Canada and global warming: a state of denial

435 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..who are you talking to? i didn't write the piece.

montgomery

epaulo13 wrote:

..who are you talking to? i didn't write the piece.

I was talking to you because you posted it. I assumed that you would want to stand behind it. So if you don't want to stand behind it because you think it's bullshit, then that's fine too. I just thought it was worth mentioning.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..what you did is create some calculations then asked me to account for those calculations. i'm not about to do that.

montgomery

epaulo13 wrote:

..what you did is create some calculations then asked me to account for those calculations. i'm not about to do that.

Just some quick calculations which I'm sure can be challenged, but they served to blow a hole right through the article.  If you're saying that the article isn't worth your time to defend, I'm o.k. with that too! 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i actually thought the article was a good contribution to the discussion on electric cars. shows that the government is using money allotted for electric vehicles being used to build infrastructure for natural gas. this is in line with the recent corporate/government assault on unist'ot'en folk. looking to prolong the use of fossil fuels.

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

Close to half of Canadian program touted for electric cars is funding natural gas stations

Almost half of the funding in a federal program Canada has promoted as a boon for electric vehicles is being used for natural gas refueling.

The Trudeau government has funded a nationwide rollout of 102 electric vehicle (EV) chargers, as part of a Natural Resources Canada program called the “Electric Vehicle and Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Deployment Initiative.”

The program has been promoted as fulfilling a commitment to put more zero-emission vehicles on the road. Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna recently touted the program as part of her announcement on new EV chargers across Quebec.

What is less known, is that this program has also funded the installation of seven natural gas refueling stations, and three hydrogen refueling stations.

While there are far fewer natural gas and hydrogen stations than EV chargers, the refueling stations cost much more to install, typically $1 million each, compared to $50,000 for an EV charger — meaning they are sucking up much more program funding per station.....

So the funding that's got to be around $5 million. ($50,000x 102=$5.1M) has already been spent twice over on natural gas and hydrogen stations? (7+3=10x$1M=$10M)

Can you clear that up and get back to us?

From the link:

"A National Observer analysis shows that, as of Jan. 25, a list of projects being funded under the program for which contribution agreements have been signed showed $6,502,000 had been given out for natural gas refuelling, compared to $7,967,000 for EV charging and hydrogen refueling. This would mean that the government has spent 44.9 per cent of the total program funding on natural gas stations."

Interesting that they are lumping the EV charging stations and the Hydrogen stations into one figure and the Natural gas into the other.

Can anyone clarify what the carbon footprint of hydrogen energy is? If this is more like EV than Natural gas then you would think the complaint would only be against Natural gas and the hydrogen and natural gas should not be lumped together. It seems like lumping all this togetehr into one program is not an honest representation of the promise.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

[ It seems like lumping all this togetehr into one program is not an honest representation of the promise.

Yeah, I would agree that it's not totally honest. It's just that the figures presented by the article, which was posted by epaulo, stood out to me as bogus. 

Quote:
The article: "A National Observer analysis shows that, as of Jan. 25, a list of projects being funded under the program for which contribution agreements have been signed showed $6,502,000 had been given out for natural gas refuelling, compared to $7,967,000 for EV charging and hydrogen refueling. This would mean that the government has spent 44.9 per cent of the total program funding on natural gas stations."

And also has already exceeded the promised expenditure for EV charging. (102x$50K=$5.1M)

The math is mine, the figures aren't.

NorthReport

Good idea - wake up Canadians!

Zali Steggall to challenge Tony Abbott's Warringah seat at 2019 federal election

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-27/zali-steggall-to-contest-tony-abb...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

montgomery wrote:

 

Nato's air force isn't significant consumption compared to private vehicles on our roaads. That's got to be the worst reason for grounding Nato I've heard yet! 

 

Why don't you actually learn something about the subject matter that you chose to insult people over.

The Iraq war was responsible for 141m tonnes of carbon releases in its first four years, according to an Oil Change International report. On an annual basis, this was more than the emissions from 139 countries in this period, or about the same as putting an extra 25m cars on to US roads for a year.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/pentagon-to-lose-emi...

 

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

 

Nato's air force isn't significant consumption compared to private vehicles on our roaads. That's got to be the worst reason for grounding Nato I've heard yet! 

