Climate change and human responsibility

[jammies]

If I murder someone, it's a negligible increase to the hundreds of thousands of people murdered worldwide every year, so I don't know why anyone should care.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by jammies

If I murder someone, it's a negligible increase to the hundreds of thousands of people murdered worldwide every year, so I don't know why anyone should care.

Exactly.

I also outsource the manufacturing of weapons to China so I can buy mine cheap to do the deed. If China's making these en masse for guys like me, it's not my problem if their own murder rate is so high.

[Street Pharmacist]

Also, if we're going to use borders to assign responsibility:

Per capita emissions in Alberta: 58.02 metric tons per year
Per capita emissions in China: 7.6 metric tons per year


But I guess if there's less people in Alberta nothing needs to be done

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Also, if we're going to use borders to assign responsibility:

Per capita emissions in Alberta: 58.02 metric tons per year
Per capita emissions in China: 7.6 metric tons per year


But I guess if there's less people in Alberta nothing needs to be done

I'm not a big fan of piling on Canadians for things out of our control. Given the size of our country, the population density, and geography, there's a lot working against us and the best we can really hope for is incremental improvements because winters simply aren't going to go away. The reality is that we will always be amongst the worst emitters per capita. Always. I'm not saying we should throw our hands up and say we shouldn't strive for improvement because our emissions are insignificant in the big picture because we should be striving to improve things. That's just the reality of living in a large, sparsely populated country that's also one of the coldest on the planet.

[Fuzz]

We also export a lot of resources that get consumed elsewhere, but those extraction emissions get assigned to us.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Also, if we're going to use borders to assign responsibility:

Per capita emissions in Alberta: 58.02 metric tons per year
Per capita emissions in China: 7.6 metric tons per year


But I guess if there's less people in Alberta nothing needs to be done

Per capita emissions are a smoke and mirrors guilt tactic when the goal is reducing GLOBAL emissions. The only thing that matters is how much emissions each entire country puts out, and Canada is directly responsible for 1.5%, basically nothing. Yes Canadians live in a cold country, yes Canadians have big industries for the size of our population. The per capita argument doesn't mean that each individual Canadian pollutes more, it means we have big industries compared to the number of people, we punch well above our weight economically compared to other countries. If Canada completely disappeared the world wouldn't even notice emissions wise.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by StickMan

Per capita emissions are a smoke and mirrors guilt tactic when the goal is reducing GLOBAL emissions. The only thing that matters is how much emissions each entire country puts out, and Canada is directly responsible for 1.5%, basically nothing. Yes Canadians live in a cold country, yes Canadians have big industries for the size of our population. The per capita argument doesn't mean that each individual Canadian pollutes more, it means we have big industries compared to the number of people, we punch well above our weight economically compared to other countries. If Canada completely disappeared the world wouldn't even notice emissions wise.

This is silly. No one needs anyone to feel guilty. Do you feel guilty when you make any change? It's not about guilt. Reality is still reality. We all have emissions we're responsible for, and should therefore do something. I don't have a vote in China so I can't affect those emissions. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about ours.

If I didn't pay taxes it wouldn't change the government's balance sheet.

If I don't vote, the outcome doesn't change

Etc.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I don't have a vote in China so I can't affect those emissions. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about ours.

If I didn't pay taxes it wouldn't change the government's balance sheet.

If I don't vote, the outcome doesn't change

Etc.

You do have a vote in a neighbouring province that has abundant hydropower. Instead of guilt shaming your neighbours, perhaps use that energy to lobby your government to send some of that environmentally perfect electricity this way. . .

/s

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

This is silly. No one needs anyone to feel guilty. Do you feel guilty when you make any change? It's not about guilt. Reality is still reality. We all have emissions we're responsible for, and should therefore do something. I don't have a vote in China so I can't affect those emissions. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about ours.

If I didn't pay taxes it wouldn't change the government's balance sheet.

