Discussions

Is the climate changing? Yes. The climate would fluctuate and cycle even if no humans, or other organisms, were here.  
 
Do humans influence climate change? Yes. You cannot introduce a human, or any other organism, into any environment without it having an impact.  
 
The question then becomes how do we mitigate this impact in a reasonable way as I don't believe rational decisions are best made in times of crisis and panic. Despite the Hollywood blockbusters that suggest that rash decisions work out the best in the end, I don't think that is the case. The reason for this is that rash actions generally have unintended consequences.  
 
Greta Thunberg is an admirable and idealistic young woman who should not be chastised. She exhibits that youthful exuberance that most of us showed signs of at one point. Then the majority of us learned how to temper idealism with reality. There is a reason why society says you have to be a certain age to vote, drink, drive and do a number of things that require rational thinking. It is known that a certain amount of rational thinking is required to do those well. I respect her but not those around her taking advantage of it. Her parents are actually not really totally behind her.  
 
In my opinion, rash decisions i:nclude things like halting fossil fuel development or production anytime within the next century, eliminating meat and dairy from our diets anytime within three generations, suggesting our entire infrastructure be based on renewable resources within decades or even terminating 1/3 to 1/2 of the world population. As a side note, the last option might be the most attractive to me.  
 
Climate activist seem to put forth this idea that there is a doomsday clock where if we don't do something drastic by such and such a date, climate change will become irreversible. Think back, Climate change has always been and will always be irreversible. The argument should be we have to act to minimize out impact. Alas, that does not sound as scary.  
 
Sure, we need to and have been working to minimize our carbon emissions but you give me any rash decision and I will gladly lay out some incredible unintended consequences.  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2019-09-28 13:12:35

...but you cant convince a denier.

....flying New York to London.  
Your earlier example was an "entertainment trip" to Mexico. Your Gaurdian link also referred to a return flight. My example was one way.  
 
The air travel (bird fly) shortest distance between New York and London is 5,585 km=: 3,470 miles.  
 
The distance from Winnipg to Ixtapa is 3900 kms.  
 
Now, maybe different calculators use different methods but the one I used is one of the most popular and I provided the link. The average Canadians emmision is approximately 15 tonnes per year, so no, one flight will not use up a person's budget for the year.  
 
Edited by Marpet, 2019-09-28 13:50:19

I think Mark Twain said something along the lines of there's lies, damn lies, and statistics. Ixtapa is one of the nearest destinations. The trans Atlantic figure was just the first figure to pop up, it's comparable. Especially when considering that a great proportion of flight emissions will be from getting up to 30,000 ft. Also, I'll assume the hour per day figure is from a city person perspective, so not as many miles.  
 
Both the Vatican and the church of England have declared recreational air travel a sin. For the obvious reason that the planet can't bear the impact, from contrail weather effects, CO2 emissions, and use of a highly valuable resource that future generations will greatly need for plastics production and so many other important applications.  
 
Also, per capita carbon emissions should have factored in a share of tar sands production and all other industrial processes , transport of goods. So it gets complex.  
 
The low hanging fruit are plain to see though. Curb weight of vehicles. How many hundred thousand plastic bags would have to be eliminated to equal the emissions of one recreational flight? How many plastic bags equals one oversize tire, for one unnecessarily huge personal vehicle?  
 
Its revealing that as soon as the rubber hits the road, so to say, the push back is absolute. How do you suppose an argument defending ever increasing consumption looks to people in the 3rd world? How do you think our own great grandparents would see that defense of entitlement? I imagine slaps upside the head. Previous generations saw smartest use of resources as the highest virtue.  
 
It may be a bitter pill to swallow, like the person who has the credit card deactivated, but if ruinous behaviour isn't curbed, it may be time for an intervention.  
 
We can't have infinite growth on a finite resource base.  
 
