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

[CaptainCrunch]

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 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.

Well there's a couple of ways.

A generational busting conventional World War. Not a regional scrimmage or a contained war. But a East vs West World War. Not with nuclear or bio or chemical weapons, but with tanks and planes and guns and ships.

20 million people died in WW1 out of a population of 1.73 billion or 1.1 percent

85 million people died in WW2 out of a population of roughly 2.2 billion or 3.9%

Now because you're asking for close to a third or 33%, we have to realize that even with advanced weapons that will probably reduce the casualty rate among civilian centers that we'll have to take more radical measures

Genetic intervention.

redesign humanity so that every woman gets two active eggs and every man gets 5 active sperm cells. Use them wisely

Reduce medical technology and peoples access to health care. that's right we need a plague. It would also help if we changed our disposal of corpses from burial and burning to chucking them in the streets.

The Black Plague in 1346 killed off 50 million people out of a world population of roughly 378 million people. or roughly 13% of the world population.

Hmmm we're still short here. Lets see, disease, war, genetic engineering. What else what else.

Oh forced issuing of procreation licenses or eugenics. Make illegal pregnancies punishable by death of all involved parties, that way we could literally kill 3 people at a time. At the start we'd probably run out of bullets or need a massive increase of electricity, but it would settle down. Force people to go through genetic screening before they can get a license so we can engineer a god like race of humans.

Still not enough, and death based combat sports is too limited.

How about a 24 hour annual global purge. That could really be effective as you mow down your neighbors with a machine gun for not using their good dinner china at last years Christmas. Or kill your lawyer for not using the right font in his email.

the big scam. Build massive colony ships and promise people a fresh new life as colonists in a far star system. Use the Nambian Prince scammers to get people to agree to go. Now we all know that we can't travel fast enough to get people to that brave new world, so load up 10% of the population on these colony ships and have them suffer catastrophic failures before they can leave the solar system.

Combine all of these and population control is easy.

[icecube]

It's not just poor people in other countries who are going to be impacted by climate change. Perhaps I shouldn't say "going to be". It's finally all happening now. Frightening stuff.

40 million Americans depend on the Colorado River. It’s drying up.

https://grist.org/article/40-million...its-drying-up/

The stakes are almost impossibly high: The Colorado River provides water to 1-in-8 Americans, and irrigates 15 percent of the country’s agricultural products. The nearly 40 million people who depend on it live in cities from Los Angeles to Denver. The river supports native nations and industry across the vast desert Southwest — including 90 percent of U.S.-grown winter vegetables. Simply put: The region could not exist in its current form without it.

Decades of warming temperatures have finally forced a confrontation with an inescapable truth: There’s no longer enough water to go around. This past winter was a preview of what the future will look like: A very low amount of snow fell across the mountains that feed the river, so water levels have plummeted to near-record low levels in vast Lake Mead and Lake Powell — the two mega-reservoirs that are used to regulate water resources during hard times.Since then, the news has only gotten worse.

Water managers project that Lake Powell, which straddles the Arizona-Utah border, is on pace to lose 15 percent of its volume within the next 12 months. Lake Mead, which feeds hydroelectricity turbines at the Hoover Dam and is the region’s most important reservoir, will fare even worse — falling 22 percent in the next two years, below a critical cutoff point to trigger mandatory water rationing.

[Ozy_Flame]

The letter is part of a larger effort from West Coast Environmental Law.

Whistler request for Alberta oilsands company to cover climate change expenses causes outrage

And West Coast Environmental Law gets support from Tides Canada (surprise, surprise).

[station]

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.

That’s quite the strawman you built there. Many serious people are working on potential real-world solutions. Instead of engaging in a serious discussion you seem to be more interested in shouting at the lunatic fringe on the far left.

Originally Posted by Locke

Renewable energy sources are all well and good but they're a complete joke

Are they good or a complete joke?

Enbridge has invested $7.8 billion in renewables, including 19 wind farms.

https://www.enbridge.com/about-us/ou...newable-energy

Suncor is operating 7 wind farms and an ethanol plant.

https://www.suncor.com/sustainability

Are they investing billions in shareholder capital as a joke? Sure, these projects alone can’t even power Calgary let alone the world, but they are at least a step in the right direction. Not everyone is yet cynical enough to believe we shouldn’t even try.

Originally Posted by Locke

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.

