Discussions

Ok I know this is a contentious topic. But I want to hear what others have to say. I am looking for evidence based information not gut feelings. Do you agree with climate change or no? Can you give reasons why you hold that view?  
 
Reason for posting this question is I just came across the City of Brandon survey asking for ideas to meet climate goals. The FB comments are nuts.

I trust global scientists with combined and documented years of solid research over comments on social media from the big shot science denier who always thinks the government is screwing people but loves and gladly accepts government handouts.  
 
We all know them. Sadly, most people all have them floating around in our circles. It's hard to argue with gullible conspiracy theorists and much better to effect change as you can as they will never accept scientific data that has been collected for years.

Yes, climate change is real, 100%, our earth is filled with examples of it, from river bed sedimentary layers, glaciers, valleys carved out, they're around us everyday.  
 
But can we actually stop it by taxing ourselves to death, no, its inevitable, it has been for eons, can we slow it, maybe minutely but only if the biggest contributors somehow come to some magical arrangement, until then all we do is weaken our economy while they build theirs.  
 
I think I read that Canada accounts for like 1% of worlds pollution, I find that hard to believe with our spread out landmass, massive forests and microscopic population.  
 
In reality when you have countries still developing at astronomical rates like india and china are, they will more than make up for our "1%" drop and not shed a tear.  
 
My numbers for china's coal plants were way off it seems, they run nearly 1200 at the moment, but it seems like they opened more new ones last year than the rest of the world combined, so I still say, what do the 2 or 3 we shutdown really do besides weaken us as a nation ?  
 
China has over 1200 coal plants, we in canada have 9, yet we are the ones taxing ourselves to death with carbon taxes.  
 
Edited by hutchster, 2022-10-04 19:35:28

I come from a research background after having worked in Department of medicine/genetic research for several years and then healthcare for past 20+. So I am well versed with importance of scientific research in determining trends/patterns, causation versus correlation. I think most people do not understand how research works and they don't trust what they do not understand. Plus media tends to misrepresent the research often basing their articles on one recently published research study that may or may not be peer-reviewed as opposed to looking at the bigger picture. It creates a lot of confusion and distrust in the general public.  
Research is a balance of studies done over ++ years before anything can really be proven. One properly conducted, peer-reviewed study rarely provides a concrete yes or no answer. You need several well done studies to determine the yes or no answers.  
Anything else simply promotes chaos, misinformation and poor policy.  
Here is a link with more details on what is research and how complex it is:  
https://www.discoverphds.com/blog/what-is-research-purpose-of-research  
A link to what peer-reviewed means:  
https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review  
 
Having said that, it is a real challenge to keep up with all the research. That is why we rely on 'experts' in the different fields to give us a low down on what the research is showing.

This is such a complex topic. It is hard to know where to look if you are not well versed in issues around research on climate

for a in depth read check out:  
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions#co2-emissions-by-region  
or more recent data:  
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions  
 
Basically China is the largest producer of CO2 but is also the most populated at 60% of the world's population. so may fall lower on the emissions scale when per capita is taken into consideration. In which case the US becomes the largest per capita.  
 
Canada sits at 1.8% of global emissions.  
 
Edited by Spades!!, 2022-10-04 21:03:25

I might be over simplifying it but I fail to understand how a nation that makes up of less than half of 1 percent of the worlds population, spread out over the 2nd largest landmass in the world, containing some of the largest masses of forestry(ie carbon sinks) while operating under very tightly controlled corporate and governmental environmental controls unlike a lot of other countries around the world and also utilizes massive hydro electric operations somehow creates 2% of the worldwide pollution ?  
 
Sorry for the long winded sentence, it just flowed like a river lol

It was a few years ago now, so my memory is a little fuzzy. It was an interview with a person working for a NGO or development group or something somewhere in Africa (Nigeria I'm pretty sure).  
 
The gist of what she said was that developing economies are rushing through the steps that the developed world has already done - using coal, gasoline, old tech rapidly catching up etc. In the context of climate change, it was unrealistic for the developing economies to be expected to use the now "clean tech" when they're still 30 years or more behind, mostly due to cost.  
 
The implication was that these economies are moving forward much faster than the developed world did at the same phase of tech/economic development, and should catch up. But we need to be in a place where they catch up *to*.  
 