 

Why don't you actually learn something about the subject matter that you chose to insult people over.

The Iraq war was responsible for 141m tonnes of carbon releases in its first four years, according to an Oil Change International report. On an annual basis, this was more than the emissions from 139 countries in this period, or about the same as putting an extra 25m cars on to US roads for a year.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/pentagon-to-lose-emi...

 

Usually we see no news on this factor but militaries the world over are some of the worst offenders in terms of carbon footprint. The worst single organization is the US military -- many references on this -- just google it.

Canada does not keep track. Like many areas, we just do not calculate or collect the informaiton:

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/ypknzj/canada-still-doesnt-know-how-m...

The G&M wrote about Canada flying blind in many areas due to cuts in collecting data just last week.

It is no secret though that militaries of the world are the worst offenders in terms of carbon use -- and with nothing positive to show for all that.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

 

Nato's air force isn't significant consumption compared to private vehicles on our roaads. That's got to be the worst reason for grounding Nato I've heard yet! 

 

Why don't you actually learn something about the subject matter that you chose to insult people over.

The Iraq war was responsible for 141m tonnes of carbon releases in its first four years, according to an Oil Change International report. On an annual basis, this was more than the emissions from 139 countries in this period, or about the same as putting an extra 25m cars on to US roads for a year.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/pentagon-to-lose-emi...

 

You were talking about Nato's air force, not Nato's air force during the Iraq war. And besides, your quoting of numbers such as '141M tons of CO2'  or '25M cars' is meaningless if not stated in relation to CO2 releases in total for a 4 year period or 25M cars in comparison to the number of cars on US roads. It's just your cheap and tawdry politics again.

That's not to say that 25M cars isn't a significant number. Just to say that in the proper context of the conversation, it's meaningless, and Nato's air force for today's air pollution is a drop in the bucket. 

I'm saying that you are barking at the totally wrong reason for opposing Nato. And now, if you want to pull in your horns you can talk to me about the 'right' reason for why Nato shouldn't exist. 

Kropotkin, you really should try to accept me as a commentator on this board. It's not exclusively yours and some of your ideas are wrong to boot. Can we at least try polite disagreement and rational arguments?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So our newest troll is revealing themselves in full light. When people give you facts you dismiss them. You can post anything you want even it is complete tripe. I never complain to the moderators I only engage in constructive criticism, to try and ensure the debate and dialogue engaged in is based on reality.

 

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So our newest troll is revealing themselves in full light. When people give you facts you dismiss them. You can post anything you want even it is complete tripe. I never complain to the moderators I only engage in constructive criticism, to try and ensure the debate and dialogue engaged in is based on reality.

 

I think you're really bad for the party Kropotkin, because you're completely intolerant of any opinions other than your own dogma. You're in the habit of insulting others with crude profanity even if there's little room for disagreement with the one you choose to attack today. I think a lot of your problem is that you want to be seen as the most leftist on this forum and you can't accept that I'm more left than you. It shouldn't be such a problem for you; we should be able to work together and not allow the rightists to get away with any of their waffling bullshit.

But here's an olive branch for you Kropotkin!

What facts did I dismiss? 

Oh, and kropotkin, how about coming back to the discussion on 'socially responsible capitalism', which you ran away from? I still think the term is exactly right for the NDP, and it doesn't provide a weapon for the assholes who are continually calling us commies, socialists, pinkos, and other. You should know kropotkin, the righitsts hate the term! 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I am not involved in any party. So since you are so involved please give us some inside scoop on the by-election. Have you been door knocking or working the phone banks to ensure that Harris doesn't win?

jerrym

Speaking of carbon dioxide emissions, the brand new Sierra Club report is warning that besides causing immense damage to our forests and health, the extremely large wildfires of 2017 and 2018 in BC were "three times higher than emissions from all other sources combined in 2016". Furthermore, these "Forest emissions are not counted and that's the reason why they are largely ignored." The wildfires are changing BC forests from a carbon sink into a net emitter. The provincial government therefore needs to develop a plan "to reduce forest carbon emissions, including banning slash burning, protecting old-growth forests(which store the most carbon dioxide) and ramping up B.C.'s FireSmart program, which outlines best practices for reducing wildfire risk to properties in vulnerable communities."  Such a plan will not come cheaply, but the alternative in terms of human and forest health, monetary costs, and the general environment is even more expensive. 