If I don't vote, the outcome doesn't change

Etc.

I think the dissonance comes from the way the argument is framed by climate change activists. The idea that if we reduce our carbon footprint, we can avoid this futuristic scenario of the oceans boiling and everybody getting cooked.

When you look at the graph above for example, and with some knowledge of the per capita energy usage of people in those high population countries, it looks fairly obvious that the ocean boiling future will not be avoided. So why bother turning your heat down and being uncomfortable when the inevitable approaches at the same rate either way?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

I think the dissonance comes from the way the argument is framed by climate change activists. The idea that if we reduce our carbon footprint, we can avoid this futuristic scenario of the oceans boiling and everybody getting cooked.



When you look at the graph above for example, and with some knowledge of the per capita energy usage of people in those high population countries, it looks fairly obvious that the ocean boiling future will not be avoided. So why bother turning your heat down and being uncomfortable when the inevitable approaches at the same rate either way?

I don't buy any of this.

It wasn't "climate change activists" that coined the term "carbon footprint". It also wasn't these "activists" that framed the issue this way. It was a PR firm hired by BP in the 70's and has been used ever since to avoid having a serious policy discussion on demand reduction.

https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-...-campaign-sham

The purpose was framing the issue "climate change is an individual's problem to solve, not a society problem needing policy change". Climate change will not and can't be solved by individual decisions. I can turn my own thermostat down all I want but that's not going to change anything. Coca Cola did the same with "reduce, reuse, and recycle" to avoid having to do anything about littering the world with bottles. They did not want a recycling program funded with a "tax" on the containers because that would hurt sales.




Also, there's real movement happening. Tons of reasons for optimism. Lots. If anyone wants I can fill some pretty long posts with some very good changes happening. This "well it's too hard, whatever" response, or "what about China" is so lazy and unhelpful. We need more people pulling in the same direction without accusations of trying to make someone feel guilty or being pessimistic without even looking into the issues they're pessimistic about.

[puckedoff]

I think in some ways we agree, this paragraph is from the article you linked:

The evidence, unfortunately, comes in the form of the worst pandemic to hit humanity in a century. We were confined. We were quarantined, and in many places still are. Forced by an insidious parasite, many of us dramatically slashed our individual carbon footprints by not driving to work and flying on planes. Yet, critically, the true number global warming cares about — the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide saturating the atmosphere — won’t be impacted much by an unprecedented drop in carbon emissions in 2020 (a drop the International Energy Agency estimates at nearly eight percent compared to 2019). This means bounties of carbon from civilization’s cars, power plants, and industries will still be added (like a bank deposit) to a swelling atmospheric bank account of carbon dioxide. But 2020’s deposit will just be slightly less than last year’s. In fact, the levels of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere peaked at an all-time high in May— because we’re still making big carbon deposits.

The fact is even in a covid type shut down, the Earth gets cooked. It doesn't matter how many electric cars are on the road or solar panels people put on their roofs, the earth is going to get hotter and hotter.

[Azure]

I mean as a country our emissions are meaningless.

And then people say 'oh per capita we are bad.'

So 'per capita', what difference will one person make? What difference will half the country make if they reduce their own emissions 50%?

Its a meaningless number.

Instead of bickering around on stupidity like that, we should be focusing on large scale projects and technology to reduce emissions, and export that technology to the entire world.

Such as LNG production at lower emissions than anyone else.
And if the government would regulate the flaring, we would do that better than everyone as well.

You can go on and on and on. Canada has the capability to develop technology to reduce emissions on a massive scale, but instead we bicker around with stupidity such as interprovincial trade restrictions. Selling power to the US instead of to provincial neighbors. Not allowing pipelines to be built resulting in provinces importing dirtier, high emissions oil. Etc, etc.

As Brian Cox said in his own favorite succession line, "I love you, but you aren't serious people." Explains Canadians perfectly. For the most part great people, and great to hang out watch a game and have some beers with. But not serious about our role in the world.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Azure

I mean as a country our emissions are meaningless.

