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

[burn_this_city]

At this point the only hope to not blow by the 2 degree is geo-engineering or constructing massive carbon capture facilities drawing CO2 out of the air, converting it to fuel, and pumping it back into the earth. We have a moral dilemma telling the world's poor they can't burn fossil fuels. No one can control population without it turning into a dystopian horror story.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Locke

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?

Total global energy usage is quite mind boggling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
In 2014, world primary energy supply amounted to 155,481 terawatt-hour (TWh)

Replacing ALL of it with something sustainable and environmentally neutral is almost beyond comprehension. Even replacing 20% is daunting.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

At this point the only hope to not blow by the 2 degree is geo-engineering or constructing massive carbon capture facilities drawing CO2 out of the air, converting it to fuel, and pumping it back into the earth. We have a moral dilemma telling the world's poor they can't burn fossil fuels. No one can control population without it turning into a dystopian horror story.

Giant solar powered plants that covert CO2 in the atmosphere into solid carbon. This is very hard to do as CO2 makes up less than half a percent of the atmosphere.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Giant solar powered plants that covert CO2 in the atmosphere into solid carbon. This is very hard to do as CO2 makes up less than half a percent of the atmosphere.

You mean.... trees?

[81MC]

Change behaviours. That is the only viable option to stop the matricide. Oil and gas is, of course, entirely necessary for a lot of things we take for granted. I’d rather burn fossil fuel at a controlled, responsible rate than continue to dam our waterways for hydroelectric power so idiots can feel righteous because their suv doesn’t burn oil...just systemically destroys ecosystems.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

You mean.... trees?

We're supposed to be at the point where if we just planted trees like mad it wouldn't make much difference.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Locke

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?

I teach people the subject matter and the problems associated, I don't offer solutions because if I had any good ones I'd be writing about them as we speak. I teach the science, the facts, and let students (particularly our social entrepreneurship students) work on solutions. At the moment there aren't great ones, but I try to inspire my students to come up with solutions to the problems while remaining realistic.

I think that you, like most Albertans, are especially touchy around the subject of oil and gas because of how closely the local economy is tied to it. The fact remains, we cannot continue to burn carbon-based fuels and expect everything to turn out okay. There will be a severe reckoning in our future if we don't make significant changes in both our energy consumption and production, even if those changes aren't easy to do. There is no doubt that significant costs will impact economies over the short term, and I personally believe the tipping point of when we decide to actually take these steps happens after there are events of mass starvation or natural resource depletion. I hope that it doesn't come to that, but I'm skeptical of human nature.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I teach people the subject matter and the problems associated, I don't offer solutions because if I had any good ones I'd be writing about them as we speak. I teach the science, the facts, and let students (particularly our social entrepreneurship students) work on solutions. At the moment there aren't great ones, but I try to inspire my students to come up with solutions to the problems while remaining realistic.

I think that you, like most Albertans, are especially touchy around the subject of oil and gas because of how closely the local economy is tied to it. The fact remains, we cannot continue to burn carbon-based fuels and expect everything to turn out okay. There will be a severe reckoning in our future if we don't make significant changes in both our energy consumption and production, even if those changes aren't easy to do. There is no doubt that significant costs will impact economies over the short term, and I personally believe the tipping point of when we decide to actually take these steps happens after there are events of mass starvation or natural resource depletion. I hope that it doesn't come to that, but I'm skeptical of human nature.

Yeah, neither of those things will happen.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I teach people the subject matter and the problems associated, I don't offer solutions because if I had any good ones I'd be writing about them as we speak. I teach the science, the facts, and let students (particularly our social entrepreneurship students) work on solutions. At the moment there aren't great ones, but I try to inspire my students to come up with solutions to the problems while remaining realistic.

I think that you, like most Albertans, are especially touchy around the subject of oil and gas because of how closely the local economy is tied to it. The fact remains, we cannot continue to burn carbon-based fuels and expect everything to turn out okay. There will be a severe reckoning in our future if we don't make significant changes in both our energy consumption and production, even if those changes aren't easy to do. There is no doubt that significant costs will impact economies over the short term, and I personally believe the tipping point of when we decide to actually take these steps happens after there are events of mass starvation or natural resource depletion. I hope that it doesn't come to that, but I'm skeptical of human nature.