The transition to green energy needs to march forward because it's the eventual destination for everyone. It's not realistic to demand developing economies to move to it simultaneously as us because it's costly and this person basically stated that they hadn't had the economic benefit of that phase and to demand that they bypass it basically amounted to suppression? I'm not sure what the right word is here. But the thought is that they will eventually catch up economically and then the playing field will be more level.  
 
I think about that a lo whenever I see people argue "But but China! But but India!"

You have to accept though that many developing countries have highly corrupt governments and officials or are essentially dictatorships. Most of those leaders have no intention of reducing emissions or moving to cleaner energy sources.  
They are lining their own pockets while vast numbers of their populations work and live in slave like conditions or are starving. The only way to force changes is for us to avoid buying product made in those regimes whenever possible.

That's absolutely a consideration as well. Like any problem, it's rarely simple and straight-forward. But we also have to bear in mind that our society was basically built on the backs of slaves or slave-like indenturing, or suppressing entire populations, etc. Many of the same issues anyway, just with a slightly different look. Same problems, different century in some cases.  
 
But for environmental reasons even beyond politics, we should be looking long and hard at our consumption patterns.

I agree that the climate is changing and humans have a large part to play. Some of the global practices worldwide have me shaking my head (mainly coal power plants).  
 
That being said, I think in some cases it is turned into fear mongering for certain personal benefits (Greta, political parties, etc.) A lot of the people that I see trying to capitalize are the ones that don't provide logical solutions.  
 
IMO wind & solar are great on a small scale but have too much end-of-life waste and inefficiencies to be seriously considered. Those Bio-waste power plants should be a crime. Specifically the ones harvesting forests and burning the material with the excuse that they are planting trees as they go. I think nuclear power at this power is the most obvious logical solution and governments should be more focused in this area.  
 
The carbon tax IMO is laughable ball and cup game that was designed for political points and lack of financial control. I have yet to see significant results from the revenues generated to suggest it is anything other than a slush fund. When has other specialized consumer taxes reduced usage? There's the Tobacco tax & years of public education showing the health impacts yet there is still younger generations starting up. Liquor taxes again don't seem to significantly decrease consumption, people just seem to complain why alcohol is so expensive in Canada/certain provinces. So taxing consumers on a necessity like transportation, heating, etc. is just another example of poor political policies.

Different times, knowledge and attitudes.  
What is tue though is that we all consume and waste too much of everything. Too much food , too much clothing, too much travel, way too much energy , too much electronics and too much stuff that most of us don’t need.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2022-10-05 08:37:26

There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence regarding the changes our planet is going through. The theory of our pollution trapping heat like a greenhouse is well proven. The effects of this are around us with every report of a new record being broken. This is the science.  
 
What to do about it is politics. Unfortunately when someone disagrees with the current approach to solve the problem it may be easier to question if there even is a problem. So politics, played out in the media, has us questioning the facts when we should be able to agree on the science then debate the solutions.  
 
Now that climate change attitudes have become polarized (no pun intended) we have entered a phase when climate change has become a belief issue in the sense individuals can simply decide who to believe. Science doesn't work on faith.  
 
Also, like other difficult topics, people will align new beliefs with their existing beliefs. Its in our human nature (or psychology if you're science driven) to seek information that confirms our beliefs.  
 
Finally we are facing climate change in a time of unprecedented access to information. Many of us grew up understanding the difference between fact and opinion but today that distinction has become too blurred.  
 
So the science shows that our climate is changing in an unnaturally fast way. Politics shows that solving climate change will be no easier than solving our other social challenges like poverty or racism. I hope that climate change might unite our society but I fear it will continue to divide us until its far too late.  
PS: it's already very very late.

Well said Hutchster. A perfect Common sense answer which is very much lacking in most these days. Thank you.

Hutchster has provided an excellent example of misinformation or misdirection. I'm not saying to Hutchster is intentionally twisting the science but misinformation is out there and we all have to be careful.  
 
There is a tactic in the climate change denial playbook which claims climate change is real but that it is "natural" and therefor our current efforts are pointless or misguided.  
The climate does naturally change - true - and the evidence for that is found in the kinds of geologic measures like glacial growth patterns. However 'rapid' change in those historic records are measured across 100,000's years. We have seen similar changes in decades. That is why this crisis is different and why we need to act now.  
 
