Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[heep223]

^ or the open pit coal mines all over China

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

What is the formula used for this? Is it just strictly produced CO2? or do they take into account things like reduced ability to absorb CO2 due to deforestation?

Ummm... I don't know. I didn't build it.

However, source / reason for carbon increase, unless the data is wrong, shows a large, dramatic increase which should be cause for concern.

"Ya I'm super smart and question everything, but hey I ignored the point of the graph and made a super smart question about the oilsands and forests! Go Me!"

I kid

It's the oil thread, but unfortunately rational thinking doesn't get applied when the blame game comes out and the oil sands / pipelines / Canada Energy production seems to be an easy target. Look at the article just posted above about the Irving Refinery.

I don't think the average non-Canadian person (or even East Coast person evidently) concerned about climate change is going to care about the rational details presented by a Canadian (or Albertan) who believes the oilsands or Alberta oil should be extracted.

Which is obvious and doesn't need discussed really because it's not making a difference and has been rehashed over and over again to no avail.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

The commitments made at Paris which won't be met by anyone don't sufficiently reduce emmissions to prevent catastrophic warming. There isn't the political will anywhere to do it. And with Oil Prices where they are there is no economic incentive to do it either. The delta in cost to stop global warming increased significantly...

The other side of it which I have not seen analysed is is preventing global warming actually a net good vs bringing people out of poverty with the use of cheap energy. Saving lives by investing in clean energy is a very expensive way to improve global standard of living.

There's certainly a 'let them eat cake' ring to the West's carbon crusade. "These people can't get their rice to market using diesel trucks? Why not use a hybrid?"

Not to mention ignorance of the crucial role carbon-based fuels have played in the food revolution of the last 60 years that has almost banished famine - a revolution largely unnoticed in the West because we have no cultural memory of hunger and famine ourselves.

Originally Posted by heep223

Everyone who is passionate about climate change, are you willing to cancel that vacation because it adds to your carbon footprint? Pay 50% more for food that hasn't been trucked up from California? Take the bus to get groceries instead of drive?

That's the crux of the matter. Changes substantial enough to make a difference are politically impossible. Are you going to be the politician who mandates a 200 per cent surcharge on air travel? Or a 100 per cent tariff on imported produce?

Originally Posted by heep223

The big untold story in my view on this, is even if N America, Europe and Japan made all these sweeping changes to address climate change...it's not nearly enough. The problem is that the vast majority of the global population doesn't give a rats ass about the planet, because they're just struggling to get by day to day and feed their families. It's the hierarchy of needs - developed countries care, because we have our basic needs met. Until the rest of the world is in the same position, nothing will change.

But even once you have your basic needs met, people will feel entitled to take those air travel vacations, drive to get groceries, and buy food imported from all over the word. We won't even give up our luxuries, so how can we expect the develop world to forgo the advancement from poor to middle class altogether?

[Tinordi]

The next step in the climate denialist playbook if they can't obfuscate and confuse you on the science is to then confidently describe the inevitably of failure when trying to address the problem.

But there again, this is a patently false position to take. Reducing GHGs is technically and economically feasible right now. What's holding it back? Politics. And your efforts are well noted for trying to make sure the political roadblocks persist.

What's the game here though? Why would you so confidently and erroneously proclaim that it's not a problem and then concede it is a problem to then confidently and fallaciously complain that nothing can be done?

Maybe it's just sheer or irrational self-interest. People dependent on oil and gas industries are highly motivated to believe that nothing is a problem and trying to convince people that they should do nothing. But many of these people have children. So that doesn't really explain it.

It's almost as if its satisfying to be on the wrong side of history: "I'll show those no good people who want to make a better world for future generations and biodiversity of planet earth! Those people are the real problem. Once they learn, hah, then I'll have my comeuppance!"

Enjoy the righteous indignation and that warm comforting feeling favouring a future of greater human suffering. Keep up the good fight.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The next step in the climate denialist playbook if they can't obfuscate and confuse you on the science is to then confidently describe the inevitably of failure when trying to address the problem.

But there again, this is a patently false position to take. Reducing GHGs is technically and economically feasible right now. What's holding it back? Politics. And your efforts are well noted for trying to make sure the political roadblocks persist.

What's the game here though? Why would you so confidently and erroneously proclaim that it's not a problem and then concede it is a problem to then confidently and fallaciously complain that nothing can be done?

Maybe it's just sheer or irrational self-interest. People dependent on oil and gas industries are highly motivated to believe that nothing is a problem and trying to convince people that they should do nothing. But many of these people have children. So that doesn't really explain it.

It's almost as if its satisfying to be on the wrong side of history: "I'll show those no good people who want to make a better world for future generations and biodiversity of planet earth! Those people are the real problem. Once they learn, hah, then I'll have my comeuppance!"

Enjoy the righteous indignation and that warm comforting feeling favouring a future of greater human suffering. Keep up the good fight.

I wanted to thank this post. I agree with some of your sentiments. Then you went all Tinordi at the end damnit!

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The next step in the climate denialist playbook if they can't obfuscate and confuse you on the science is to then confidently describe the inevitably of failure when trying to address the problem.

But there again, this is a patently false position to take. Reducing GHGs is technically and economically feasible right now. What's holding it back? Politics. And your efforts are well noted for trying to make sure the political roadblocks persist.