I’m with you on this point and I’m sympathetic to Albertans who feel unfairly maligned for simply participating in the local economy, but you are talking about a small minority that thinks this, even in BC. I would suggest that most people protesting Alberta oil are certainly not ‘fine and good’ with Saudi or Russian oil, but they feel powerless to do anything about it.

Originally Posted by Locke

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.

Well what’s the solution then?

[OMG!WTF!]

I would suggest that most people protesting Alberta oil are certainly not ‘fine and good’ with Saudi or Russian oil, but they feel powerless to do anything about it.

God that's idiotic. Powerless over Saudi and Russian oil so let's use more of that and less of ours.

[zamler]

I loath wind farms they are a blight on this planet.

[station]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

God that's idiotic. Powerless over Saudi and Russian oil so let's use more of that and less of ours.

I completely agree that attacking the Canadian supply side in a vacuum has consequences that many people aren’t thinking through.

I’ve pointed out to many folks around here that if they are protesting the pipeline expansion they should also be protesting increased rail traffic. And I’ve pointed out that a reduction in supply without a corresponding reduction in demand just means the oil comes from some other worse place.

Some people just simply haven’t thought of this but, in my experience, calmly explaining it gets through much better than just calling people idiots. And certainly, as I said before, some fringe of the left is unreachable. But holding these people up as an example and using that as an excuse to not engage in serious discussion and solution-making is a shirking of the responsibility to act that we all share.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

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.

Malthusianism is utter crap. For hundreds of years there has always been a school of thought of many predictions of the maximum extent of human population on Earth. It has time and time again been proven completely wrong. The reason why is the Malthusian definition of 'resources' is fixed in one place in time and the expansion of population is extrapolated over time. When that's rationalized that way there's always a 'breaking point' when today's 'fixed' amount of resources is consumed by an ever growing population.

That never happens because what's used as resources, the ability to use and cultivate said resources, and the pace of growth in population changes along with time in ways that can never be simulated.

Definition of resources - back in Roman times there was no use for Uranium, now that is a vital resource to power nuclear reactors. "The stone age didn't end for a lack of stones" New or more efficient resources facilitates more growth.

Cultivation of resources - We've lived through an amazing advancement of technology in the oil and gas industry with fracking. Only 10 years ago we were hearing about peak oil and US$300/bbl prices. That theory's been completely picked apart. We now are able to recover more oil quicker than ever predicted and OPEC is cutting production because it's just way to easy to extract the next barrel of oil.

Changes in Population - As populations get wealthier and more developed, their birth rates plummet. Europe, Japan, Canada & the US all have negative birth rates among their native born populations. Turns out everyone who says they don't want children are actually doing it for selfish reasons (because they would rather have more financial resources to do more things) rather than for altruistic reasons to 'save the world'

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Malthusianism is utter crap. For hundreds of years there has always been a school of thought of many predictions of the maximum extent of human population on Earth. It has time and time again been proven completely wrong. The reason why is the Malthusian definition of 'resources' is fixed in one place in time and the expansion of population is extrapolated over time. When that's rationalized that way there's always a 'breaking point' when today's 'fixed' amount of resources is consumed by an ever growing population.

That never happens because what's used as resources, the ability to use and cultivate said resources, and the pace of growth in population changes along with time.

Definition of resources - back in Roman times there was no use for Uranium, now that is a vital resource to power nuclear reactors that facilitates. "The stone age didn't end for a lack of stones" New or more efficient resources facilitates more growth.

Cultivation of resources - We've lived through an amazing advancement of technology in the oil and gas industry with fracking. Only 10 years ago we were hearing about peak oil and US$300/bbl prices. That theory's been completely picked apart. We now are able to recover more oil quicker than ever predicted and OPEC is cutting production because it's just way to easy to extract the next barrel of oil.

Changes in Population - As populations get wealthier and more developed, their birth rates plummet. Europe, Japan, Canada & the US all have negative birth rates among their native born populations. Turns out everyone who says they don't want children are actually doing it for selfish reasons (because they would rather have more financial resources to do more things) rather than for altruistic reasons to 'save the world'

You've missed the point. It's not that we can't supply enough energy to a growing population, it's that doing so exacerbates climate change to a point where it will likely cause such severe consequences for human life on this planet that health outcomes and quality of life will diminish for all, or there will be a natural reduction in the population as the planet becomes more and more inhospitable. I'm not saying that there's no possibility of developing more resources to combat the problems of climate change, it's just that we shouldn't be assuming it will happen when there are simpler solutions to correct the problem before it gets completely out of hand.

