I don't think its out to lunch to suggest that investing in public transit is more likely to reduce emissions.
Re-read your post. On one hand you are saying TAX, TAX, TAX like it's not a solution, then in the same post you discuss the need for developing better public transit. You can't have one without the other. Use the luxury tax on pickup trucks and large SUV's to pay for the improvement of public transit. Win-win as we all know the challenges of reducing our carbon footprints given our geography but we can move things along by encouraging more efficient transportation as the pickup truck epidemic is getting out of control.
Re-read your post. On one hand you are saying TAX, TAX, TAX like it's not a solution, then in the same post you discuss the need for developing better public transit. You can't have one without the other. Use the luxury tax on pickup trucks and large SUV's to pay for the improvement of public transit. Win-win as we all know the challenges of reducing our carbon footprints given our geography but we can move things along by encouraging more efficient transportation as the pickup truck epidemic is getting out of control.
lol, now its an epidemic.
We are likely less than 10 years away from most pickup trucks sold being electric. Still gonna rage on them then?
Adding more taxes for the sake of more taxes without a plan in place is exactly the reason why most Canadian cities have ####ty public transit.
So the purely hypothetical tax on large vehicles dreamt up on Calgary Puck lacks a plan and that's why most Canadian cities have ####ty public transit or is there a real world example of a tax added with no plan. Not liking the plan =/= no plan.
I don't think its out to lunch to suggest that investing in public transit is more likely to reduce emissions.
No doubt transit could be better and it would help, but there is no amount or form of public transit that will get someone in the far suburbs to leave their truck at home. There’s no amount or form of public transit that will take people from their subdivision to the nearest monstrous power centre to shop. Our urban design doesn’t support mass public transit.
Where does public transit work? Europe for one, where cities are much denser AND they tax the heck out of fuel. We shouldn’t argue between density, transit, and fuel tax - they are three legs of the same stool.
The Following User Says Thank You to edslunch For This Useful Post:
So the purely hypothetical tax on large vehicles dreamt up on Calgary Puck lacks a plan and that's why most Canadian cities have ####ty public transit or is there a real world example of a tax added with no plan. Not liking the plan =/= no plan.
EE needs to submit a whitepaper with full engineering plans, feasibility study, environmental assessment, and funding calculations or his suggestion will not be considered by Azure.
We are likely less than 10 years away from most pickup trucks sold being electric. Still gonna rage on them then?
Adding more taxes for the sake of more taxes without a plan in place is exactly the reason why most Canadian cities have ####ty public transit.
Even if electric many trucks are still a waste of scarce lithium resources and will use more energy to charge. I see no reason not to continue to tax the excess use of scarce resources. It will help drive people to use your expanded transit system. Win win.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Is there any evidence of that ever in your posting history?
You have an opinion on this matter more strongly held than most people's religious or political views.
You seem to have "disagreeing with someone's views" confused with "not welcoming someone's views". Two very different things. Passionately disagreeing with someone is not the same as being intolerant toward what they have to say.
Why do you think my opinions here are "more strongly held than most people's religious or political views"? Simply because I pointed out some harsh (granted, extremely harsh) realities that are backed by peer reviewed science?
I deal with some businesses that are always working on finding more sustainable ways to make their products. Renewable energy, recycling, logistics, etc, etc. Some of them have been doing it for years and years.
One thing is certain though, their goal is not to stop producing product, but to find ways to do it while reducing their footprint. And not just carbon footprint, but footprint in general.
Only in the fossil fuel industry is shut down or bust the solution.
There is literally no room for doing it with less emissions and less of a footprint. Or working with countries & companies that do it better and cleaner. No, we bury our head in the sand and tell ourselves its no big deal with Europe buys NG from Qatar, or coal from some 3rd world ####hole to burn with no environmental protections in place at all, despite the fact that Canada is in a unique position to help on all fronts when it comes to natural resources.
Instead its 'nailed it' videos and get rid of it or bust propaganda.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
I deal with some businesses that are always working on finding more sustainable ways to make their products. Renewable energy, recycling, logistics, etc, etc. Some of them have been doing it for years and years.
One thing is certain though, their goal is not to stop producing product, but to find ways to do it while reducing their footprint. And not just carbon footprint, but footprint in general.