By cutting off Canadian oil, you're not reducing world consumption, you're just ensuring that the supply of it for world consumption elsewhere comes from other places than Canada. Places where there are no regulations, and there is no desire to ever have regulations. This makes Canadians and Albertans poorer and it empowers places like Russia and Saudi Arabia. West coast/Quebec activism blocking Alberta pipelines does absolutely nothing for the environment and might even harm it longer term. By expanding oil production here, you prevent further expansion elsewhere. If you care about the environment, you would much rather deal with people like me who respect the rule of law, abide by the regulations of the land, and respect human rights rather than the Saudi Royal Family, Vladimir Putin, or the Chinese.

As for solving the problem, it doesn't come from the supply side. We need there to be a way to do what we do where the low carbon option is actually more cost effective and a better way of doing things without government subsidies or mandate. You do that, and even the places the don't give a crap about ever signing onto a UN pact, let alone actually abide by it will start lowering emissions and the supply side quite honestly solves itself. I get it, the rebuttal to that is 'we don't have time for innovation, we need a carbon diet now to avoid 'x arbitrary goalpost.' Quite frankly that's no answer anyway. You can't tell the world's poorest and developing people who honestly live day to day that their aspirations of a better life have to be shelved because climate models say 'x'. Also you can't tell the people of the first world that "Hey you need to move backwards on the slope of human development because our climate models say x." Where the rubber hits the road and people's livelihoods are threatened, they aren't going to choose the option of being poorer. Look no further than the yellow vest protests in France. If the French can't do it, China, India, and Africa sure as $**t aren't going to do it either.

[Delthefunky]

CP ships roughly eight to nine loaded coal trains from Sparwood to Cocuitlam every day. Each of these trains consists of 152 coal cars. It's really an incredible amount.

This mayor is an idiot, and it's just a really low level tactic to play the emotional "#### on Alberta" card in return for cheap votes (which he already won, so why?). I'm glad it look's like it's going to backfire on him. What a bubble some people live in.

We're all involved in the climate change problem. Every person on earth. If we contribute to the economy (i.e get a paycheck), we're part of the problem.

The shame in all this is that before Trump became president, there was a real effort to tackle the problem and curb CO2 emmisions (which the most audacious targets could only realistically aim for a 35% worldwide reduction by 2050). The diplomatic effort was truly remarkable, and took nearly thirty years of global co-operation and planning. Then this ####ing Orange Orangutan ruins it all over night, because Obama.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

By cutting off Canadian oil, you're not reducing world consumption, you're just ensuring that the supply of it for world consumption elsewhere comes from other places than Canada. Places where there are no regulations, and there is no desire to ever have regulations. This makes Canadians and Albertans poorer and it empowers places like Russia and Saudi Arabia. West coast/Quebec activism blocking Alberta pipelines does absolutely nothing for the environment and might even harm it longer term.

I agree with this completely. People who think that somehow Canada killing its Oil and Gas Sector or allowing it to be cut off from the world are fooling themselves.


The strategy by American big energy to use groups like Tides and other environmental groups to choke off Canadian Oil was and is brilliant to the point that these people think they're saving the world. They're not, frankly they're replacing Canadian Oil with American Oil. The California Oil Fields are a bigger environmental catastrophe that we can ever hope to match.


Nobody is going to follow Canada's suicidal leap, instead they'll laugh at us and take the market space, and Saudia Arabia will keep using the money in odorous ways, the American's will keep pumping without giving a crap. The Russians' will fill orders gleefully.


You want to make the smart environmental play. Encourage and regulate Canadian Oil and Gas, find ways to improve its extraction and refining and shipping from a environmental standpoint and increase our market share while decreasing Saudi and Russian Oil Shares.