Politics is holding it back not because of O&G, but because people are not willing to pay for their lifestyles.

O&G as an industry is subject to far more environmental taxation (whether through regulation or social taxation) than an individual, or consumer of the energy.

I would absolutely propose thousands of dollars of environmental consumption taxes (electricity, gasoline, NG for heating, 200% air travel tariffs etc.)

That's the way to get real change. Telling those O&G companies to shut down does not do anything to stop it because the average person doesn't have any skin in the game - they'll just get their oil from saudi arabia or anywhere else. Both sides (producer and consumer) reducing GHG is necessary, but the rhetoric is all around the producer. Any time a consumption tax is proposed (ie. carbon tax), the anger that comes with it is on a different level.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

But there again, this is a patently false position to take. Reducing GHGs is technically and economically feasible right now. What's holding it back? Politics.

Science and investment. Do you really think that whatever replaces oil and gas won't be run by the same moneyed interests? When there's money to be made on alternatives - when they're approaching viability in the market - investment will flood in. And then we'll have Big Solar and Big Geo, or some other bogeymen for the anti-capitalists to vilify.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Maybe it's just sheer or irrational self-interest. People dependent on oil and gas industries are highly motivated to believe that nothing is a problem and trying to convince people that they should do nothing. But many of these people have children. So that doesn't really explain it.

I'd be happy to see Canada start building nuclear plants all over the place. It's an excellent source of energy. But it won't happen, because of fear-mongering and gaia romanticism.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's almost as if its satisfying to be on the wrong side of history: "I'll show those no good people who want to make a better world for future generations and biodiversity of planet earth! Those people are the real problem. Once they learn, hah, then I'll have my comeuppance!"

It's almost as if it's remarkably easy and satisfying for people to signal their support for a moral crusade that vilifies an easy target like Big Oil, so long as they don't have to make any material sacrifices of their own.

There's a catastrophe looming, but I don't have to change. I can still fly to Costa Rica and drink Australian wine and eat oranges year-round. It's those guys who have to change.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

But there again, this is a patently false position to take. Reducing GHGs is technically and economically feasible right now. What's holding it back? Politics. And your efforts are well noted for trying to make sure the political roadblocks persist.

$ per unit of standard of living.

Of course it's technologically feasible. To state otherwise would be obtuse.

Lower emissions, lower cost of living, higher standard of living. Pick 2, 'cause you can't have 3.

[c.t.ner]

I don't see it posted in the thread, but the Royalty Review is coming later this week.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...ased-this-week

The NDP government will release its long-awaited review of Alberta’s energy royalties this week, with Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd promising a “durable” regime that will be “effective for all parties involved.”

McCuaig-Boyd confirmed Monday the government will release the report before the end of the month, as promised after the NDP missed its original end-of-2015 deadline.

[Looch City]

"before the end of the month". I bet you that'll be Friday January 29th haha last possible minute

[Mr.Coffee]

this is going to be VERY interesting. Whatever they do, I guarantee there will be some that are not happy. Which is unfortunate, but this is one hell of a can of worms given the current environment.

[Ozy_Flame]

This place is going to be sour like vinegar when the news breaks.

[stampsx2]

People make it seem like Alberta is the biggest contributor to co2 gasses in the world. Let me break it down a bit. The u.s. and china produce half of the worlds co2 emissions. Canada produces 2%. If the environmentalists on Calgary puck and everywhere else really want a change they should focus on where the problem really lies.


The u.s. Department of defence is the single biggest contributor to worlds's co2 emmissions so if you're really concerned you need to start there. Have you ever looked up how much co2 has been caused by the war in iraq?

If our own government is so concerned about co2 emmissions why don't they invest in nuclear plants so we can remove our coal fired plants. Why don't they do everything in their power to limit traffic jams that are a major contributor? Everyone wants to attack the oil sands and even if it get's completely shut down it will have a small impact on the total co2 emmissions on a world level.

If people really want to make a change they need to go to where the problem really lies the u.s. and china. It's great that you're riding your bike to work but when the u.s. fires up that f-16 for the thousandth time for another training excersise or china put's up their hundredth factory it really does little.

[Looch City]

Rest of World needs to calm down, they are the real perpetrators here.

[browna]

Solid rant by Mercer.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2682577073/

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by browna

Solid rant by Mercer.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2682577073/

I have a new respect for Mercer now. Time to start asking "how does it benefit Canada not how does it benefit Montreal"

[4X4]

Originally Posted by browna

Solid rant by Mercer.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2682577073/

Camera man needs to put down the bottle before going to work.

[Knalus]

A simple point I would like to make.

Both Canada's oil industry and environmentalists have a simple thing in common. They both want high oil prices, not low ones. With high prices, the industry gets paid what they need to thrive, AND environmental alternatives have the environment to be relevant.

[stampsx2]

Quebec could potentialy save 3 billion annualy by importing alberta oil instead of european and north africa oil. Crazy that a province would prefer to purchase a foreign product at a higher price even if some of those countries have human rights issues.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle8905802/

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Quebec could potentialy save 3 billion annualy by importing alberta oil instead of european and north africa oil. Crazy that a province would prefer to purchase a foreign product at a higher price even if some of those countries have human rights issues.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle8905802/

Wait, we're talking about Quebec right? Nothing is crazy with them.