Whistler wants Alberta oil and gas company to pay for resort's climate change costs

[ASP#26525]

Okay so.... does anyone have any actual solutions to the climate problem other than crapping on this (clearly shortsighted) guy?

I will never have children, don't own a car (walk to work), have all used furniture, and live in an extremely tiny and modest, aka old, apartment. Now what is everyone else doing to actually help solve this problem other than complain at people's suggestions? Do you honestly think the oil companies are innocent in this?

My job depends heavily on the oil and gas industry as well, and because I'm an atmospheric scientist/physicist, it pains me ideologically, but I try to focus on the fact that I am contributing to the safety of hundreds and hundreds of Newfoundlanders (and others) that work offshore while continuing to do my personal bit to cut emissions.

How about you guys?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by ASP#26525

Okay so.... does anyone have any actual solutions to the climate problem other than crapping on this (clearly shortsighted) guy?

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by ASP#26525

Okay so.... does anyone have any actual solutions to the climate problem other than crapping on this (clearly shortsighted) guy?

I will never have children, don't own a car (walk to work), have all used furniture, and live in an extremely tiny and modest, aka old, apartment. Now what is everyone else doing to actually help solve this problem other than complain at people's suggestions? Do you honestly think the oil companies are innocent in this?

My job depends heavily on the oil and gas industry as well, and because I'm an atmospheric scientist/physicist, it pains me ideologically, but I try to focus on the fact that I am contributing to the safety of hundreds and hundreds of Newfoundlanders (and others) that work offshore while continuing to do my personal bit to cut emissions.

How about you guys?

one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

but to be fair when the mayor tells us what he's personally doing, i'll be more than happy to share what I'm doing.
I'd also like to know what the town is doing other than sending letters.

one of your solutions to the climate problem is not having children.
can you really point to that as something specifically you're doing because of the environment and climate problem?
I've yet to meet a person who as a reason for not having kids is to save the environment.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Just heard tonight, at an event for oil and gas, that Murray Edwards and Bill Gates have apparently partnered on a carbon capture and sequestration project in Squamish BC. Down the road from this capital M Moron.

The guy he sent the letter to has already done far, far, far, far, FAR MORE, than he has ever done to fight climate change. Hopefully the media picks this up.

This buffoon should be used as the symbol of the many, many people out in western BC that share uneducated and extremely ignorant positions on energy and where it comes from.

The (large) majority of people from BC are not this stupid (hopefully????!) yet their government has, literally, destroyed so much value for no tangible good reason it is unbelievable.

We are destroying our own country. Our own economy and honestly- straight up- mostly due to BC. Due to uneducated buffoons like this absolute idiot. We laugh and jest, but the truth is. This ideology and belief system that is SO OFF BASE and so absolutely ridiculous, is more mainstream than people would like to believe.

At the end of the day, these people, like this mayor, are wrong. Absolutely and unequivocally wrong.

If you are a true heart of hearts environmentalist you should be 1000% FOR Canadian energy. If you are against Canadian pipelines or energy, my conclusion is that you actually hate the planet. Or are extremely uneducated. The people of BC have been living at the peak of Maslows hierarchy of needs for so long, and have had life so good for so long- that they are now detached from reality and have become extremist in thought, ideology and now- obviously- behaviour.

How on earth does the mayor of Whistler, write something so profoundly idiotic???? This would be like Nenshi saying we should construct the Green Line CTrain out of KitKat bars but being serious about it.

I was with you until this. I don't follow. I am a strong environmentalist, and while I agree that the mayor and his actions are foolish and lack understanding, there's no way that you can be for more oil and gas development and claim to be a true champion of the environment. It's antithetical.

And please don't start with the extremely uneducated stuff. I teach this topic at a Univeristy. I'm pretty sure I know enough about it. I'd be careful about lumping anyone who disagrees with you into the category of "uneducated".

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by ASP#26525

Okay so.... does anyone have any actual solutions to the climate problem other than crapping on this (clearly shortsighted) guy?

Population control is the biggest key. As long as there is a growing population in emerging economic areas, there will be an increased need for energy. Renewable sources can't possibly cover our current energy usage, so while we must continue to develop those technologies and make them more efficient, the real answer is to stop reproducing so much. That's a hard policy to implement because it goes against human nature and even leads to human rights violations.

There's no perfect solution at this point, but slowing population growth is a good start, and the process of educating global populations is cost effective too.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

one of your solutions to the climate problem is not having children. can you really point to that as something specifically you're doing because of the environment and climate problem?
I've yet to meet a person who as a reason for not having kids is to save the environment.