Corporations are sociopathic piles of money structured to grow limitlessly and externalize consequences, like cancer does. The game will only go on so long before nature makes a final call. Any fool can hotdog for a while. Nature ultimately won't care what we thought we were doing. No remorse, and no do-overs.  
 
The risks on the table are species ending. The IPCC announced 1 million will vanish shortly. That's probably locked in. If we see the 7C global warming by end of century our civilization will not be around. If the runaway feedback loops really roll it could be far worse than that, Permian grade. Some researchers have likened our present conduct to running towards a cliff edge in the fog. Time to stop running, exercise the precautionary principle.  
 
Never mind that ocean acidification from dissolving CO2 will make it impossible for carbonate creatures to form by 2070 or sooner, causing lights out for ocean photosynthesis, at which point oxygen will be mighty scarce. That's how the dinosaurs arose, btw, they could cope with very low oxygen during the great Permian die off .  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-09-28 15:09:55

Life exists in ranges of atmospheric conditions, especially more advanced life like ourselves. Get out of that livable range, then goodbye for that species. Unless they are able to quickly evolve to rapid changes in climate and atmospheric chemistry.  
 
Too much CO2 is toxic to us and other lifeforms. Same with too little Oxygen. We exist in a narrow corridor. That's why there has been such a variation of life on this planet. Dinosaurs may not be able to survive in today's world.  
 
In the future, natural events may spell the end for us. But right now we are making it happen with our own doing. Like I said above, we might the the first species to cause our own extinction.

Your point about previous generations, they also started the ball rolling on many things today. When did this commercialism and throw away society start, in the 50 and 60's. When did plastic items start appearing and who created them?  
 
So now people get mad when some want to end it and go back to a reuseable and environmentally conscious society. If the pre-WW2 generations saw the world today, they would faint.

I figure greed and wastefulness are simply human nature. It took corporations and marketing firms to elevate them as respected foundations of our culture.  
 
Those values only work with limitless resources, or as a form of suicide, a "no tomorrow " philosophy.

The throw away idea came much later than the 50’s and 60’s. Global competition started in the mid to late 60’s, and accelerated into the 70’s and in the name of profit is continuing today.  
One thing that every generation is guilty of is “fads” and that applies to today’s generation.

still by people who grew up in the 50 and 60's.

I am now reasonably certain that in the Westman area anyone posting on the Internet espousing the the ideals of climate change denial is just trolling for the lols.  
 
No one could possibly be so stupid that they actually do not believe in the impact that human development has had on the Earth.

It wasn't until sometime after the end of the Great War that the notion of 'planned obsolescence' really solidified, but the necessity of wartime mass production was almost certainly where our die towards a disposable society had been cast.  
 
The throw-away idea has existed since at least the 20's in the western world. Automats, the precursor to ordering things on those screens at McDonalds, were a thing since around 1900.  
 
Fads have always been a thing, and always will be. From whalebone corsets to hula-hoops to antivax. I can't wait for this current fad of railing against the blatantly obvious to come to an end.

"No one could possibly be that so stupid that they actually do not believe in the impact that human development had on the Earth". Seriously? Every time we flush the toilet we know we impact the earth! Don't be ridiculous!  
 
But as humans we must exist, we have to heat our homes, most need to drive and everyone needs to eat daily to survive. Got a solution for that?  
 
If the world was so bent on improving the earth why not stop all airplane travel except for emergencies?  
Hell no they won't! All the well to do people would be up in arms without their 'vacay' every two months!  
Oh wait, travel keeps the economy going so that's out.  
 
Maybe we need to go back to the caveman days, lol

Is where we need to get to, and arguably starting immediately. As Greta and others have pointed out, change 30 years ago would have been best, but instead we amped up the party, kicked the can down the road, lived like there would be no tomorrow, and now look where we are.  
 
