Climate change and human responsibility

[MoneyGuy]

Man, that’s depressing.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by zamler

Scientists discover China has been secretly emitting banned ozone-depleting gas

I'll take "Things that should surprise no one" for $200, Alex.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah I was just going to post this. Until China takes environmental issues and protection seriously, or until there's a mechanism in place to punish China for stuff like this and cooking their emissions book, I don't know if there is a solution.

Albertans: We can't/aren't going to do anything about climate until China cleans up its act! They are the worst!

Also Albertans: Let's build an oil pipeline to tidewater so China can buy tremendous amounts of our bitumen to burn!


In light of our carbon tax repeal and the wildfires up north, I couldn't resist my own hyperbole

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Albertans: We can't/aren't going to do anything about climate until China cleans up its act! They are the worst!

Also Albertans: Let's build an oil pipeline to tidewater so China can buy tremendous amounts of our bitumen to burn!


In light of our carbon tax repeal and the wildfires up north, I couldn't resist my own hyperbole

If China is going to buy bitumen anyway, it may as well come from us.

[CaptainCrunch]

Would you rather that China buys their oil products whole heartedly from Saudi Arabia with little to no environmental give a crap, or other dirty oil fields where there's no care in the world about it?


Or would you rather that Canada which is at least playing a give a $$$$ when it comes to reducing environmental harm gains bigger market share.

[Ozy_Flame]

There is no guarantee that buying more from Canada means buying less from Saudi Arabia.

China is a huge emitter. While I see the immediate economic benefit for Canadians, I don't see how providing China with more sources of bitumen to burn reduces their CO2 and pollution output.

IMO this is no different of a scenario than us selling Saudi Arabia Canadian-made weapons to use against their enemies, and we make that argument because it's better than buying North Korean weapons.

What's the net end benefit?

[Ashasx]

because selling petroleum products is the equivalent of selling weapons

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

There is no guarantee that buying more from Canada means buying less from Saudi Arabia.

China is a huge emitter. While I see the immediate economic benefit for Canadians, I don't see how providing China with more sources of bitumen to burn reduces their CO2 and pollution output.

IMO this is no different of a scenario than us selling Saudi Arabia Canadian-made weapons to use against their enemies, and we make that argument because it's better than buying North Korean weapons.

What's the net end benefit?

Ignoring the ridiculous weapon comparison.. Jobs, money, economy, tax revenue etc etc

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Ignoring the ridiculous weapon comparison.. Jobs, money, economy, tax revenue etc etc

Pollution and climate change can - and will continue - to take lives.

Should we enable China to keep burning fossil fuels? Because that is where the comparison draws similarities: enabling offenders.

If you don't like the comparison, then let's see a rebuttal, my smart and motivated friend.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Pollution and climate change can - and will continue - to take lives.

Should we enable China to keep burning fossil fuels? Because that is where the comparison draws similarities: enabling offenders.

As long as they are still buying from somewhere absolutely.

Now, if Canada didn't supply China and no one else could then this would be a different discussion.

[stone hands]

those crackheads are gonna buy it from someone anyways, as any good drug dealer knows

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Weitz

As long as they are still buying from somewhere absolutely.

Now, if Canada didn't supply China and no one else could then this would be a different discussion.

So if everyone else is egging China on to beat up mother Earth, it's OK to join in because group think?

I guess if you're getting paid in that sweet sweet bitumen money, then it's not so much beating up as it is pleasantly massaging.

On the whole, this seems like a really dumb argument for rationalizing action (or lack thereof) against climate change.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

So if everyone else is egging China on to beat up mother Earth, it's OK to join in because group think?

I guess if you're getting paid in that sweet sweet bitumen money, then it's not so much beating up as it is pleasantly massaging.

On the whole, this seems like a really dumb argument for rationalizing action (or lack thereof) against climate change.

Not really. It’s currently the way most of the planet operates... everyone agrees it needs to change. So make some sweet bank selling our supply, while investing in Nuclear/other sustainable earth friendly energy sources. Diversify the province, but use our pits of black gold to get it started.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

So if everyone else is egging China on to beat up mother Earth, it's OK to join in because group think?

I guess if you're getting paid in that sweet sweet bitumen money, then it's not so much beating up as it is pleasantly massaging.

On the whole, this seems like a really dumb argument for rationalizing action (or lack thereof) against climate change.

But if your goal is to actually make a difference regarding climate change, refusing to sell them bitumen makes no difference.

We can say that Canada is taking a stance against climate change by refusing to sell to China while China continues to buy from other markets that have zero regard for the environment. The net result, at best, is emissions do not change.

But Canada can be happy that we don't directly contribute to these emissions, I suppose. Even if the planet is no better for it.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

But if your goal is to actually make a difference regarding climate change, refusing to sell them bitumen makes no difference.

We can say that Canada is taking a stance against climate change by refusing to sell to China while China continues to buy from other markets that have zero regard for the environment. The net result, at best, is emissions do not change.

But Canada can be happy that we don't directly contribute to these emissions, I suppose. Even if the planet is no better for it.

Again, this argument is akin to enabling offenders. Let's use a drug analogy.

If China wants to buy hard drugs and smoke them (in the same room as the rest of us, no less), we should be the ones supplying them because otherwise they'll just get it from Saudi Arabia? Even though we all suffer by their continued drug usage?

See this is where I can't agree with supplying them. I'm also not as easily convinced with the "benefit the producer" argument, in which revenue from that drug usage goes into our own pockets because we make it "ethically".

Idealist, I am.

[Ashasx]

But it doesn't actually make a difference. You may be an idealist, but I call it a fantasy. Nobody cares who Canada refuses to sell to.

If you rationally understand that it will have no global impact on carbon emissions, self sacrifice doesn't make a difference.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

We sell them coal. Their energy needs aren't going away. Just like ours aren't. Selling them oil/natural gas is better than coal. No matter the volume of outcry, it's going to be quite a few decades before we sufficiently replace fossil fuel derived energy with others (solar/wind/nuclear/etc). Baby steps is better than no steps.

I should add, at this point, if the world flat-lined on oil consumption today, that would be a huge accomplishment. If we reduced oil consumption by 20% today, that would be an amazing accomplishment. But, we'd still be burning around 80,000,000 barrels a day.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

But it doesn't actually make a difference. You may be an idealist, but I call it a fantasy. Nobody cares who Canada refuses to sell to.

If you rationally understand that it will have no global impact on carbon emissions, self sacrifice doesn't make a difference.

The way I see it, the more the world cuts off those supply chains, the more pressure there is on the ones that remain.

If a drug user has multiple suppliers, what do you think is more likely to happen - the user proactively stops on their own? Or the user is forced to respond to supply getting cut off?

This is an economic sanction that draws similarities to other economic sanctions used around the world to apply political pressure.

I'm not saying we stop burning carbon in our own country (that's near impossible for a while yet). I'm saying we stop accelerating and enabling others burn it. I don't think the extra money in our provincial pocket is worth it at the state we are at currently with climate change and the accelerating nature of its' effect.

[stone hands]

they dont care if we stop shipping it to them, they will literally just buy it from the next person(saudi) who has almost double the amount of oil we do, who actively uses slave labour and funds terrorism

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by stone hands

they dont care if we stop shipping it to them, they will literally just buy it from the next person(saudi) who has almost double the amount of oil we do, who actively uses slave labour and funds terrorism

Do you really think China would stop buying from Saudi Arabia anyways because another dealer has less ####ty of a record?

I doubt Xi Jinping and the Communist Party is going to have a moral renaissance moment. Pretty sure it comes down to price of the product and not the ethics behind it.