Only in the fossil fuel industry is shut down or bust the solution.
There is literally no room for doing it with less emissions and less of a footprint. Or working with countries & companies that do it better and cleaner. No, we bury our head in the sand and tell ourselves its no big deal with Europe buys NG from Qatar, or coal from some 3rd world ####hole to burn with no environmental protections in place at all, despite the fact that Canada is in a unique position to help on all fronts when it comes to natural resources.
Instead its 'nailed it' videos and get rid of it or bust propaganda.
You're making a ridiculous strawman. No one is denying that using natural gas as an energy source is better for the environment than burning coal. No one is saying that it's ok when countries burn coal and lack environmental regulations.
What I am actually saying is that O&G companies have been, and continue to be, disturbingly unserious when it comes to helping speed up the energy transition to renewables. The amount they've invested into green energy is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive profits they make every year. Then you look at the destructive things they do such as lobby against carbon taxes, send their lobbyists to basically sabotage international cilmate conferences, and funnel money to climate change denial efforts.
You're making a ridiculous strawman. No one is denying that using natural gas as an energy source is better for the environment than burning coal. No one is saying that it's ok when countries burn coal and lack environmental regulations.
What I am actually saying is that O&G companies have been, and continue to be, disturbingly unserious when it comes to helping speed up the energy transition to renewables. The amount they've invested into green energy is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive profits they make every year. Then you look at the destructive things they do such as lobby against carbon taxes, send their lobbyists to basically sabotage international cilmate conferences, and funnel money to climate change denial efforts.
O&G companies are in the business of making money, not transitioning to renewables. The world needs to decide how much O&G we want, not O&G companies. They are self interested. That should not be a shock. Don't look to them to sacrifice money out of the goodness of their hearts.
If we as a society decide we want to produce less O&G, we regulate it and incentivize renewables. New renewable companies can then compete.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sol For This Useful Post:
O&G companies are in the business of making money, not transitioning to renewables. The world needs to decide how much O&G we want, not O&G companies. They are self interested. That should not be a shock. Don't look to them to sacrifice money out of the goodness of their hearts.
If we as a society decide we want to produce less O&G, we regulate it and incentivize renewables. New renewable companies can then compete.
This ignores the fact that these same companies can use lies and deception to hoodwink society into thinking their products are harmless. As a result, society is robbed of its ability to make informed decisions. The tobacco industry did it; so too the O&G industry did it.
Doing harm to society in the name of turning profits is not ok, even if you can find a way to get away with it.
The fossil fuel industry has skeletons in its closet. If it wants to make amends for its shady past, it has to really step up and fund renewables in a serious way. Otherwise, it is entirely deserving of the flak it gets.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
It is now well known that big oil was fully aware of their role and responsibility for climate change decades ago and actively planned to cover up, minimize and deceive shareholders and the public about it. Of course they did. That is not a surprise; if they had acted any other way they would have been derelict in their corporate duty.
What is baffling to me is that regular people still feel obligated to defend those actions. Wake up. Big corporate doesn't care about you or your family or the planet. It isn't in their DNA. They aren't making the world better. They are making money. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.
This ignores the fact that these same companies can use lies and deception to hoodwink society into thinking their products are harmless. As a result, society is robbed of its ability to make informed decisions. The tobacco industry did it; so too the O&G industry did it.
Doing harm to society in the name of turning profits is not ok, even if you can find a way to get away with it.
The fossil fuel industry has skeletons in its closet. If it wants to make amends for its shady past, it has to really step up and fund renewables in a serious way. Otherwise, it is entirely deserving of the flak it gets.
You don't think environmentalists would stoop to lie or deceive the public? I don't believe there has ever been any economical and practical plan laid out to allow for the displacement of oil and gas as the main energy source for the world. And most plans for the renewables do not take into account all the input costs, and problems when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
What about all the good that comes out of the money from the sale of our oil and gas? How are we going to do without it? Our healthcare is underfunded and on the verge of collapse. We are continually running large deficits. And profit is not a dirty word. Companies would cease to exist without making a profit.
Sure the fossil fuel industry has skeletons, but Canada presently has one of the best managed oil and gas industries in the world. I believe Alberta is on trend to have the most installed renewables, of any province, within the near future, and plans to be carbon neutral by 2050.
