Climate change and human responsibility

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I'm starting a thread and poll at the request of one of our members. It's an interesting discussion and would be interesting to see what responsibility CP thinks humans take (if any) in climate change. Is it all our fault? Some of it? Or is it just a hoax?

[Flames0910]

Determining our responsibility to address climate change with an opinion poll is precisely the problem with climate change and human responsibility.

[#-3]

I choose not to vote, because this question should not be dignified with a response.

-it is not a matter of opinion,
-the science is in,
-the climate changes naturally at a relatively slow pace.
-it is changing at an astronomically fast pace due to direct human involvement.
-this is not the first time or the last time humans (or other animals) have had an influence on the climate,
-current mass extinctions due to climate change are happening
-if we want our existing rigid infrastructure to survive climate change, we need to move rapidly towards a low carbon economy, and then continue monitoring ways we can maintain a climate status quo.

To argue against any of these points is akin to conspiracy theory, and they should be the starting premises with any conversation about climate. You are either ignoring the facts as they are presented to you, assuming your instincts somehow hold more weight than expert opinion, or you are arguing in bad faith.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by #-3

I choose not to vote, because this question should not be dignified with a response.

-it is not a matter of opinion,
-the science is in,
-the climate changes naturally at a relatively slow pace.
-it is changing at an astronomically fast pace due to direct human involvement.
-this is not the first time or the last time humans (or other animals) have had an influence on the climate,
-current mass extinctions due to climate change are happening
-if we want our existing rigid infrastructure to survive climate change, we need to move rapidly towards a low carbon economy, and then continue monitoring ways we can maintain a climate status quo.

To argue against any of these points is akin to conspiracy theory, and they should be the starting premises with any conversation about climate. You are either ignoring the facts as they are presented to you, assuming your instincts somehow hold more weight than expert opinion, or you are arguing in bad faith.

That's all well and good, but remember this is Alberta so the only real response to climate change is "BUT WHAT ABOUT CHINA!?!?!"

[GGG]

Originally Posted by #-3

I choose not to vote, because this question should not be dignified with a response.

-it is not a matter of opinion,
-the science is in,
-the climate changes naturally at a relatively slow pace.
-it is changing at an astronomically fast pace due to direct human involvement.
-this is not the first time or the last time humans (or other animals) have had an influence on the climate,
-current mass extinctions due to climate change are happening
-if we want our existing rigid infrastructure to survive climate change, we need to move rapidly towards a low carbon economy, and then continue monitoring ways we can maintain a climate status quo.

To argue against any of these points is akin to conspiracy theory, and they should be the starting premises with any conversation about climate. You are either ignoring the facts as they are presented to you, assuming your instincts somehow hold more weight than expert opinion, or you are arguing in bad faith.

I think your last point is not factual. It makes a lot of assumptions on the human response to the affects of climate change. Otherwise climate change denial is akin to thinking vaccines cause autism.

[Mr.Coffee]

Man made.

Before this goes off in other whacky directions and considering this is early on in the thread, let’s just get the facts out here.

~70% of GHG emissions are from CONSUMPTION.

Let that sink in and really think about it. Then do yourself a favour and go look up and understand how energy intensive human life is today.

My prediction: Climate change will be mankind’s largest struggle in history. It will challenge how we think morally, ethically, physically / scientifically and spiritually. It’ll be an all-encompassing fight that will claim more lives than any other war(s) wager in the past.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

That's all well and good, but remember this is Alberta so the only real response to climate change is "BUT WHAT ABOUT CHINA!?!?!"

What we should do about climate change in Alberta and Is Climate change caused by humans are two completely different questions.

Muddying the two I think reinforces the cognitive dissonance people have on this issue.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

That's all well and good, but remember this is Alberta so the only real response to climate change is "BUT WHAT ABOUT CHINA!?!?!"

I don't think that is the only response Albertans take as evident by the significant improvements made.

If Alberta cut our carbon footprint to 0, the world would likely become more polluted as other nations pick up our slack and pollute at a much higher rate. This needs to be a global effort and I am all for being a leader but I would be lying if I said it isn't incredibly frustrating watching other nations turn a blind eye to it.

What comes first, the technology to reduce global warming or the globe getting on the same page about making serious changes?

For someone more versed in this department, I often see an infographic which breaks down the pollution from drilling and it makes the point that the majority of pollution is created from the consumer with a fraction of that pollution coming through the drilling, transport, processing stage. It seems like this must be inaccurate???

[Samonadreau]

We definitely contribute, problem is countries Such as US, China and Russia don't give a dang so the small adjustments we make don't mean squat.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by #-3

I choose not to vote, because this question should not be dignified with a response.

-it is not a matter of opinion,
-the science is in,
-the climate changes naturally at a relatively slow pace.
-it is changing at an astronomically fast pace due to direct human involvement.
-this is not the first time or the last time humans (or other animals) have had an influence on the climate,
-current mass extinctions due to climate change are happening
-if we want our existing rigid infrastructure to survive climate change, we need to move rapidly towards a low carbon economy, and then continue monitoring ways we can maintain a climate status quo.

To argue against any of these points is akin to conspiracy theory, and they should be the starting premises with any conversation about climate. You are either ignoring the facts as they are presented to you, assuming your instincts somehow hold more weight than expert opinion, or you are arguing in bad faith.

First of all, it's just a poll on a hockey site. If you don't want to participate that's fine.

Secondly, I agree with what you're saying. But many people do not agree. I have family members who believe it's a hoax, science be damned.

Lastly, it's not a poll to ridicule anyone which is why the results are not public. It's just a simple poll to gauge how CP feels about it.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think your last point is not factual. It makes a lot of assumptions on the human response to the affects of climate change. Otherwise climate change denial is akin to thinking vaccines cause autism.