And forget the "my grandchildren's' grandchildren" perspective... people are dying from these impacts now. Unfortunately the chance to turn around and not run off this cliff has passed. We are at the point when the cartoon coyote is dangling in the air and we are realizing the position we're in. Now we can act to grab that single branch on the cliffside or do nothing and land hard on the rocks below.

Lots of people angry about and consider the Carbon tax a tax grab by the Liberals. I've been doing some digging on the research and thought I'd share some information here.  
Global Carbon tax initiatives shows all the countries that currently have and considering implementing carbon tax:  
https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/  
 
Canada's Carbon tax initiative:  
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan.html  
 
The bulk of the research I have looked at support Carbon tax and I looked for any that did not support it. They all do recognize the financial strain it puts on vulnerable population/low income and say this can be offset through rebates. But the bottom line is they all say we need to make carbon more expensive to produce so that industry/individuals look for alternate low carbon processes. Problem I have with it is this hits the little guy from multiple angles. Get hit with direct Carbon taxation along with increased cost/prices when industry passes their increased cost of carbon production to the little guy. That's what industry does to maintain their profits. The other area of concern is what is government doing with the funds raised through carbon taxation? Are these funds being put back into the economy to help with rebates/supporting green initiatives. I think there is a huge lack of trust towards government's ability to do this in a transparent manner.  
 
Articles I was reading and still reading as they are long. (warning lol)  
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6895575/pdf/main.pdf  
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6699640/pdf/nihms-963076.pdf  
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6964422/pdf/41997_2018_Article_99.pdf

This article appeared in the Financial Post in 2016  
https://financialpost.com/opinion/canada-may-already-be-carbon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret  
A lot of people who are upset with Carbon taxation in Canada fall back on this article to back their argument.  
 
However this 2018 opinion article counters that 2016 argument:  
https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/june-2018/canadas-carbon-sinks-dont-mean-we-can-ease-off-on-climate-policy/#:~:text=:Canada%E2%80%99s%20carbon%20sinks%20don%E2%80%99t%20mean%20we%20can%20easeindustrial%20emissions.%20by%20Mark%20Cameron%20June%2029%2C%202018  
 
I did read somewhere that out of all 195 countries in the world only 4.5% of them are authentically carbon neutral. Canada is not one of those countries though I could not find which countries were in that 4.5%  
 
Edited by Spades!!, 2022-10-05 14:45:39

Based on: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Canada/gasoline_consumption/#:~:text=:The%20latest%20value%20from%202021%20is%20800.06%20thousand%20barrels%20per%20day.  
 
Canada uses approx. 800K barrels (1B =: 159litres) a day. this equates to 127,200,000 litres per day. x the $0.1105 carbon tax on gasoline equals approx. $14,055,600 a day collected on Carbon Tax.  
 
One thing that the liberals like to ignore when they talk about the Climate Action refund is that they earn GST on the carbon tax as well. So 5% GST works out to be $702,780 of extra GST money a day.  
 
x365 and that's approx. $256 million of extra GST they are collecting annually by simply having the Carbon Tax instated.  
 
If the Carbon tax is only about attempting to transition away from fossil fuels why don't they move it to the GST exempt category of goods & services.  
 
As others have said, at the end of the day all companies are passing the tax down to the consumers. Companies like Sobey's (as an example) are charging 20% margins on their product costs regardless if the expense shows up on the Kellogg's invoice or if its on the product freight bills.  
 
Edited by Brandon,Brandon, 2022-10-05 16:18:38

Approximately 1000 people died in the 2021 heat wave that hit BC and the NW US states. This wasn't just an unusual occurrence... only a few years ago it was considered impossible given the 'normal' climate.  
There is no normal anymore. The new climate is one of change. It's a climate with more energy giving us more extremes. It's happening here in Canada. It's not just a possibility in the future. It's real. As we argue about our emissions vs other countries or debate the short term pain we will feel economically we should keep in mind that our future is increasingly uncertain. Except that it won't be what we remember from our past.  
At least those of us having this discussion have a future to worry about... thousands are no longer alive to see the future we're creating through our inaction.