"But as humans we must exist, we have to heat our homes, most need to drive and everyone needs to eat daily to survive. Got a solution for that? "  
 
Nature doesn't have a guarantee that we will continue to exist in any form at all. That's the issue. We only live as a part of nature, and have grossly abused our position . Like a drunk driver, this will end badly unless it is stopped.  
 
What to do practically? The 3 R's of conservation. Reduce, re-use, recycle. Isn't it funny how corporate interests have eliminated the first from public consciousness? 30 years ago the average passenger vehicle curb weight was near half of what it is today. We are subject to greenwashing, to make people feel good about driving across town in their SUV to drop their plastics in a recycling bin. When much of it ends up burnt in garbage piles in Malaysia, or direct to landfills. Some personal action is actually worsening carbon problems.  
 
Who says that living on less is bad for the economy? In my estimation, if I have more financial security, I and my community are better off. Only those who want to skim off the work of others declare that a disaster.  
 
When Canada and then the US entered WWII, rapid emergency conservation measures were brought in. New vehicle production halted. Committees halted or reduced consumer production of a range of strategic materials. Speed limits were reduced to reduce fuel consumption. Etc, comprehensive, national level efforts.  
 
In today's scenario, let's add moving bulk goods transport to rail. Rail transport is roughly 10 times more fuel efficient than road. Brandon needs a regional container handling facility, which would be a great regional benefit. Rail lines should be nationalized like highways and improved (twinned) to enhance movement of goods by any certified entities. Vehicle curb weight could be halved. Urban speed limits are going down to 40km in many enlightened areas, sounds like a win win for the planet and reduced traffic accident injuries. Home insulation is pathetically low, and could be greatly improved. Net zero housing is easily within grasp, and the building lifetime payback to society huge. In concert with these measures, a price on carbon of roughly $200 per ton is needed to send appropriate signals about waste and pollution to the market.  
 
Contrary to popular belief, this will not destroy the "economy", as the skimming class would claim. The "economy" is just a social construct at the end of the day, we make artificial rules and live by them. What will stop us dead, perhaps literally, is if we can't produce a surplus of food, have rivers to supply our water needs, or a biosphere to support us in a thousand ways, or even air to breathe.  
 
We are looking down the barrel of that gun now. It's late to take action, but still not impossible. In 10 more years it might be completely out of our control, and nature will clean it up very brutally.

while I totally agree we need to be better stewards of the land and water...just look around .,,here are some of the things I have seen over my life that makes me hesitate to get into the 'frenzy' ...  
 
1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years  
1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975  
1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide  
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989  
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources by 2000  
1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985  
1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable  
1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish  
1970s: Killer Bees!  
1970: Ice Age By 2000  
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing by 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980  
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030  
1972: New Ice Age By 2070  
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years  
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast  
1974: Another Ice Age?  
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life  
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent  
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s  
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend  
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes  
1980: Peak Oil In 2000  
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s  
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs  
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)  
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000  
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)  
1996: Peak Oil in 2020  
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is  
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy  
2002: Peak Oil in 2010  
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024  
2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015  
2006: Super Hurricanes!  
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018  
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013  
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World  
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’  
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014  
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015  
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos  
 
Edited by micro, 2019-09-29 21:32:06

That's quite the list.  
 
Seems to be a right wing talking point collection, doubtful that was a personal compilation.  
 
The difference between random sensational headlines of decades past and this situation is the massive scientific consensus, and the overwhelming body of physical global evidence.  
 
And in beteeen there are the odd factual headlines thrown in. M King Hubbert did predict US peak oil production by various methods, concluding that US oil production would forever peak in 1965, 1968, and 1973. It peaked in 1973. The early figure was released in the late 50's. His brilliant modeling is still frequently denied. Why deal with facts, when fantasy is so attractive?  
 
Ozone depletion is a threat to life. That's an example of "fake news "? Bad choice to ridicule. Ozone depletion was halted by international treaty, led by that radical lefty, Brian Mulroney. They banned the production of the ozone depleting CFC's, by coming together as an international community to avoid a global disaster. And lucky they acted in time.  
 
