Climate change and human responsibility

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Your point is clouded. Your point was that kids shouldn't be speaking out. They are allowed to speak out on whatever they choose.

Whether you believe they are experts in their own domain is another story, and you seem strong-willed on not believing young people because they haven't gone through life scenarios yet that adults have. And presumably you are referring to the larger pool of responsibilities side and the economics associated with that.

You are assuming they can't make coherent or informed points without walking a mile in adult's shoes. I just flat out disagree.

One can get educated/knowledgeable about a certain subject, no matter what age they are at. There are plenty of under-18 SME's on a variety of topics - motivated, learned, and have the aptitude to specialize in their domains.

One more thing - you'd be surprised just how many kids in this world actually have to work / perform labor to support their families. Don't just think about this from a Western context.

As I said earlier, they have the right to free speech.

I don't think even you would call them experts in any domain.

Sadly, because the media is playing them up we tend to focus on their whining. And when someone like Bill Gates says we should develop nuclear technology everyone rolls their eyes and says NIMBY.

That to me is the crux of the problem.

[Ozy_Flame]

To each their own. It would be dangerous to dismiss "kids" though even if it was a message that many, many, many, adults also agree is an issue.

[jayswin]

He didn't say dismiss he said criticize. It is of the upmost importance to criticize every position taken on political issues. And this is a political issue unless any single country is okay submarining themselves and their citizens into despair in honour of the environment.

It's unfortunate, but it's reality.

[jayswin]

It really is a crappy situation. We're at situation critical in terms of climate change but we also need two things

1. An alternative that is real and ready to start replacing oil at a cost effective and sustainable level, and

2. Something that keeps countries afloat economically so they don't fall off a cliff and devolve into mass unemployment and economic ruin.

World speakers on climate change acting like these things don't exist or boldly stating that they can't matter because we have to change are just ignoring reality. And I highly, highly doubt they'd be comfortable living in the aftermath of any country that has either a lack of sustainable energy or an economic collapse because "we just have to stop right now!!!".

[Azure]

There is also NO evidence at all to say that increasing our oil infrastructure would in anyway be tied into increased global warming, natural disasters, pollution or a slew of other environmental issues. None.

There is also no evidence to suggest that Canada can do anything internally as a country to stop what is happening.

In fact, I would say Canada, and the way we produce oil and handle our environmental issues is part of the solution. Why? Because I think the solution to carbon emissions from fossil fuels is not to stop using them, but to use them cleaner. And as I have pointed out in this thread and as many companies have proven, it IS possible to run a natural gas plant without any emissions, and it is possible to highly reduce emissions from oil production.

The kicker in all that is that Canada & the US are the only countries where this is possible. So what we SHOULD be doing is figuring all that out and then exporting that technology so it can be used on a global scale.

Instead, by trying to shut down our oil economy or thinking we can make a difference by doing so we are literally crippling any chance of figuring any of that out. Most of the world is going to continue using coal and other dirty fossil fuels. North America is literally the only hope we have in getting rid of coal and helping companies produce cleaner.

Literally the only hope.

And yet we are hellbent on stopping even that potential.

Also, because I believe all that, I think the anti-fossil fuel industry in North America are increasing the risk of global warming. THEY are part of the problem. Not the solution. Every idiot protesting the Transcanada Pipeline is speeding up climate change. They are not making a positive difference at all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jayswin

It really is a crappy situation. We're at situation critical in terms of climate change but we also need two things

1. An alternative that is real and ready to start replacing oil at a cost effective and sustainable level, and

2. Something that keeps countries afloat economically so they don't fall off a cliff and devolve into mass unemployment and economic ruin.

World speakers on climate change acting like these things don't exist or boldly stating that they can't matter because we have to change are just ignoring reality. And I highly, highly doubt they'd be comfortable living in the aftermath of any country that has either a lack of sustainable energy or an economic collapse because "we just have to stop right now!!!".

World speakers on climate change fly around in their private jets and generally have a bigger carbon footprint than most other people.

They are EXACTLY the people we should NOT listen too.

IMO.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by jayswin

He didn't say dismiss he said criticize. It is of the upmost importance to criticize every position taken on political issues. And this is a political issue unless any single country is okay submarining themselves and their citizens into despair in honour of the environment.

It's unfortunate, but it's reality.