I know someone who says the same thing, and it's not a totally ludicrous statement. World population is expected to swell to 9.3 billion by 2050 - this means we need more resources/land/energy to produce food to support these people - more environmental footprint per human being.

Unless there is some silver bullet solution, having kids and creating more humans does contribute to the problem IMO. And this is a guy who isn't against having kids myself. I can totally see the reason for not having kids as an environmental one, especially if one's convictions are strong enough.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Population control is the biggest key. As long as there is a growing population in emerging economic areas, there will be an increased need for energy. Renewable sources can't possibly cover our current energy usage, so while we must continue to develop those technologies and make them more efficient, the real answer is to stop reproducing so much. That's a hard policy to implement because it goes against human nature and even leads to human rights violations.

There's no perfect solution at this point, but slowing population growth is a good start, and the process of educating global populations is cost effective too.

Yes they can. They require a little bit of advancement but the biggest hurdle would be the complete infrastructure overhaul required to switch from the oil system to some type of mass solar grid. Which would of course require oil to build.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Coach

Yes they can. They require a little bit of advancement but the biggest hurdle would be the complete infrastructure overhaul required to switch from the oil system to some type of mass solar grid. Which would of course require oil to build.

That probably causes more harm to the environment because of the massive incursion into wild spaces or even agricultural areas to lay down that grid. It's not a wise decision long term. There's only a handful of desert areas where you could do that and have minimal environmental impact.

[Wormius]

I think the mayor's letter would have been better received if Whistler really stood out for its environmental stewardship, and maybe even outlined in that letter what it has done and how despite that, it's not enough without some financial support from the oil companies. Instead it really invites a "people in glass houses" response.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

That probably causes more harm to the environment because of the massive incursion into wild spaces or even agricultural areas to lay down that grid. It's not a wise decision long term. There's only a handful of desert areas where you could do that and have minimal environmental impact.

I meant more along the lines of changing out things like gas lines, cars, all sorts of power-based entities and just the whole machine that is oil-centered energy for something (anything) else.

Capturing solar isn't the problem, it's storage. But it's beside the point. I was more speaking about the mass transition.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Vancouver is the largest coal port in North America.

Whatever the coal industry is doing to fly under the radar is pretty impressive.

Now excuse me while I go sue people that burn oil to drive or fly to Whistler.

By a few kilometres the coal that happens to be exported is mostly from BC. If the provincial border was slightly further west and the mines were in Alberta it might be a different narrative.

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I was with you until this. I don't follow. I am a strong environmentalist, and while I agree that the mayor and his actions are foolish and lack understanding, there's no way that you can be for more oil and gas development and claim to be a true champion of the environment. It's antithetical.

Depends on how you look at it. For example if we can reduce China's reliance on coal by converting to gas then GHC emissions go down. Developing our gas assets and LNG can do this.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by ASP#26525

Okay so.... does anyone have any actual solutions to the climate problem other than crapping on this (clearly shortsighted) guy?

I will never have children, don't own a car (walk to work), have all used furniture, and live in an extremely tiny and modest, aka old, apartment. Now what is everyone else doing to actually help solve this problem other than complain at people's suggestions? Do you honestly think the oil companies are innocent in this?

My job depends heavily on the oil and gas industry as well, and because I'm an atmospheric scientist/physicist, it pains me ideologically, but I try to focus on the fact that I am contributing to the safety of hundreds and hundreds of Newfoundlanders (and others) that work offshore while continuing to do my personal bit to cut emissions.

How about you guys?

IMO you are putting the cart before the horse.

There obviously is huge demand for oil and gas around the world. Is the supply side at fault because that demand exists? If all Canadian oil and gas operations closed shop tomorrow, hundreds of new ones would pop up to replace them.

As long as there is demand for oil and gas, people will produce it.

It's garbage to blame the supply side and ask the supply side to pay for the sins of the demand side.

Governments need to step up and take drastic action if they are serious about climate change action. Nuclear energy, population control, drastically cut meat production and manufacturing, command economies, etc. It's not incumbent on the suppliers of petroleum products to curb petroleum product use. That's no different than telling a rancher "use less cows" because they are bad for the environment.

This mayor should be the mayor of Crazytown, not Whistler.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Just heard tonight, at an event for oil and gas, that Murray Edwards and Bill Gates have apparently partnered on a carbon capture and sequestration project in Squamish BC. Down the road from this capital M Moron.