Acid rain being another pathetic headline in that right wing talking point list, reversed by international treaty between Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan.  
 
I could go on to analyze, but it's boring and unnecessary.  
 
Here's a short list to the contrary.  
 
The 5 hottest years ever recorded have been the last 5.  
 
Greenland saw it's hottest day ever this August, losing an estimated 11 cubic kilometers of ice in a single day.  
 
Europe saw it's highest temperatures ever this August, roughly 10,000 deaths attributed in France.  
 
Plankton has been recorded to have dropped 50% off the east coast by DFO in the last several years.  
 
The highest storm winds recorded on earth were seen in the Bahamas just a month ago, sustained 350km.  
 
Tropical insect populations have been obeerved dropping by as much as 75%, increased temperatures is believed to be the cause.  
 
I can add a personal anecdote. A fellow is raising honeybees at Iqualuit, for the past 3 years. That has been completely impossible before, as bees need a certain temperature to be able to fly. Now they can.  
 
So, right wing american propganda talking points aside, there's a massive and growing body of evidence that we are in an unprecedented situation amounting to a global existential threat for our civilization, and the biosphere generally.  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-09-30 10:03:53

What's the worst that can happen if we all decide to do our part in helping to protect the environment by wasting less, recycling more and conserving energy?  
 
It really bothers me when people bring politics into the argument. The condition of the earth's atmosphere has very little to do with how I cast my vote, and vise versa.  
 
Let's not forget there are companies that benefit from the "climate change crisis". A good example is Owens Corning. They put a lot of money into creating products that help reduce energy consumption in buildings. Tesla has also made billions selling a product that produces less carbon.  
 
Going green does not mean that the economic climate has to suffer. There are constant innovations in product design and engineering that contribute to the world's economy.  
 
At the end of the day, like it or not, NRCAN will be placing tougher restrictions on energy consumption. But we all have to remember that what this really means is a smaller energy bill.  
 
The worst possible outcome from inaction is far worse that the best case scenarios, which is homes and vehicles and other products that consume less energy and produce less waste....so why not?

I certainly did not sit down and compile the list myself, but it does not make it any less real that these items are correctly portrayed as having been historical. (don't even debate their being correct in substance) I merely list them as a way of showing younger folks the reason some of us seniors are reluctant to get caught up in the placard carrying frenzy. Each decade gave us scientists that were absolutely convinced they were on to something. We even see today some well educated folks not fully agreeing with the main line of thought ..and rather than having open and honest dialogue , they are ridiculed ...this tends to cause suspicion not 'buy in' in the minds of us that have seen this all before.

you make sense .

"Each decade gave us scientists that were absolutely convinced they were on to something"  
 
This situation is completely distinct from the right wing list of straw man talking points. One off headlines from decades ago is a comoletely different issue from the preponderance (99%+) of all climate scientists and related fields sounding the alarm bells for the last couple of decades. The evidence of a growing emergency is unassailable now. The only room for credible debate is how bad, how fast, and can we still act to buy ourselves time, or hope to mitigate the coming disaster.  
 
The denial camp has all the characteristics of the tobacco industry denial campaign (and some of the same players). We now all agree how self serving and dishonest that effort was. They killed a lot of people, just for continued profits. This time the stakes are exponentially higher.  
 
I think the basic question should be as stated above, what harm are we risking by using resources smarter? I see little downside in that scenario except for lazy, dinosaur industries. If on the other hand we seriously mess up the climate and planetary life support system we utterly rely on, there is no future at all, and all the paper money, and zeroes on bank account screens will just evaporate into nothing. And we will be the most cursed generation in human history.  
 
It is sour news to hear that we bought into a lifestyle beyond our means, or simple common sense, but the evidence is undeniable.  
 
We should be smart enough, and technically capable of doing far better to assure a livable future for generations to come.

