word. Companies would cease to exist without making a profit.

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

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.

Sure the fossil fuel industry has skeletons, but Canada presently has one of the best managed oil and gas industries in the world. I believe Alberta is on trend to have the most installed renewables, of any province, within the near future, and plans to be carbon neutral by 2050.

That's wonderful.

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.

I think I understand your hate for oil and gas companies.

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

You environmentalists were completely ignored over a long period of time while the industry developed at a torrid pace. Now that you have latched on to something that gives you power to execute your programs i.e. the battle to stop Climate Change, your seemingly religious like fervor prevents you from seeing the other side.

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

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.

It's too bad you environmentalists have a tendency to want to put companies out of business, which results in a lose lose situation, rather than looking at all sides, and working more collaboratively to make it a win win situation.

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.

[Whynotnow]

Quite the debate going on here. I think what is missing from the O&G is evil conversation is also the recognition that almost all of the gains for humanity in the last 100 years have been due to the access to cheap and accessible energy. Comparing fossil fuels to tobacco is not a helpful comparison since tobacco never brought a single positive benefit. If the tobacco industry stopped tomorrow there’s no issue. If O&G stops tomorrow billions of people die, quickly.

But we have a crisis on our hands because of that same energy source that has helped us improve our standard of living so much. Realistically, I think we are likely going to miss the targets, too much of the world is growing and developing and wants to live our life style. So mitigation as part of transition has to be the path here, clean up what we are burning, push transition and work on adaptation and mitigation of climate change.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Quite the debate going on here.

It's not really a debate.

There are a few posters who want to have a conversation about the issues at hand and another who loves the sound of their voice.

[flamesfever]

nm

[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.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

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.

Government's should take an even bigger share of the blame as well, but both know we’re already stuck with guaranteed climate change at this point and neither seem to budge because of the almighty dollar, rather than trying to recover the past, we need to be thinking about best possible future.

Coal fired energy plants is the single biggest culprit of co2 emissions at over 40%, and China uses more than half of the worlds coal every year yet the idiots protest the oil wells. Banning of coal would be good start, get the whole world getting together to build nuclear power plants and share the costs.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Quite the debate going on here. I think what is missing from the O&G is evil conversation is also the recognition that almost all of the gains for humanity in the last 100 years have been due to the access to cheap and accessible energy. Comparing fossil fuels to tobacco is not a helpful comparison since tobacco never brought a single positive benefit. If the tobacco industry stopped tomorrow there’s no issue. If O&G stops tomorrow billions of people die, quickly.

But we have a crisis on our hands because of that same energy source that has helped us improve our standard of living so much. Realistically, I think we are likely going to miss the targets, too much of the world is growing and developing and wants to live our life style. So mitigation as part of transition has to be the path here, clean up what we are burning, push transition and work on adaptation and mitigation of climate change.

I think the debate just shows how hard a problem this actually is, and that the reality is this won't be solved with current technology and human nature. Our only out, as we continue down this path, is going to be geoengineering. I think in the next decade we start to hear a lot more about it, and eventually that's what we will have to do.

[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.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Government's should take an even bigger share of the blame as well, but both know we’re already stuck with guaranteed climate change at this point and neither seem to budge because of the almighty dollar, rather than trying to recover the past, we need to be thinking about best possible future.

Coal fired energy plants is the single biggest culprit of co2 emissions at over 40%, and China uses more than half of the worlds coal every year yet the idiots protest the oil wells. Banning of coal would be good start, get the whole world getting together to build nuclear power plants and share the costs.

Absolutely. But I don't see how we do it without raising the money needed to move along green energy technology more quickly than we're doing now. And from a moral perspective it absolutely should be the O&G companies that should have to pay up. They continue to post ludicrous profits to this day!

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Quite the debate going on here.

Quite a good debate for the most part. Aside from that one troll who resorts to potshots and ad hominem attacks because he knows he's wrong and doesn't know what else to say.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Absolutely. But I don't see how we do it without raising the money needed to move along green energy technology more quickly than we're doing now. And from a moral perspective it absolutely should be the O&G companies that should have to pay up. They continue to post ludicrous profits to this day!

They also fuel the economy that green energy can't (yet), like I said, get rid of coal and then slowly work on the rest.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

They also fuel the economy that green energy can't (yet), like I said, get rid of coal and then slowly work on the rest.

Their decades of spreading propaganda is largely the reason why green can't do more than it can right now. So yes I do think it's time to directly tax their profits.

[Locke]

The NRA could cut greenhouse gas emissions rather swiftly.

They'd just need some blindfolds, a pack of smokes a few willing participants and line up Fonda, DiCaprio, Suzuki and Gore.

And then be amazed at how fast the numbers start going down.

Or maybe have 'Climate Summits' done over 'Teams' rather than privately flying a few hundred people to Switzerland all the time.

Jet fuel is notoriously environmentally conscious after all.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Their decades of spreading propaganda is largely the reason why green can't do more than it can right now. So yes I do think it's time to directly tax their profits.

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.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Absolutely. But I don't see how we do it without raising the money needed to move along green energy technology more quickly than we're doing now. And from a moral perspective it absolutely should be the O&G companies that should have to pay up. They continue to post ludicrous profits to this day!

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.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Locke

The NRA could cut greenhouse gas emissions rather swiftly.



They'd just need some blindfolds, a pack of smokes a few willing participants and line up Fonda, DiCaprio, Suzuki and Gore.



And then be amazed at how fast the numbers start going down.



Or maybe have 'Climate Summits' done over 'Teams' rather than privately flying a few hundred people to Switzerland all the time.



Jet fuel is notoriously environmentally conscious after all.

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)