"Uncounted forest emissions" represent a major hole in B.C.'s climate plan and show the need for a provincial forest emissions-reduction strategy, according to a new report by an environmental group.

Climate-warming carbon emissions released from B.C. forests in both 2017 and 2018 were more than three times higher than emissions from all other sources combined in 2016, the report from Sierra Club B.C. estimates. The vast majority of the estimated 237 million tonnes emitted by B.C.'s forests resulted from another record-breaking wildfire season that burned more than 13,000 square kilometres of land. 

"Our forests are not helping in the fight against climate change right now," said Jens Wieting, a campaigner with the group. We need immediate steps to make sure that forests can help in the fight against climate change, and not make it worse." ...

In 2016, the province pegged its carbon footprint from non-forestry sources at 61.3 million tonnes.

Forests can act as either a "carbon sink" that absorbs excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or a source of carbon emissions if it releases more carbon than it absorbs. The Sierra Club estimates that B.C. forests absorbed about 28 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2016.  But the group's report says B.C.'s forests started emitting more carbon than they could take in in the early 2000s. The emissions result from logging practices such as clear-cutting of old-growth forests and slash burning, as well as the increasing impact of climate change including pine-beetle outbreaks and wildfires, the report says. ...

Last month, the B.C. government introduced the Clean B.C. plan, part of the province's goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2030, 60 per cent by 2040 and 80 per cent by 2050. The plan redirects revenue from the carbon tax into incentives like rebates for the province's biggest industries to move to cleaner operations. But the Sierra Club report says the climate action plan lacks specific measures to reduce forest carbon emissions.  ...

A major challenge, Wieting says, is that forestry emissions are not counted toward the province's official greenhouse gas inventory.  "There's no action in place to reduce these emissions," said Wieting. "Forest emissions are not counted and that's the reason why they are largely ignored."

The group is calling on the province to produce an annual report measuring emissions from forests and to take steps to reduce forest carbon emissions, including banning slash burning, protecting old-growth forests and ramping up B.C.'s FireSmart program, which outlines best practices for reducing wildfire risk to properties in vulnerable communities.

Stephen Sheppard, a forestry professor at the University of British Columbia, said there has to be a "multi-pronged approach" involving industry and government to reduce the impact of forest fires on carbon emissions — and it's going to be expensive. "The budgets that we've had in the past to manage fires, which really meant suppressing fires, is probably very inadequate now," said Sheppard. 

The B.C. government has spent at least $842 million responding to wildfires since 2017.

A wildfire burns on a logging road approximately 20 km southwest of Fort St. James, B.C., in August 2018.(Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sierra-club-report-fores...

 

jerrym

After all the promises from the Trudeau Liberals that the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline will meet the highest environmental standards, we are finding out the truth. Examples of pipeline work in Burnaby and Chilliwack have demonstrated the damage the pipeline is doing to BC waterways and fish, as well as the commercial salmon industry. Since this is occurring in communities, where what has happened is readily visible to the public, one has to wonder what is happening in the backwoods where people generally are not likely to see the damage. 

Work on a Trans Mountain pipeline crossing in a British Columbia stream has destroyed salmon habitat, raising concerns about the Crown corporation’s ability to build infrastructure through waterways if the expansion project proceeds, a scientist says.

Mike Pearson says the “amateur hour” work on the Stewart Creek crossing in Chilliwack will reduce food sources for coho and chum salmon and limit their ability to hide from predators. The fish are part of the diet of endangered southern resident killer whales.

“There was no consideration given whatsoever to the habitat, which is just not acceptable,” said Pearson, a biologist with 30 years’ experience, in an interview.

Trans Mountain Corp. filed documents with the National Energy Board showing its plans to cover exposed pipe in the Fraser Valley creek. It wrote that it would place concrete mats in the channel, extending about eight metres upstream and nine metres downstream of the exposed line, and cover it with small stones.

Pearson said the work was completed in August to September of last year. He visited the site in December and took photos that he says show most of the stones have been swept away by currents, leaving the concrete blocks exposed.

“The work has degraded habitat in several ways,” he wrote in an assessment filed with the energy board by intervener Yarrow Ecovillage.

The smooth, hard concrete provides no hiding places for salmon, supports very few of the aquatic invertebrates they feed on, inhibits plant growth and prevents fish from burying their eggs, the document says.