That argument has been exhausted. As Greta answered when she had a stilted scenario put to her by a congressional committee member, about what good could one sailboat do trying to gather plastics, she turned it around, and stated that the real issue was that we all pollute, firstly, so we should stop that, and do what we can to clean up, and then ask others to do the same.  
 
Tar sands synthetic petroleum is only gotten at a severe energy and pollution cost. The last nation to do this was Nazi Germany when cut off from foreign oil, when they made synthetic oil out of coal. The tar is just slightly more efficient, taking roughly one barrel of oil to make two more. Natural gas is needed in great quantity both to heat the ground to get tar out, and as the hydrogen source to hydrogenate the essentially road tar material. Whatever the oil industry claims, there is no mathematical, or chemical means to make something out of nothing. Tar sands is almost an energy sink instead of an energy source.  
 
Analysis of regional emissions recently reported proved that the tar sands producers are under declaring their emissions (and costs of production) by a wide margin. They are involved in greenwashing. Were it not for direct government subsidies their projects would be insolvent now.  
 
And then there are the gigantic pollution issues, multi hundred foot high tailings ponds at river side, bermed in sand. Etc. The industry has no intention or capability of ever cleaning up after itself.  
 
And on top of this, the planet simply can't handle the emissions.  
 
If any country on earth can show leadership and innovation towards a better post fossil fuel future, surely that must be Canada.  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-09-30 15:53:38

 
 
Edited by Liam.s, 2019-09-30 16:05:52

1. Do we need to slowly ween ourselves off the use of fossil fuels or can we quit cold turkey?  
 
only if the answer to the above answer is to ween ourselves off, do you need bother with question number 2.  
 
2. If we are going to ween ourselves off fossil fuels, are we best to focus on the fossil fuels produced in the most environmentally protective way?

really? Oil and Coal. We can use our technology to be keyboard warriors (I'm a hypocrite) but not look up scientific research articles and energy alternatives. Why is science so scary to our conservative community? We have alternatives. I'd rather have a country in debt than have a country known for its natural beauty emitting carbon out its wahzoo, so what we get taxed more, work a little harder. Isn't that what conservatisms all about?

I figure the liberals and conservatives are just 2 factions of the same well heeled sector of society, mostly lawyers, who battle back and forth for perks and the ability to get to the corporate trough, steadily making sure that things are awesome for their kind of people.  
 
They both spend heroically, 13 billion on Afghanistan, carried out by both parties, and lavish subsidies to corporations and the fossil fuels industry, selling out farmers and the public, no great differences.  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-09-30 17:12:07

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmkz8/us-military-could-collapse-within-20-years-due-to-climate-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says  
 
"The new report is especially significant given the Trump administration’s climate science denial. Commissioned by General Mark Milley, now the highest ranking military officer in the United States, the report not only concludes that climate change is real, but that it is on track to create an unprecedented catastrophe that could lead to the total collapse of US society without serious investments in new technology and infrastructure. However, while focusing on projected climate impacts, the report does not discuss the causes of climate change in human fossil fuel emissions."  
 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/21/leading-engineers-turn-their-backs-on-new-fossil-fuel-projects  
 
"Engineering firms are under increased pressure from their own employees to abandon controversial fossil fuel projects, as the sector turns its attention to the climate crisis.  
 
About 1,000 Australian engineers and 90 organisations – including large firms and respected industry figures who have worked with fossil fuel companies – have signed a declaration to “evaluate all new projects against the environmental necessity to mitigate climate change”.  
 
As the Australian Engineers Declaremovement gathers pace, some industry figures say firms that work on Adani’s Carmichael coalmine project face a potential revolt from staff, and might struggle to recruit highly skilled people."  
 
Food for thought...

Here's the most simple way to think about climate change and our approach to fighting it.  
-- If the climate change deniers are wrong, we cause a mass extinction that kills us too.  
-- If the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong, we spend some money we didn’t have to, end up with a cleaner planet and new more efficient technologies.  
 