You're using an economic/sociological argument, and I'm using a scientific one. In some ways they overlap, but not in this case. This isn't about resource scarcity, it's about sustainability.

[bizaro86]

I think it's stupid to try and control climate change from the existing energy sources.

There are two things that have the potential to work:

1) make substitute energy sources cheaper. This is happening already with wind, and if solar reaches grid parity everywhere and the storage issue gets solved the issue will basically be resolved.

2) reduce energy/fossil fuel demand. Some of this has/is happening as technology improves (LED lightbulbs) but there is a lot more that could be done.

I actually think the biggest thing the world's governments could do to save the climate is eliminate bitcoin. Of all the stupid ways to use electricity, giant warehouses of computers solving a problem that is artificially designed to be computationally intensive is high on the list.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

You've missed the point. It's not that we can't supply enough energy to a growing population, it's that doing so exacerbates climate change to a point where it will likely cause such severe consequences for human life on this planet that health outcomes and quality of life will diminish for all, or there will be a natural reduction in the population as the planet becomes more and more inhospitable. I'm not saying that there's no possibility of developing more resources to combat the problems of climate change, it's just that we shouldn't be assuming it will happen when there are simpler solutions to correct the problem before it gets completely out of hand.

You're using an economic/sociological argument, and I'm using a scientific one. In some ways they overlap, but not in this case. This isn't about resource scarcity, it's about sustainability.

Maybe you've missed the point, where we might be able to supply enough energy or generate enough efficiencies in our use of it to fuel a growing population without damning the Earth. No one in history who made dire overpopulation predictions could point to what specific future advancements would render their predictions of impending doom useless either.

Offing 1.7 billion people and/or setting fire to the global economic system to incentivize depopulation to get to your magic # of 6 billion are not 'simpler solutions', you're just bringing the famine and the pain forward to today rather than later and that's precisely why when push comes to shove these solutions are not feasible because the population in the here and now will not accept it.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Maybe you've missed the point, where we might be able to supply enough energy or generate enough efficiencies in our use of it to fuel a growing population without damning the Earth. No one in history who made dire overpopulation predictions could point to what specific future advancements would render their predictions of impending doom useless either.

Offing 1.7 billion people and/or setting fire to the global economic system to incentivize depopulation to get to your magic # of 6 billion are not 'simpler solutions', you're just bringing the famine and the pain forward to today rather than later.

Of fossil fuels? There's no scenario where efficient use helps because it's the carbon emissions themselves that are the problem. Significant reductions in emissions are necessary, not being more efficient. There's no future scenario where fossil fuels being the main source of energy works out for us. Change needs to happen, and many countries (China for one) are moving their economy towards renewable energy because it's the smart play economically, not for some altruistic reason. It's going to be profitable, and it will continue to be more and more costly to pull fossil fuels out of the Earth because the deposits left are harder to get to. Over the coming decades you are going to see shift in the economy towards renewables...mostly because it will become profitable to do so. In that case, any jobs lost in fossil fuels will be replaced in the growing renewable energy economy.

Nobody is saying to "off" 1.7 billion, but rather to educate the regions where populations are booming in order to hopefully stagnate population growth, and maybe even start reducing it. The solutions are much more simple than you might imagine. One of the key ones is to educate the population, especially women, past a high school level. As you said, more educated and affluent regions are in negative population growth because they are conserving resources by having fewer offspring. That would be the idea for the developing world as well.

The idea behind population control isn't some nefarious plan to make people suffer, but rather to create a culture where having 4 or 5 children isn't the norm. That takes generations to change, so again, there's no short term solution that's extremely effective.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Of fossil fuels? There's no scenario where efficient use helps because it's the carbon emissions themselves that are the problem. Significant reductions in emissions are necessary, not being more efficient. There's no future scenario where fossil fuels being the main source of energy works out for us. Change needs to happen, and many countries (China for one) are moving their economy towards renewable energy because it's the smart play economically, not for some altruistic reason. It's going to be profitable, and it will continue to be more and more costly to pull fossil fuels out of the Earth because the deposits left are harder to get to. Over the coming decades you are going to see shift in the economy towards renewables...mostly because it will become profitable to do so. In that case, any jobs lost in fossil fuels will be replaced in the growing renewable energy economy.

Nobody is saying to "off" 1.7 billion, but rather to educate the regions where populations are booming in order to hopefully stagnate population growth, and maybe even start reducing it. The solutions are much more simple than you might imagine. One of the key ones is to educate the population, especially women, past a high school level. As you said, more educated and affluent regions are in negative population growth because they are conserving resources by having fewer offspring. That would be the idea for the developing world as well.