[Shazam]

We will burn coal until civilisation falls, so BC's good there.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

By cutting off Canadian oil, you're not reducing world consumption, you're just ensuring that the supply of it for world consumption elsewhere comes from other places than Canada. Places where there are no regulations, and there is no desire to ever have regulations. This makes Canadians and Albertans poorer and it empowers places like Russia and Saudi Arabia. West coast/Quebec activism blocking Alberta pipelines does absolutely nothing for the environment and might even harm it longer term. By expanding oil production here, you prevent further expansion elsewhere. If you care about the environment, you would much rather deal with people like me who respect the rule of law, abide by the regulations of the land, and respect human rights rather than the Saudi Royal Family, Vladimir Putin, or the Chinese.

As for solving the problem, it doesn't come from the supply side. We need there to be a way to do what we do where the low carbon option is actually more cost effective and a better way of doing things without government subsidies or mandate. You do that, and even the places the don't give a crap about ever signing onto a UN pact, let alone actually abide by it will start lowering emissions and the supply side quite honestly solves itself. I get it, the rebuttal to that is 'we don't have time for innovation, we need a carbon diet now to avoid 'x arbitrary goalpost.' Quite frankly that's no answer anyway. You can't tell the world's poorest and developing people who honestly live day to day that their aspirations of a better life have to be shelved because climate models say 'x'. Also you can't tell the people of the first world that "Hey you need to move backwards on the slope of human development because our climate models say x." Where the rubber hits the road and people's livelihoods are threatened, they aren't going to choose the option of being poorer. Look no further than the yellow vest protests in France. If the French can't do it, China, India, and Africa sure as $**t aren't going to do it either.

I agree with this, but all I have to say is that we need to think long term as well as short term, so yes, carbon diets have to occur at some point for the common good. If you can also create competitive industries in renewable resources that pay as well, or have better opportunity for job growth than carbon-based energy production, then hopefully those emerging economies will START OFF using some amount of renewable energy, rather than relying solely on fossil fuels for their energy needs/economic success.

Just FYI, my comments have nothing to do with the Alberta specific supply of oil, just the general attitude of anyone who has an income linked to oil and gas being one of "it's not easy to do, so we shouldn't do anything". I very much dislike and disagree with that perspective. I think it's defeatist and only serves the needs of those who want to keep the status quo, not our own.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I teach people the subject matter and the problems associated, I don't offer solutions because if I had any good ones I'd be writing about them as we speak. I teach the science, the facts, and let students (particularly our social entrepreneurship students) work on solutions. At the moment there aren't great ones, but I try to inspire my students to come up with solutions to the problems while remaining realistic.

I think that you, like most Albertans, are especially touchy around the subject of oil and gas because of how closely the local economy is tied to it. The fact remains, we cannot continue to burn carbon-based fuels and expect everything to turn out okay. There will be a severe reckoning in our future if we don't make significant changes in both our energy consumption and production, even if those changes aren't easy to do. There is no doubt that significant costs will impact economies over the short term, and I personally believe the tipping point of when we decide to actually take these steps happens after there are events of mass starvation or natural resource depletion. I hope that it doesn't come to that, but I'm skeptical of human nature.

Well thats like a half-dozen different issues, but really, its not about anyone being touchy about the subject because its closely tied to the local economy, but rather being touchy because the constant banging of the 'renewable energy' drum is tiresome.

"We can get all of our energy from Mother Gaia! Wind! Water! Sun! Captain Planet!!"

Yeah....thats ignorant crap, much like whats in the head of the Mayor of Whistler.

Renewable energy sources are all well and good but they're a complete joke and if you believe they are anywhere near capable of providing even a fraction of the energy we need then the joke is clearly on you.

What upsets people is having our faces kicked in for producing some of the most environmentally sound Oil on the face of the earth, being told its the Devil while the same ignorant people turn right around and buy Oil from China, Saudi and Venezuela where they practically rape the ground and then ship it over on enormous, inefficient and dangerous Oil tankers from oppressive regimes.

As though using Oil is all fine and good so long as it didnt come out of our ground. That doesnt make them ignorant hypocrites at all.

And as for 'solutions while remaining realistic?' People like to say that as though it means something.

Unfortunately its just an empty platitude that makes people feel better. Cowboy is ultimately right, the solution to dependency on Fossil Fuels isnt about coming up with some magical new supply of wonderful, free, clean energy.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Yeah, neither of those things will happen.