To me it seems like a no-brainer. If I was diagnosed with cancer and 97 doctors agreed that chemotherapy and radiation were my best bet, but 3 biology majors told me that pot brownies would cure my symptoms because I didn’t have cancer, I’d believe the 97 doctors. That’s even before I found out that the 3 biology majors work for pot growing companies.  
 
At this point I'm just going to ignore the deniers. If someone is that stupid in 2019 they can't really be helped. Either they're completely obtuse or have a socio-economical reason to stay in denial. For some, it's just hard to admit you're wrong after such a long time.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-shrinks-forests-in-3-prairie-provinces-1.1131007?cmp=:rss  
 
"Research shows northern forests in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are drying up and shrinking from drought caused by climate change, while the eastern boreal forest is holding its own."  
 
"We found the boreal east and the boreal west is a totally different story,"  
 
"Using that data, the researchers calculated "biomass change" — the total combined growth of the trees — for every year from 1963 to 2008.  
 
They found that in both the East and West, trees were dying sooner. But in eastern forests, the surviving trees were growing faster, which evened out the effect of increased mortality.  
 
In the West, trees were growing slower as well as dying younger. Peng and his colleagues concluded that western boreal forests were producing two tonnes of wood less per hectare in 2008 compared to the early 1970s.  
 
The trend appears to be picking up speed.  
 
"After 2000, there's a bigger jolt," said Peng. "That's really obvious."  
 
Statistical analysis links the decline to drought. Western Canada has suffered both reduced precipitation and rising temperatures at a faster rate than further east.  
 
The findings are bad news for those counting on forests to continue to suck more carbon out of the atmosphere through growth than they emit as trees die and decompose. Peng's data suggests eastern forests emit about as much carbon dioxide as they absorb, but that's no longer the case in the West.  
 
Boreal forests there became a net carbon source in about 2003, although that has improved somewhat since then.  
 
Peng's study also questions assumptions that global warming will encourage tree growth and expand forests further north. Unless warming temperatures are accompanied by higher precipitation - which hasn't happened - the forestry industry may have to re-examine projections."  
 
"Yes, global warming may be beneficial for the shrub and tundra area," Peng said. "But in the southern boreal, the summer water deficit is a huge problem, particularly in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba."  
 
"His overall results are echoed in other forest systems. Recent studies have found similar trends in other drought-stricken forests, such as in the Amazon basin, temperate regions in the U.S. and aspen forests in Canada."  
 
Note how this is in strong agreement with the map I had posted earlier of projected change in precipitation. Coupled with warmer temperatures this is clearly a game ender for our way of life in the preswnt farming araas of the prairies, and sooner than we would imagine, and possibly sooner than we can prepare at all.  
 
And keep in mind this is just the beginning.  
 
Also, it is very important to note that the high hopes of greenwashers and status quo interests who would like to just continue to kick the can down the road and not curb their behaviour whatever (at least some of the more aware / creative), have been counting on nature to do all the work for us. Instead it's very plain that we have unleashed a very negative feedback loop beyond most imagining.  
 
And then there's the issue of all the frozen biomass under the global boreal forest and tundra, and the fact that methane is 86 times stronger a greenhouse gas than CO2...  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-10-26 14:07:10

I will add my 2 cents.  
 
I don’t think anyone would call Steinbach anything but Conservative yet they recycle more than anywhere in MB not sure may be more far reaching than our borders.  
 
Is it possible that using our resources while continuing to develop technologies like those already in the works in Alberta that recapture CO2 emissions, instead of bringing in Saudi oil etc, would be a better option for Canadians.  
 
By the way I have read articles that state bringing in oil from other places actually leaves more of a carbon footprint.  
 