Pearson believes it’s not an isolated incident. An assessment he did of a pipeline creek crossing on Sumas Mountain in 2015 for Pipe Up Network, an anti-pipeline group, concluded the site was physically unstable and reconstructed with materials inappropriate to restoring habitat.

A stream-keeper has also raised concerns about excavation at Trans Mountain’s terminal in Burnaby. John Preissl has filed several complaints with the energy board alleging the work has caused sediment to fall into two salmon-bearing creeks.

Federal and provincial officials inspected the terminal in April and found improperly installed sediment and erosion control measures. A follow-up energy board report concluded Trans Mountain had fixed the problems by the end of November. ...

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has purchased the pipeline and expansion project for $4.5-billion.

The expansion would triple the capacity of the existing line that runs from the Edmonton area to Burnaby. The energy board completed its first review in 2016 and recommended the government approve the project with 157 conditions.

In its report, the board wrote the watercourse crossing plans “would effectively reduce the extent of effects on fish and fish habitat.”

Ten conditions relate to fish, including that the company must file details on the presence of fish and fish habitat with the board before starting construction on watercourse crossings.

Most of the conditions are “a plan to make a plan,” argued Eugene Kung, a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law. “They don’t have any actual measurable effect on the outcome.”

A Trans Mountain pipeline crossing in Stewart Creek, in Chilliwack, B.C., on Dec. 12, 2018.

MIKE PEARSON /THE CANADIAN PRESS

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-work-on-...

 

 

 

 

jerrym

On Friday of last week the UN Security Counsel debate on how climate change is already impacting peace and security around the world and will increasingly do so in the future, even though the issue has been politically controversial. However, the evidence of its effects on the security of societies is growing all the time. 

“The relationship between climate-related risks and conflict is complex and often intersects with political, social, economic and demographic factors,” said Rosemary DiCarlo, the Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs in her opening remarks. “The risks associated with climate-related disasters do not represent a scenario of some distant future. They are already a reality for millions of people around the globe – and they are not going away,” she stressed.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/01/1031322

 

 

The World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) Chief Scientist, Pavel Kabat, briefed Member States on climate and extreme weather issues, explaining that climate change “is increasingly regarded as a national security threat.” He said climate change is “undercutting progress in the SDGs (sustainable development goals)” and has “a multitude of security impacts – rolling back the gains in nutrition and access to food; heightening the risk of wildfires and exacerbating air quality challenges; increasing the potential for water conflict; leading to more internal displacement and migration.” Kabat emphasized WMO’s commitment to support the UN and Member States with expert information and “cutting-edge science” for informed decision making, noting that WMO is increasing its support to the UN Operations and Crisis center through a dedicated advisor at UN Headquarters.

http://sdg.iisd.org/news/unsc-debates-climate-change-impact-on-peace-sec...

jerrym

With the extreme cold temperatures across North America, we can expect the climate change deniers to be out in full force. However, this is what was predicted in climate change models.

A large swath of Canada, from the Prairies to Nova Scotia, is under a deep freeze. Temperatures in Winnipeg are dipping down to –36 C Monday night with a windchill of almost –50 C. In Windsor, which is typically the warmest spot in Ontario, the overnight temperature will dip to –27 C with a windchill of –40 C. 

Even in parts of the U.S. Midwest, temperatures are expected to have a wind chill of –50 C.

This may leave some, like U.S. president Donald Trump, wondering where global warming has wandered off to. ...

The fact is, it's climate change, or global warming, that's behind this extreme cold. Ever since the bitter winter of 2014, a new winter-weather catchphrase has been making the rounds: polar vortex. The polar vortex is nothing new. It's just that it typically encircles the north pole. However, in recent years, it seems to be meandering southward every so often. ...

A recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found the Arctic is warming two to three times faster than anywhere else on Earth. This temperature difference upsets the stability of the jet stream. And that brings the cold Arctic air southward where it can linger, a result that meteorologists call a blocking pattern. 