The company is called Carbon Engineering and the science behind it is largely from Dr David Keith who used to be at U of Calgary. He is now Executive Chairman of the company and also on staff at Harvard.

http://carbonengineering.com/

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I was with you until this. I don't follow. I am a strong environmentalist, and while I agree that the mayor and his actions are foolish and lack understanding, there's no way that you can be for more oil and gas development and claim to be a true champion of the environment. It's antithetical.

And please don't start with the extremely uneducated stuff. I teach this topic at a Univeristy. I'm pretty sure I know enough about it. I'd be careful about lumping anyone who disagrees with you into the category of "uneducated".

lol.


Being serious, what technology is going to replace oil and gas for our energy needs be very specific. And how long will it take? What about the nearly infinite amount of products made from crude, what will be used instead?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Coach

Yes they can. They require a little bit of advancement but the biggest hurdle would be the complete infrastructure overhaul required to switch from the oil system to some type of mass solar grid. Which would of course require oil to build.

Why do people keep believing this? It's not true.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...m-and-em-coal/

[Kybosh]

There is no single answer to meet anticipated energy requirements, but I've been preaching for many years that nuclear must be at the forefront. We must focus our efforts on building nuclear facilities, developing more efficient modes of transportation, developing more efficient homes, developing better methodologies to generate and use natural gas to synthesize high value products. Another huge one that people never talk about is agriculture. Agriculture has seen heaps of innovations but there is so much we can still look into (for example, more efficient seeding/fertilizing/watering/harvesting etc.). While we're at it, let's get rid of lawns. What a ridiculously wasteful concept that traces back to British colonial times.

Most of these things are happening, but nuclear remains taboo when it really shouldn't be. We need leaders who can convince the public of current truths and then help them see into the future. The Mayor of Self Involved Yuppies is not that guy.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I was with you until this. I don't follow. I am a strong environmentalist, and while I agree that the mayor and his actions are foolish and lack understanding, there's no way that you can be for more oil and gas development and claim to be a true champion of the environment. It's antithetical.

And please don't start with the extremely uneducated stuff. I teach this topic at a Univeristy. I'm pretty sure I know enough about it. I'd be careful about lumping anyone who disagrees with you into the category of "uneducated".

You're teaching people this? How do you expect to go from Fossil fuel usage to a renewable source? Forgetting the fact that renewable energy sources are woefully ill-equipped to shoulder the burden?

Is the infrastructure for that supposed to just show up magically? Snap your fingers and *BOOM* renewable energy. Problem solved.

Do you know Thanos?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

There is no single answer to meet anticipated energy requirements, but I've been preaching for many years that nuclear must be at the forefront. We must focus our efforts on building nuclear facilities, developing more efficient modes of transportation, developing more efficient homes, developing better methodologies to generate and use natural gas to synthesize high value products. Another huge one that people never talk about is agriculture. Agriculture has seen heaps of innovations but there is so much we can still look into (for example, more efficient seeding/fertilizing/watering/harvesting etc.). While we're at it, let's get rid of lawns. What a ridiculously wasteful concept that traces back to British colonial times.

Most of these things are happening, but nuclear remains taboo when it really shouldn't be. We need leaders who can convince the public of current truths and then help them see into the future. The Mayor of Self Involved Yuppies is not that guy.

I'm a proponent of nuclear energy, however and I'm no expert, isn't the biggest problem with disposal of waste. I mean if we go by the article and build 8000 new nuclear powerplants aren't we basically trading one environmental problem for another?


Isn't the mining of Uranium and processing of it not only environmentally terrible, but the carbon emitted to mine it extremely high?



Also beyond the transportation and safe storage of wastes wouldn't building 8000 new powerplants (again from that article) extremely water use intensive?

[Shazam]

The only thing anybody cares about anymore are CO2 emissions.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm a proponent of nuclear energy, however and I'm no expert, isn't the biggest problem with disposal of waste. I mean if we go by the article and build 8000 new nuclear powerplants aren't we basically trading one environmental problem for another?


Isn't the mining of Uranium and processing of it not only environmentally terrible, but the carbon emitted to mine it extremely high?



Also beyond the transportation and safe storage of wastes wouldn't building 8000 new powerplants (again from that article) extremely water use intensive?

You're not wrong. There are issues with nuclear, but that means there are areas available for innovation. My point is that society at large is not investing into these innovations as much as we probably should be. Also note, I'm definitely not saying that nuclear is the only answer. It's just one part that must be explored. Water usage is a huge concern however, because that's a big reason why we're seeing droughts in some areas and floods in others.

I suppose the greater problem I've seen is cutbacks towards scientific funding not only in Canada, but around the world, when we really should be going the other direction. I fear the selfishness in human nature will be our downfall.