It’s unfortunate that true debates are not part of our parliament or our society. It’s also unfortunate that many Canadians are stuck to one belief and fail to even comprehend that another solution may be possible.  
 
In any given debate I take on both positions and research, of course when I start I usually have a bias as we all do, but often at the end I have a better understanding and at times have changed my mind on an issue.  
 
In the whole neighbours to the south issue. Read an Obama quote where during his time in office he stated that under his administration he boasted that enough pipeline to encircle the globe and then some had been added to the US. Could it be the US was positioning for this moment? It is certainly not hidden from anyone willing to research that money from out of Canada has been targeting Western Canada for developing our resources and to also reduce our emissions while the large polluters are granted money from our government. Are we truly serious Canada?  
 
Eastern Canada gets its free pass on its cement plant and also gets to call it’s massive hydroelectric plants clean energy when it adds substantial mercury to the water?  
 
The country is fractured. The province is fractured. Labelling fellow Canadians as many in this post have done does nothing to keep the conversation going in a productive manner.  
 
Research how the leading scientists and the public in Galileos day treated him.  
 
I think most people on either side would agree  
1. The environment is of the upmost importance.  
2. Keeping warm and fed is imperative.  
 
That just a small offering of our common ground. Let’s not bash one another.

The climate has been changing ever since the ice that covered the entire earth started to melt and there was no use of fossil fuels then. Climate is a trend and if you do research you see these current trends have happened before. We aren’t breaking temperature records daily. The earth warming is common sense: as you add more people and create more urban centres obviously it’s going to warm up. Instituting all these taxes and limitations in Canada will not do much to alleviate the problem when Canada’s carbon footprint is less than 0%. Until the big polluters step up to the plate all that we do isn’t going to have much of an impact. We live in a country where we need fossil fuels to stay warm and to get around. An electric car won’t be so efficient when it’s -20. The funny thing is many who talk the talk aren’t walking the walk aka Mr.Trudeau

"We aren’t breaking temperature records daily."  
 
"Canada’s carbon footprint is less than 0%. "  
 
The last 5 years have been the hottest recorded in weather history. I believe 9 of the last 10 or so are in the same category. And they are now increasing exponentially. This past summer Europe saw the highest temperatures ever, and then the same hot air mass parked over Greenland, setting a new one day record for ice melt, 11 cubic kilometers. It seems very plain where we are going, and this territory is anything but business as usual. We have continuous ice core weather data going back 750,000 years. The gas concentrations and isotopes show a very reliable record of climate over that time, and what we have done in the last century puts us in a situation right off the scale of known climate.  
 
I think it has to be recognized that we may have unleashed changes big enough that they can cause runaway feedback loops, and we may not even survive the massive changes as a species, never mind as a civilization. All previous civilizations have failed, most after a turn in climate, or abusing some critical resource.  
 
There is a precedent very close to the current climate change. At the end of the Permian enough CO2 was released to the atmosphere to cause runaway permafrost melt etc. About 97% of all species went extinct. I would say that is far more risk than we can legitimately lay on our children and grandchildren.  
 
Simply review the above link to the latest US government study on effects of climate change. These are not granola munchers, but military planners. They know what's really going down, they have the best data and experts.  
 
As cited by another person, Canada is far from a 0% emitter. Our per capita emissions are very high, amongst the highest.  
 
To say we shouldn't act because some other country doesn't or won't is simply to say that if not everyone is doing the right thing, then no one should do the right thing. The truth is, if anyone could do the right thing, it's a country as rich and technically blessed as Canada, which offers us strategic advantages selling technology and adapting when others are going to suffer horribly.  
 
As for the mention of recycling programs, recycling of household waste hardly amounts to more than greenwashing. It is cart before the horse thinking. And greenwashing on the part of those who know better. Our civilization is fundamentally on a wrong course. We can either address the fundamental disaster we have built into our way of life, or meet that disaster blind and unprepared, and suffer.  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-10-26 16:43:44