Climate change and human responsibility

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Ah jeez. 41 minutes long and the first 1:11 is basically calling anyone who questions it deniers and mocks skepticism. Sorry, did not proceed.

Moore's points include the fact that the planet has gone back and forth through ice ages and periods of warmth. There's no denying that humans are seriously contributing, just that it's not a new reality for the planet.

Also, if people weren't so afraid of nuclear, things could get figured out pretty quickly. But the environmentalists don't want to hear solutions like that, likewise for solutions in carbon capture that guys like Bill Gates have been working on.

It's an all out war on fossil fuels when it doesn't need to be. A balance can be struck. Deciding to completely stop using fossil fuels by such and such date is a pretty narrow minded solution. An alternative solution is to find ways to use the human created excess carbon emissions for things that are beneficial, and to look at ways of powering our lifestyles in ways that aren't as inefficient as solar and wind.

It just blows my mind that people are so anti-pipeline when it's the most efficient, cleanest, and lowest risk way of doing it. Basically, if you're anti-pipeline, you're for more emissions. How does one reconcile that in their mind? It's just baffling.

Wait, people are against carbon capture solutions? Why?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Ah jeez. 41 minutes long and the first 1:11 is basically calling anyone who questions it deniers and mocks skepticism. Sorry, did not proceed.

Moore's points include the fact that the planet has gone back and forth through ice ages and periods of warmth. There's no denying that humans are seriously contributing, just that it's not a new reality for the planet.

Also, if people weren't so afraid of nuclear, things could get figured out pretty quickly. But the environmentalists don't want to hear solutions like that, likewise for solutions in carbon capture that guys like Bill Gates have been working on.

It's an all out war on fossil fuels when it doesn't need to be. A balance can be struck. Deciding to completely stop using fossil fuels by such and such date is a pretty narrow minded solution. An alternative solution is to find ways to use the human created excess carbon emissions for things that are beneficial, and to look at ways of powering our lifestyles in ways that aren't as inefficient as solar and wind.

It just blows my mind that people are so anti-pipeline when it's the most efficient, cleanest, and lowest risk way of doing it. Basically, if you're anti-pipeline, you're for more emissions. How does one reconcile that in their mind? It's just baffling.

I actually agree with you, but Canadians need to be more open to the trade-offs. Like, maybe our lifestiles are wasteful, indulgent, and unsustainable.

There is no technological silver bullet that will fix this mess. Profound, long-lasting changes must be made to the way we live our lives, and it will happen sooner than most of us think.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Wait, people are against carbon capture solutions? Why?

They just simply refuse to listen to the idea that maybe, just maybe, we don't need to wean ourselves off oil in 10-20-30 years, perhaps we can find a way to take those emissions and make them into something useful, thereby mitigating our effect on climate change. No, the situation is so dire, there's no time to solve it that way, the only way is to stop oil now. Meanwhile, Alberta's economy is absolutely decimated, and we're the only ones caving to the pressure.

It's pathetic, ridiculous, and embarrassing. And anyone that speaks up about it is a denier. Such BS.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by peter12

There is no technological silver bullet that will fix this mess. Profound, long-lasting changes must be made to the way we live our lives, and it will happen sooner than most of us think.

How about this?

A new technology, called Allam cycle, uses CO2 to run turbines at a demonstration plant in Texas. “It’s aiming to produce electricity with carbon capture at prices that normal natural gas plants do today,” Turan said.

Another initiative is called direct air capture, which aims to remove carbon that has already spewed into the atmosphere.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5298626/h...-capture-work/

Before I sell my home, give up my cars, move to the city, and get a vasectomy, couldn't we give solutions like this a serious look?

[4X4]

Careful, Ark. Someone like Elizabeth May or one of her idiotic groupies reads that post and you'll be categorized as a denier, simply for not agreeing that oil must stop immediately.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ark2

How about this?



https://globalnews.ca/news/5298626/h...-capture-work/

Before I sell my home, give up my cars, move to the city, and get a vasectomy, couldn't we give solutions like this a serious look?

Well, country living in a large home with several cars is a brutally unsustainable lifestyle. One that is incredibly subsidized by taxpayers. At the very least, let's remove those subsidies and make people who choose that lifestyle pay the full cost.

Let's also pay a carbon tax.

And, if I was in charge, let's create a national energy corridor and get as many of our hydrocarbon products to market.

And yes, let's dump a lot of money into R&D for potential mitigation solutions.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by peter12

Let's also pay a carbon tax.

The recent structure of the carbon tax is so GD unfair, though. You're slapping a huge tax on guys like Joe Electrician that have no choice but to drive to site every day. They need their tools and supplies. No matter whether they're driving to the suburbs or to a fancy new condo building downtown, whatever they're helping to build, they need to get to site.

Why should their costs suddenly increase substantially just so some people can feel good about switching to the Ctrain to get to work in their downtown office building? It's BS.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by 4X4

The recent structure of the carbon tax is so GD unfair, though. You're slapping a huge tax on guys like Joe Electrician that have no choice but to drive to site every day. They need their tools and supplies. No matter whether they're driving to the suburbs or to a fancy new condo building downtown, whatever they're helping to build, they need to get to site.

Why should their costs suddenly increase substantially just so some people can feel good about switching to the Ctrain to get to work in their downtown office building? It's BS.

Yeah, I agree. The way this tax has been formulated, and rolled out has been very poor. That said, you would expect that cost to get passed down to consumers, right?

The problem is that no one wants to accept that things have to change. There are other things we could do to make it easier on guys like Joe Electrician, like congestion pricing, but most people would never stand for that either.