And then people say 'oh per capita we are bad.'

So 'per capita', what difference will one person make? What difference will half the country make if they reduce their own emissions 50%?

Its a meaningless number.

Instead of bickering around on stupidity like that, we should be focusing on large scale projects and technology to reduce emissions, and export that technology to the entire world.

Such as LNG production at lower emissions than anyone else.
And if the government would regulate the flaring, we would do that better than everyone as well.

You can go on and on and on. Canada has the capability to develop technology to reduce emissions on a massive scale, but instead we bicker around with stupidity such as interprovincial trade restrictions. Selling power to the US instead of to provincial neighbors. Not allowing pipelines to be built resulting in provinces importing dirtier, high emissions oil. Etc, etc.

As Brian Cox said in his own favorite succession line, "I love you, but you aren't serious people." Explains Canadians perfectly. For the most part great people, and great to hang out watch a game and have some beers with. But not serious about our role in the world.

But our emissions are not meaningless, this is the point that is missed by everyone. Climate Mitigation isn't a specific goal or line we have to stop before, it is a cumulative project where millions of small efforts need to sum up to something larger, and even if some of the changes are small to small to have a real impact the very step of making the change enables a structure that others can follow. We don't need some magical project that is going to stop 25% of global emissions, we need to find 50% of emitters who can participate in a 50% cut.

[Barnes]

Looking at emissions for a single year and deciding what's meaningful and what is not is a pretty stupid way at looking at emissions. All it tells you is who emitted the most that year.

CO2 and effects on our climate are cumulative. All the CO2 and GHG emitted since the industrial revolution add up to where we are today. In terms of CO2 emitted since 1850, Canada ranks 10th of all the countries in the world.

Our scope 3 emissions and per capita numbers are also high.

Our emissions matter. We've historically punched way above our weight in our contributions to GHG emissions.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Azure

I mean as a country our emissions are meaningless.

Let's say... some guy who drives a hummer and flies around in his private jet all the time says that his personal emissions are a negligible percent of overall world emissions.

Technically, he would be right.

Multiply that type of thinking by the number of people in the world... the result is no one does anything and the problem never gets solved because everyone is hyper-fixated with their individualist ways of thinking.

Everyone must do what they can. That's how the problem gets solved. It really is as simple as that.

And then people say 'oh per capita we are bad.'

So 'per capita', what difference will one person make? What difference will half the country make if they reduce their own emissions 50%?

Its a meaningless number.

It's the furthest thing from meaningless. It's estimated that the world's richest 10% of people are responsible for half of all emissions, and the world's poorest 50% of people are responsible for just 8%. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/20/rich...t-report-.html

Instead of bickering around on stupidity like that, we should be focusing on large scale projects and technology to reduce emissions, and export that technology to the entire world.

You had me on board. But then...

Such as LNG production

If you spend all your time talking about exporting natural gas and none of your time talking about renewables, you come across as a fossil fuel shill. Just sayin.

[Azure]

Fossil fuel shill. lol.

Are you one of those people gluing themselves to the paintings in the fancy museum because oil production makes you cry in your sleep?

[Mathgod]

Nope. Just pointing out your tendencies.

All you do on this board is rant on and on about how LNG is some kind of panacea to climate change and it would magically solve everything if we shipped it out to the world.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Azure

one of those people

That, my friends, is the problem.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Nope. Just pointing out your tendencies.

All you do on this board is rant on and on about how LNG is some kind of panacea to climate change and it would magically solve everything if we shipped it out to the world.

And all you do is stick your head in the sand in the hope that everyone will believe you when you say fossil fuels have to go.

Hint - fossil fuels will still be around 100 years from now. Likely thriving.

What do you think it takes to make those fancy solar panels you think will save the world? Farts and unicorns?

[Julio]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...t-newtab-en-us