Azure did not once use the word 'criticize' in the last four pages. His point is very dismissive of people without enough "life" experience, and is lamenting the media focus on someone who is whining.

Some of you are focusing too much on the spokesperson, the rally point, the galvanizer. While Thunberg may not be the scientist you are chiding her for (not to mention her speech delivery style that makes people uncomfortable), I am sure it is not hard to see that she represents a perspective on climate change that is not dismissive and should be addressed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Azure did not once use the word 'criticize' in the last four pages. His point is very dismissive of people without enough "life" experience, and is lamenting the media focus on someone who is whining.

Some of you are focusing too much on the spokesperson, the rally point, the galvanizer. While Thunberg may not be the scientist you are chiding her for (not to mention her speech delivery style that makes people uncomfortable), I am sure it is not hard to see that she represents a perspective on climate change that is not dismissive and should be addressed.

I would say I am very critical of her perspective. Is that not criticizing her? You can call it dismissive if you want, but I have said she has the right to say what she wants.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Azure did not once use the word 'criticize' in the last four pages. His point is very dismissive of people without enough "life" experience, and is lamenting the media focus on someone who is whining.

Some of you are focusing too much on the spokesperson, the rally point, the galvanizer. While Thunberg may not be the scientist you are chiding her for (not to mention her speech delivery style that makes people uncomfortable), I am sure it is not hard to see that she represents a perspective on climate change that is not dismissive and should be addressed.

What perspective is that? How should it be addressed? Are you suggesting that people are not fighting climate change now? Is over the top hysteria and thrashing around in vain and ultimately ineffective and damaging policies going to make the situation better?

Azure gave a bunch of good examples but here’s another one. As it stands right now the TMX stands to displace 600,000 barrels of heavy oil from other countries produced above the carbon intensity of an Alberta’s barrel. If completed indigenous groups will own an equity stake. The profts to oil companies allow them to target getting to net zero emissions and the profits to government are funding green technologies which need capital more than anything else. If we don’t capture this market share that money doing environmental good will instead be funding god knows what in Iran and Venezuela. I challenge you to argue that building the pipeline is less environmental than not, right away it’s a clear win and that’s before considering economic or geopolitical advantages. This arrangement is the most perfect implementation of policy I’ve ever seen in my life, it’s a win win win. So what’s the reaction of the group you say we should look to, to respect their views as the pure voice of children? The group Youth climate strikers was blocked by Catharine McKennas twitter today for telling her to STFU and blasting her for buying a pipeline. I’m sure we’ll probably hear Greta come out against the pipeline tomorrow in Montreal. They don’t see the whole issue, they don’t see the macro view, they think pipeline = bad, oil companies = bad. Simplistic, morally unambiguous, and ultimately damaging and counter productive. Childish.

[Ozy_Flame]

I honestly don't care about pipelines getting built. If it makes sense do it, if it doesn't then don't. It contributes may 1% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, so there is much improvement to be made in many other areas.

Thunberg can lambast Canadian pipelines all day long. She'll have her supporters and she'll have her detractors, just like every other anti and pro-pipeline person out there with a microphone. They will still get built because there is a market for it. I don't care if she's mad at Canada for it. Big whoop.

One thing you may notice is that she intentionally avoids recommending specific policies. She even said " “I can’t really speak up about things like [politics] .... no one would take me seriously.” She defers quite often for politicians to instead listen to scientists with data to support. In recent cases, she has deferred to the huge report released by the IPCC. She did this in lieu of testifying to the U.S. House.

[Azure]

If you follow the history of the oil industry and how the technology has been developed it becomes pretty clear that first of all oil / gas isn't going anywhere, and also because it isn't going anywhere the only hope of producing it and using it in a cleaner way is North America.

We are the ONLY place on earth that has the potential to reduce the emissions on an impactful scale. And the only way to do that is to INCREASE funding, increase production and simply create a mandate to meet emissions targets. Because we have the brightest minds in the industry, we can meet those targets and export our technology.

And at the end of the day that is the only hope we have. Exporting our technology to cut back on emissions, pollution and environmental damage around the world.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

We are the ONLY place on earth that has the potential to reduce the emissions on an impactful scale.

