David Suzuki compares the oil sands to slavery

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

A wee bit cost prohibitive. Particularly if you are planning to open it and then close it in a relatively short period of time. These things cost boatloads of money to create and then another boatload to decommission it when you don't need it anymore. You'd also never earn enough money to pay for the thing if you didn't have it open for a long period of time.

Solar and wind are far from economical either. I think we need to recognize that none of the alternatives to fossil fuels will give us anywhere close to the bang for our buck.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

A wee bit cost prohibitive. Particularly if you are planning to open it and then close it in a relatively short period of time. These things cost boatloads of money to create and then another boatload to decommission it when you don't need it anymore. You'd also never earn enough money to pay for the thing if you didn't have it open for a long period of time.

And there are also a ton of areas when you just don't want to put these things - areas prone to natural disasters.

Stemming climate change is cost prohibitive any way you look at it. According to many, change needs to happen immediately to avoid catastrophe in the near future.

What is the realistic alternative? You can't hope the problem away.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Stemming climate change is cost prohibitive any way you look at it. According to many, change needs to happen immediately to avoid catastrophe in the near future.

What is the realistic alternative? You can't hope the problem away.

Learn to live with it.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by blueski

Learn to live with it.

Too rational and inexpensive. Ironically, will be what we end up doing anyways, regardless of what happens to the oil sands.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Solar and wind are far from economical either. I think we need to recognize that none of the alternatives to fossil fuels will give us anywhere close to the bang for our buck.

A carbon tax is a way of levelling that playing field.

Right now, conventional fuels are underwritten at a huge public cost, both directly from the public purse and in the environmental damage they cause which is externalised onto society as a whole.

There is a previously unaccounted for cost in the consumption of fossil fuel resources that has artificially lowered the cost of the product. Without getting too involved in the politics, there's a social cost as well to helping ensure those costs remain artificially low.

The cost of fossil fuel use is rising, particularly coal.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by blueski

Learn to live with it.

Not entirely sure if you are being serious, but I have heard people say that before, that humans will adapt.

Not even considering the other species that we share the planet with, the problem is that the 1st world is the only group of people that have the resources to "learn to live with it." Assuming doomsday scenarios where tap water costs dollars per litre, most of us could deal with that. If I had to spend an extra few thousand dollars per year to "live with it", I could manage.

However there are billions of people who could not. Think of any tropical destination you have been to, and the people you see who may be dirt poor, but lead happy lives. Those people could not just "learn to live with it."

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Not entirely sure if you are being serious, but I have heard people say that before, that humans will adapt.

Not even considering the other species that we share the planet with, the problem is that the 1st world is the only group of people that have the resources to "learn to live with it." Assuming doomsday scenarios where tap water costs dollars per litre, most of us could deal with that. If I had to spend an extra few thousand dollars per year to "live with it", I could manage.

However there are billions of people who could not. Think of any tropical destination you have been to, and the people you see who may be dirt poor, but lead happy lives. Those people could not just "learn to live with it."

Man-made natural selection?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Solar and wind are far from economical either. I think we need to recognize that none of the alternatives to fossil fuels will give us anywhere close to the bang for our buck.

True - but you can also start with much smaller investments and build the solar/wind projects up as time goes. You can't just put up a tiny nuclear power plant and then build it out as time goes on.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

True - but you can also start with much smaller investments and build the solar/wind projects up as time goes. You can't just put up a tiny nuclear power plant and then build it out as time goes on.

But aren't we already at a point where immediate and decisive action needs to take place?

If nuclear isn't an option, then the carbon doomsday will happen since no other alternative energy source can be used widespread fast enough to reduce carbon fast enough.

[GGG]

I like geo engineering solutions.

By far the cheapest method and can be used as a stop gap until technology / political willallows us to replace fossil fuels. We still kill the ocean with acidification but the major irreversible effects like melting the permafrost and releasing all the methane trapped their are prevented.