EDIT: BC used to have a revenue neutral carbon tax - which is the only way that I see it working. Why not let small business owners/tradespeople/consultants write off fuel as a business expense?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, country living in a large home with several cars is a brutally unsustainable lifestyle. One that is incredibly subsidized by taxpayers. At the very least, let's remove those subsidies and make people who choose that lifestyle pay the full cost.

Let's also pay a carbon tax.

And, if I was in charge, let's create a national energy corridor and get as many of our hydrocarbon products to market.

And yes, let's dump a lot of money into R&D for potential mitigation solutions.

Yawn. Have you moved to Tokyo yet? We won't miss you.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 4X4

The recent structure of the carbon tax is so GD unfair, though. You're slapping a huge tax on guys like Joe Electrician that have no choice but to drive to site every day. They need their tools and supplies. No matter whether they're driving to the suburbs or to a fancy new condo building downtown, whatever they're helping to build, they need to get to site.

Why should their costs suddenly increase substantially just so some people can feel good about switching to the Ctrain to get to work in their downtown office building? It's BS.

Shouldn't Joe Electrician then be re-quoting clients to recoup the costs incurred, with the policy goal being that people Joe is performing work for are more inclined spend their money on what they need vs. what they can afford?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Yawn. Have you moved to Tokyo yet? We won't miss you.

What's the matter with you?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Shouldn't Joe Electrician then be re-quoting clients to recoup the costs incurred, with the policy goal being that people Joe is performing work for are more inclined spend their money on what they need vs. what they can afford?

Exactly.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, I agree. The way this tax has been formulated, and rolled out has been very poor. That said, you would expect that cost to get passed down to consumers, right?

The problem is that no one wants to accept that things have to change. There are other things we could do to make it easier on guys like Joe Electrician, like congestion pricing, but most people would never stand for that either.

EDIT: BC used to have a revenue neutral carbon tax - which is the only way that I see it working. Why not let small business owners/tradespeople/consultants write off fuel as a business expense?

Well the extra layer of ridiculousness about Alberta's carbon tax was the timing of it's implementation. During a serious downturn. So Small company Joe can't really up his prices to XYZ himebuilder, but meanwhile, the larger companies can lay off a couple of people and absorb the cost. Unintended consequence is that the bigger companies get bigger, and the small guys go bankrupt. Slow clap, Notley.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Well the extra layer of ridiculousness about Alberta's carbon tax was the timing of it's implementation. During a serious downturn. So Small company Joe can't really up his prices to XYZ himebuilder, but meanwhile, the larger companies can lay off a couple of people and absorb the cost. Unintended consequence is that the bigger companies get bigger, and the small guys go bankrupt. Slow clap, Notley.

Yeah, yeah, I get that. I'm sympathetic to the staging/timing of some of these policy decisions made at both the provincial and federal level.

I fear that it has poisoned the well for some time.

[Fuzz]

The problem is we were supposed to get a social license and a pipeline, which would have offset a lot of the pain. Unfortunately social licenses turned out to not be real.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The problem is we were supposed to get a social license and a pipeline, which would have offset a lot of the pain. Unfortunately social licenses turned out to not be real.

It was a colossal strategic error for governments to talk about social license as part of an overall climate change mitigation strategy.

As I have said before, we can do our part to reduce emissions while still exporting our natural gas and oil products.

Social license is really just another form of NIMBYism and governments should not have entertained it for a second.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

It was a colossal strategic error for governments to talk about social license as part of an overall climate change mitigation strategy.

As I have said before, we can do our part to reduce emissions while still exporting our natural gas and oil products.

Social license is really just another form of NIMBYism and governments should not have entertained it for a second.

Well that and the government vastly underestimated the consultation issue. There was no way FN groups were going to just sit back and allow a legal precedent to be set for "meaningful consultation," without trying to get as much as they can out of it, and I can't really blame them for that even if it sucks for everyone else.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well that and the government vastly underestimated the consultation issue. There was no way FN groups were going to just sit back and allow a legal precedent to be set for "meaningful consultation," without trying to get as much as they can out of it, and I can't really blame them for that even if it sucks for everyone else.

Maybe. Although, I think the federal government was to blame. I was a public affairs consultant back when these projects were first being proposed, and let me tell you, we knew the problems with being consultants designated by the Crown, but without having the authority of the Crown.

The Indigenous communities understood that right away too.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Well the extra layer of ridiculousness about Alberta's carbon tax was the timing of it's implementation. During a serious downturn. So Small company Joe can't really up his prices to XYZ himebuilder, but meanwhile, the larger companies can lay off a couple of people and absorb the cost. Unintended consequence is that the bigger companies get bigger, and the small guys go bankrupt. Slow clap, Notley.

It should have been implemented during the last boom but the PC government (really the Province as a while) had zero appetite for it then. I fear that we are at the stage now where we really can't afford to wait another 5 years for another boom.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Makarov

It should have been implemented during the last boom but the PC government (really the Province as a while) had zero appetite for it then. I fear that we are at the stage now where we really can't afford to wait another 5 years for another boom.

What is this "fear" you have? That there isn't time for more taxes, or that without a carbon tax, we'll all die? Something in between? Please elaborate on whatever your fear is.

There is a possibility that I agree with what you will say. I was on board with Prentice's floating of a sales tax. That would have been great for Alberta, as it would have taken some of the burden off of residents, and grabbed a bit from tourists and big spenders. Would have been nice, but that got shot down pretty hard. I really don't understand why. It could have reduced income taxes.