Can you explain this in more depth? On one hand we have this statement, but on the other there are people in this thread that don't see how Canada should practically bother with carbon emissions reduction because there are larger countries that pollute far worse than we do.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Can you explain this in more depth? On one hand we have this statement, but on the other there are people in this thread that don't see how Canada should practically bother with carbon emissions reduction because there are larger countries that pollute far worse than we do.

I don't want to speak for Azure, but my thought -

A dollar spent on Canadian oil has a greater chance of being used to fund developments like lower emission production, or clean tech R&D (i.e. carbon capture) or having tax revenue directed towards green initiatives than a dollar spent on, say, Saudi or Venezuelan oil.

[transplant99]

Opinion piece in the G&M...pretty level headed at that, as the hysteria is getting in the way of real discussion.

We don’t emit CO2 with malign intent. Indeed, it is a byproduct of giving humanity access to unprecedented amounts of energy.

Just a century ago, life was back-breaking. Plentiful energy made better lives possible, without having to spend hours collecting firewood, polluting your household with smoke, achieving heat, cold, transportation, light, food and opportunities. Life expectancy doubled. Plentiful energy, mostly from fossil fuels, has lifted more than a billion people out of poverty in just the past 25 years.

That is not evil – it is quite the opposite.

Ms. Thunberg believes that climate change means people are dying, but the fact is that weather-related disasters just a century ago killed half a million people each year. Today, despite rising temperatures but because of less poverty and more resilience, droughts, floods, hurricanes and extreme temperatures kill just 20,000 people each year – a reduction of 95 per cent. That is a morally commendable achievement.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...y-is-not-evil/

[TheIronMaiden]

A remarkable turnout in St. Johns.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1177586780331220992

[TheIronMaiden]

and in Halifax

https://twitter.com/user/status/1177596306728128513

[Ozy_Flame]

I think there were a number of cities today around Canada and the world doing the Climate Strike. Many major European cities, as well as in Asia, Africa and the South Pacific. I believe there is one in Edmonton tonight too (not sure about Calgary).

I was in Italy this summer where it was reaching almost 40 degrees during their heatwave in early July. I believe they had to go through that multiple times this summer (France got to 46 at one point). Couldn't imagine marching around those urban jungles if it was that hot for more than 5 minutes. Thankfully we aren't getting that level of heat!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Can you explain this in more depth? On one hand we have this statement, but on the other there are people in this thread that don't see how Canada should practically bother with carbon emissions reduction because there are larger countries that pollute far worse than we do.

Originally Posted by you&me

I don't want to speak for Azure, but my thought -

A dollar spent on Canadian oil has a greater chance of being used to fund developments like lower emission production, or clean tech R&D (i.e. carbon capture) or having tax revenue directed towards green initiatives than a dollar spent on, say, Saudi or Venezuelan oil.

Good answer and exactly my point.

Canada & the US are also at the cutting edge of carbon capture, and are the ONLY hope of that technology being developed. China, Russia, India, these countries don't really care. China especially is spending a lot of money on renewables, but they are also building a lot of coal plants.

In the US & Canada, coal is being phased out despite what Trump is saying. And that is happening because we have abundant natural gas, the technology to burn it cleaner and great infrastructure to move it.

Everyday that a single pipeline in North America is delayed is another day that 'dirty oil' is gaining more market share, and another day we are losing in the time battle of reducing our emissions.

That is what I mean with limited perspective. The anti pipeline idiots think they are 'helping' the cause by not letting Canada build pipelines, but their perspective is extremely limited. And because of that they truly ARE the reason we can't accomplish anything, and are MORE at fault than any North American based oil & gas company.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I think there were a number of cities today around Canada and the world doing the Climate Strike. Many major European cities, as well as in Asia, Africa and the South Pacific. I believe there is one in Edmonton tonight too (not sure about Calgary).

I was in Italy this summer where it was reaching almost 40 degrees during their heatwave in early July. I believe they had to go through that multiple times this summer (France got to 46 at one point). Couldn't imagine marching around those urban jungles if it was that hot for more than 5 minutes. Thankfully we aren't getting that level of heat!

I think that Edmonton and Calgary are doing it at 1PM

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I think that Edmonton and Calgary are doing it at 1PM

1PM? That would be interesting. My son's school sent out an email saying that they could walk out of class if they wanted, but would be marked absent. Friday's are half-days though, so, that might be pretty awkward if it's planned for after school.