I don't think it is.

We have built up infrastructure and property rights laws that create allot of issues when people have to up and move. More forests are burning, more rivers are flooding, coast lines are receding, and traditional crops are being displaced, we do not have the social structure in place to deal with what happens to the people.

It is a climate fact we need to wrestle with as much as the others.

[Mr.Coffee]

Can both of these statements be true?

People will die if we don’t deal with climate change.

People will die if we deal with climate change.

[GullFoss]

I think the climate debate is over in terms of "What's causing it?" It's obviously human activity. It's not really debatable. And it's been that way for decades. I don't think you'll find a right of center government argue they don't believe in climate change. And when those left of center insinuate this, it's like saying "conservatives hate gays and immigrants." Sure some people at the fringe do, but the real truth is that a lot of people realize the "now what?" doesn't have a simple answer.


1) the costs of climate change - we don't know how large these damages will be or how they will be distributed. If we don't know the costs with any degree of certainty, it's very difficult to know what the cost-benefit analysis suggests we do.

2) abatement doesn't work unless every country participates. Does it make sense for Canada to put in place abatement policies if the largest emitting countries will not? This is the "what about China argument" and it has merit because polution has no borders.

3) Should we focus spending to reduce emissions or spend to mitigate the issues caused by global warming. Ability to tax and spend isn't limitless. High taxes kill competitiveness. As do abatement policies that drive up taxes and input costs.

4) how do we allocate costs of abatement or mitigation across the population. Is it really a simple as "polluter pays?" For example, carbon taxes hit rural families harder, hit those in colder climates harder, hit families harder, hit poor people proportionately harder. Also ability to abate via carbon tax is a market solution and market solutions only work under the assumption of efficient markets (which is a false assumption) so it will has significant unintended consequences. Also the rebound effect makes the carbon tax very suspect in terms of efficiency - if the world uses less oil, the price of oil falls and then we use more oil because it's cheaper. Government directed solutions via regulatory and investment framework might be better than a carbon tax.

5) Are we able to materially abate carbon emissions with current technology at an affordable cost? Solar has massive limitations in terms of cost, efficiency and enviornmental considerations. Wind and hydro have limited deployment opportunities. Nuclear scares those on both sides of center. Carbon capture technology is limited.

6) Is it more important that developing countries bring citizens out of poverty or "save the planet". Fossil fuels are affordable energy and energy is a critical driver of development. So advocating emission reduction at all costs and using a global carbon tax at the center is effectively racist because rich countries have the means to outspend poor ones - both in pollution and in abatement.


---
The liberals will have you believe that because humans cause climate change, the obvious answers is that we must act immediately and follow the recommendation of policy wonks and economists. The real story is substantially more complex. I'm not sure conservatives have the answer, but given the issues noted above I'd rather we reduce carbon emissions a little slower and not ruin our competitiveness. For now.

[DownInFlames]

I have no faith in our ability to mitigate climate change unless we find a miracle carbon capture technology. No one is willing to risk their economy by putting meaningful limits on consumption so let pray we find that miracle.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

First of all, it's just a poll on a hockey site. If you don't want to participate that's fine.

Secondly, I agree with what you're saying. But many people do not agree. I have family members who believe it's a hoax, science be damned.

Lastly, it's not a poll to ridicule anyone which is why the results are not public. It's just a simple poll to gauge how CP feels about it.

That said I voted. I just being a butt hole, because I think the hoaxers should be pushed into a corner and ridiculed in the same fashion as flat-earthers or anti-vaxers. And those who are willing to argue the affects or effects of climate change should feel pressure to reexamine their opinions.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by #-3

That said I voted. I just being a butt hole, because I think the hoaxers should be pushed into a corner and ridiculed in the same fashion as flat-earthers or anti-vaxers. And those who are willing to argue the affects or effects of climate change should feel pressure to reexamine their opinions.

I agree, I'm one of the unlucky ones who has to debate immediate family members during family dinners when the subject comes up. It's exhausting trying to explain that science is showing what the trends are, they just keep saying 'whatever, I don't agree'. That's why I put the 'hoax' option in there, because a lot of people certainly believe it's just not true.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Any human who feels the moral weight of this issue should cancel all their flights, sell all vehicles, turn off all cooling/heat, and throw away anything petroleum based.

Gotta start somewhere. But nobody will. That's the real crux of this.

[photon]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I have no faith in our ability to mitigate climate change unless we find a miracle carbon capture technology. No one is willing to risk their economy by putting meaningful limits on consumption so let pray we find that miracle.

That's kinda where I am.

It's one thing to get first world countries to shift their energy production to renewables or nuclear or whatever.

But there's a whole chunk of the planet that's developing that's radically ramping up their energy needs, and "sorry you can't do what everyone else did, you have to stay poor" is a really difficult position for them to accept.

[Bunk]

There is a pretty simple and clear correlation between the increase in Co2 emissions from human activity and global temperature rise. The greenhouse effect of this seems pretty obvious even for someone that has a pretty basic understanding of the science. To deny it seems almost like denying knowledge of gravity, in my mind. There seems to be a lot of motivated reasoning at play in such denial.

My view is that we should move quickly to some sort of geo-engineering solutions to mitigate the effects, including finding ways to take carbon out of the atmosphere, because it seems as though our ability to curb emissions is a pretty difficult puzzle to solve.

I also believe in our economy we should position ourselves to be the ones leading that effort. There seems like there could be tremendous opportunity. If we are leaders in that effort, we could argue about being truly "carbon neutral", or even net carbon negative. That also buys our resource sector a lot of time.

[nik-]

We massively impact it and we're not going to reverse it. Everyone wants to make it the responsibility of someone else.

Kiss your asses goodbye.