I think I understand your hate for oil and gas companies. You environmentalists were completely ignored over a long period of time while the industry developed at a torrid pace. Now that you have latched on to something that gives you power to execute your programs i.e. the battle to stop Climate Change, your seemingly religious like fervor prevents you from seeing the other side. It's too bad you environmentalists have a tendency to want to put companies out of business, which results in a lose lose situation, rather than looking at all sides, and working more collaboratively to make it a win win situation.
Last edited by flamesfever; 12-09-2023 at 02:49 AM.
The tribalism with "environmentalist vs Oil & Gas" arguments isn't grounded in reality. There's ridiculousness on both sides of these debates. As with most issues, both sides miss important nuance, but really here it's the fact that things have changed so much that the arguments made aren't rooted in facts anymore. China is moving fast, EVs are coming. The transition is already well on it's way and the energy part will not look like the energy future. On the flip side, o&g companies have (mostly) stopped trying to spend money to deny the science. The climate change debate is settled and at least in Canada, efforts are being made to curb production emissions.
First, let's start with what the core issue is: 1) climate change is real and urgently needs to be addressed, and 2) burning fossil fuels is responsible for almost all of it. Therefore, it stands to reason that we need to stop burning fossil fuels urgently.
Number two is where most reasonable people disagree with each other. There's a lot of grey area here and many different ways to skin the cat and end up in the same place. If you disagree with number 1, go hang out with the antivaxxers, flat earthers, and other people out of touch with reality. Don't bother responding because I won't read it. I have no time for that nonsense because it's not a conversation worth having for either of us because I can't discuss facts you pretend aren't real.
One solution proposed by some petrostates and oil majors is to attach ccus to everything and continue burning stuff indefinitely. That's absurd and we'd need so much energy and so many CO2 pipelines to do it we'd never ever, ever get there. It's not a realistic solution. So we need to discuss how to phase out fossil fuels. Where some in O&G in Alberta get upset is that lots of effort is being made to lower scope 1 and 2 emissions from production, yet Canada doesn't seem to get any recognition for it. This is true. Canada has done well to decrease emissions intensity of their productions. The oil sands have really high emissions because of the energy intensive way they're extracted so they started off with a big knock against them, but have made and have plans for major reductions. Emissions from oil production are responsible for almost 15% of global ghg emissions! Reductions in this are very good!
That doesn't answer the big question though, of how and when to phase out all fossil fuels. And this is where they're aren't great concrete plans. IEA projects a peak in coal in 2026, and a peak in road fuels in 2027 with a peak in total oil demand by 2028 at 105.8 bb/d. That is with current policies and no other changes. However, in that scenario they see demand stay quite high with a long decline. This isn't good enough to even get to 2.5° warming. Therefore, we have to do better than current policy. We have a lot of technology to get most of the way there today, and it needn't overall cost much. It will require difficult conversations though because it inevitably would still require up front capital and wealth inequality is getting worse, not better so some nations will have an easier time than others.
I am of the firm belief that we shouldn't be asking oil companies to fund clean energy. It makes no sense. They're companies that invest in volatile commodity extraction with large but risky ROI. Why should they try to become companies that invest in capital projects with low but secure ROI? It's not in their wheelhouse and it doesn't align with their reason for existing and they have very little in house expertise in the fields required. That's not to say we're shouldn't welcome that investment, but we shouldn't count on it or try to make it reality with policy. We do need to hold any company accountable for spending money to influence public debate and policy in unethical ways. It's really unethical to have your own scientists ring alarm bells about climate change and then spend money to slow action and change public opinion on matters as important as this. It's it legal? Yes. Doesn't make it less loathsome or awful. We didn't try to get fishing companies to become fishery guardians when we saw Atlantic cod fisheries dying, and we don't need to save o&g companies by changing them. Work on lowering demand and let the rest sort it itself out. We do need to work on making sure the transition is fair for people working in the industry and that there are options for them when needed, but I could care less whether BP, Shell, or Suncor survive the transition and become utility companies because they wouldn't be paying the same employees at that point anyways.
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 12-09-2023 at 12:29 PM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