The idea behind population control isn't some nefarious plan to make people suffer, but rather to create a culture where having 4 or 5 children isn't the norm. That takes generations to change, so again, there's no short term solution that's extremely effective.

No, not fossil fuels, energy in general.

If it's going to be profitable without government intervention or subsidy (which means it's not profitable at all), then why are we arguing anything? Demand for oil and gas will fall off a cliff and problem solved!

Also FYI, China is not the beacon of hope you present them to be. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...limate-change/

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Of fossil fuels? There's no scenario where efficient use helps because it's the carbon emissions themselves that are the problem. Significant reductions in emissions are necessary, not being more efficient.

More efficient means less consumption and lower emissions do I really need to point this out? Coal powered power plants running at 20% efficiency replaced by plants running at 50% will obviously result in a significant reduction in emissions.

There's no future scenario where fossil fuels being the main source of energy works out for us. Change needs to happen, and many countries (China for one) are moving their economy towards renewable energy because it's the smart play economically, not for some altruistic reason. It's going to be profitable, and it will continue to be more and more costly to pull fossil fuels out of the Earth because the deposits left are harder to get to. Over the coming decades you are going to see shift in the economy towards renewables...mostly because it will become profitable to do so. In that case, any jobs lost in fossil fuels will be replaced in the growing renewable energy economy.

I agree with this but to get there we have to use oil. China fully recognizes this their government has basically stated they are going to pollute and use huge amounts of energy to achieve sustainability. And also lead in producing said technology. Canada is squandering the same opportunity.

As for population yes we need families to stop have 5 kids or more.

[OMG!WTF!]

CIBC has cancelled the Oil and Gas portion of their investment conference in Whistler next month...


https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-change-letter


I'm really glad. That will cost them a couple hundred grand for sure. But it will also save them several hundred tons of co2. So kind of a win. Might even be a learning experience....

“At Canadian Natural, we have invested $3.1 billion since 2009 in (research and development) and technologies to continuously improve our environmental performance and deliver results,” McKay said.
Those improvements include scaling back corporate greenhouse gas “emissions intensity” by 18 per cent since 2013 and a reduction of 17.9 million tonnes of CO2, “the equivalent of taking 3.8 million cars off the road,” over the last five years, he said.

[red sky]

I was out with some folks from CIBC today and they are not pleased. This will be the last time they host their Whistler conference. Back to Alberta.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

CIBC has cancelled the Oil and Gas portion of their investment conference in Whistler next month...

Why just the portion? Pull it all and have it in Calgary.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by red sky

I was out with some folks from CIBC today and they are not pleased. This will be the last time they host their Whistler conference. Back to Alberta.

I find it encouraging that a Toronto based bank is the one making the move here. Yes I get thier clients are O&G but up to this point this type of action would have been out of the question. The take the high road, everyone has an opinion no matter how uneducated, seems to have its limits.

To see CIBC make this first move over a single Calgary based firm is telling. The Suzuki and Tides show I hope will start to lose the conversation. We need to take our country back.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Why just the portion? Pull it all and have it in Calgary.

I would assume they have or would have to pay in full at this late date. I wouldn't expect them to scrap it all but would hope the never rebook.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

CIBC has cancelled the Oil and Gas portion of their investment conference in Whistler next month...


https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...-change-letter


I'm really glad. That will cost them a couple hundred grand for sure. But it will also save them several hundred tons of co2. So kind of a win. Might even be a learning experience....

More companies have followed the lead of CIBC.

Earlier in the day, other companies confirmed they would not be travelling to Whistler for the conference.

Cenovus Energy said in a statement that it would not be attending because "we need to take a stand against these non-stop unfounded attacks on our industry that fail to acknowledge the huge focus the oil and gas industry places on reducing emissions."

A spokesperson for Gibson Energy told CBC News the company "has elected to withdraw from the Whistler conference in 2019 in a show of solidarity with our industry and our customers."

Cam Proctor, chief operating officer of PrairieSky Royalty, said Friday his firm would not take part as well.
"We think that there's a great deal of misinformation out there about the energy business in Canada," Proctor said.

"There's not a lot we can do just from our own company's perspective to try to educate Canadians, but one thing we can do is basically vote with our feet, so we've decided not to go to Whistler this year."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-oil-1.4946354