Don't be so sure. Desertification is rapidly advancing on lands that are susceptible, reducing the amount of arable land in areas where population booms are occurring. A particularly bad year or two leads to poor crop yields and undernourishment in a region. If the change to desert is permanent, it's very possible that lots of the poorest people on the planet starve.

Not to mention that even relatively affluent areas like Cape Town are experiencing such severe droughts that they were very near shutting down the flow of water and rationing out bottled water through the military. Cut off the water supply to a few million people and civil unrest or death soon follow.

This isn't some far off fantasy, it's happening now.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business...own-s-day-zero

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-change

[puckedoff]

If we decide to immediately reduce usage of fossil fuels, it just accelerates the mass starvation and global poverty. The world simply cant be fed, clothed and housed right now without the use of massive amounts of fossil fuels.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well thats like a half-dozen different issues, but really, its not about anyone being touchy about the subject because its closely tied to the local economy, but rather being touchy because the constant banging of the 'renewable energy' drum is tiresome.

"We can get all of our energy from Mother Gaia! Wind! Water! Sun! Captain Planet!!"

Yeah....thats ignorant crap, much like whats in the head of the Mayor of Whistler.

Renewable energy sources are all well and good but they're a complete joke and if you believe they are anywhere near capable of providing even a fraction of the energy we need then the joke is clearly on you.

What upsets people is having our faces kicked in for producing some of the most environmentally sound Oil on the face of the earth, being told its the Devil while the same ignorant people turn right around and buy Oil from China, Saudi and Venezuela where they practically rape the ground and then ship it over on enormous, inefficient and dangerous Oil tankers from oppressive regimes.

As though using Oil is all fine and good so long as it didnt come out of our ground. That doesnt make them ignorant hypocrites at all.

And as for 'solutions while remaining realistic?' People like to say that as though it means something.

Unfortunately its just an empty platitude that makes people feel better. Cowboy is ultimately right, the solution to dependency on Fossil Fuels isnt about coming up with some magical new supply of wonderful, free, clean energy.

It is beneath you to oversimplify the arguments of the other to try to make them seem stupid. Try harder if you're going to engage in a serious debate. Nobody is saying that, but rather, the best solution long term is to begin serious supplementation of our energy needs with renewable sources. I'm under no fantasy situation where we go off carbon fuels anytime in the near future, but simply REDUCING our use of them would go a long way to solving some of the problems, or at least avoiding serious catastrophes that would come with unencumbered use.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with Alberta specifically. It's a global problem that requires global solutions. The politics of how this affects certain regions don't concern me at all because EVERYONE on the planet will be affected by this, most notably the poorest in the world.

[chemgear]

Disgusting.

https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/wh...t?oid=10182330

Whistler's GHG emissions continue to rise

In 2017, total community emissions rose by four per cent over 2016.

As such, Whistler's GHG reduction goal of 33 per cent by 2020 (compared to 2007 levels) is all but out of reach.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

If we decide to immediately reduce usage of fossil fuels, it just accelerates the mass starvation and global poverty. The world simply cant be fed, clothed and housed right now without the use of massive amounts of fossil fuels.

Nobody is advocating for immediate cessation, but rather a gradual reduction over the next couple of decades. But if my point about global warming causing serious starvation issues is too much, then this is definitely way too far in the other direction.

But your point stands, there would be a difficult transition period and I don't doubt that the poor would feel the effects more than the affluent, because that's just how the world works on most issues.

Which goes back to my original point: Overpopulation is the real issue that needs to be addressed. We probably need to get down to about 6 billion to have any real chance to solve this issue. The problem is, I don't know how you do that in a couple of decades.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Nobody is advocating for immediate cessation, but rather a gradual reduction over the next couple of decades. But if my point about global warming causing serious starvation issues is too much, then this is definitely way too far in the other direction.

But your point stands, there would be a difficult transition period and I don't doubt that the poor would feel the effects more than the affluent, because that's just how the world works on most issues.

Which goes back to my original point: Overpopulation is the real issue that needs to be addressed. We probably need to get down to about 7 billion to have any real chance to solve this issue. The problem is, I don't know how you do that in a couple of decades.

Bloodsport. Lots and lots of bloodsport.