"We have seen more of these; we've noticed that trend already, that's proven. And all of our climate models show this trend will continue," Wagstaffe said. "And that doesn't just mean more heat and more drought conditions. It can also mean more of these extreme cold blasts or extreme wet or snowy systems staying in place longer than normal."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-polar-vortex-1.4998820

 

jerrym

Not only do the climate change models predicted the extreme cold temperatures they also predicted the extreme temperature changes that will accompany them, both of which conditions will cause major societal problems. To be fair this theory needs further data to confirm it but so far it appears to explain what is happening in this area well. 

Wednesday's high temperature in Chicago is forecast to be 12 below zero. Low temperatures from 5 to 15 below zero are likely in Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Albany and Burlington with wind chills as low as 40 below Thursday morning. ...

The cold blast won't last very long. The coldest air will be in retreat by Friday. By Sunday temperatures will back in the 50s in parts of the Ohio Valley — feeling like 100 degrees warmer than this week's lowest wind chills.

It should be noted that this theory is relatively new and there is a lot of debate in the climate science community about the extent to which such a connection exists. CBS News reached out to two leading climate scientists for comment about whether or not a portion of the recent Arctic outbreaks can be traced to climate change. Here's what they had to say:

Dr. Judah Cohen, a climate scientist at Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), told us:

I have argued that low sea ice and extensive snow cover [in autumn] as a result of Arctic amplification have resulted in more frequent weakenings or disruptions of the polar vortex in recent decades.

When the polar vortex is weak or "perturbed," the flow of air is weaker and meanders north and south (rather than west to east). This allows a redistribution of air masses where cold air from the Arctic spills into the mid-latitudes and warm air from the subtropics is carried into the Arctic.

Dr. Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said:

These questions test the limits of both our available data (the apparent increase in frequency of these events is quite recent and so at best only just starting to emerge from the background noise) and the model simulations.

As we showed in our recent Science article, current generation climate models don't resolve some of the key processes involved in the jet stream dynamics behind many types of weather extremes.

Honest scientists can legitimately differ based on reasonable interpretations of the evidence to date.

In summary, most scientists involved with this kind of research are intrigued by the theory. It is a very active area of research. Generally, they agree that more study and improved climate models are needed to zero in on the causes and effects.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/polar-vortex-what-is-the-2019-polar-vortex-...

jerrym

Chris Tollefson reviews three books below that examine why Canada's political system is still paralyzed when it comes to dealing with climate  change despite the Trudeau Liberals promises to deal decisively with the crisis in the 2015 election. 

  • Costly Fix: Power, Politics and Nature in the Tar Sands: Ian Urquhart: University of Toronto Press (2018)
  • Oil’s Deep State: How the Petroleum Industry Undermines Democracy and Stops Action on Global Warming: Kevin Taft: Lorimer (2017)
  • The Big Stall: How Big Oil and Think Tanks are Blocking Action on Climate Change in Canada: Donald Gutstein: Lorimer (2018) ...

Why is Canada so politically paralyzed in the face of such compelling evidence about the need for decisive action on climate change? ...

Urquhart argues that the 1990s Alberta tarsands boom was facilitated and characterized by a radical departure in government resource policy. Both federally and provincially, he argues, the 1990s saw the prevailing nationalist “think like an owner” approach to resource management dissipate and ultimately discredited. In its place, a continentalist vision was soon embedded, steered by an ideology Urquhart refers to as “market fundamentalism.”

And so, from the 1990s onward, the tarsands became the pampered and privileged child of Canadian government policy makers and influencers. According to Urquhart, what evolved was less an abandonment of regulation than a “re-regulation” that recast, in some basic ways, the subsisting bargain between capital and the state. In the process, the state — particularly at the provincial level — happily and completely abdicated its historic role in managing and controlling resource development and growth. ...

Like Urquhart, Taft is intimately familiar with the frontier politics of Alberta, and with the political power of Big Oil. For a good chunk of time he chronicles here, Taft was an Alberta MLA (2001 to 2012) serving as the leader of the Liberal party opposition from 2004 to 2008.

Taft combines his insider knowledge with a crisp and hard-hitting writing style. He sets out to ask why democratically elected governments, at both federal and provincial levels, have so consistently failed to take action on climate change despite compelling evidence that the fate of the future generations hangs in the balance. The answer, in his view, is quite simple: “global warming is a death sentence for the fossil fuel industry.” To delay that sentence, Taft argues that the industry has spent untold millions to capture key democratic institutions including political parties, governments, regulators and universities. ...

According to Taft, the Alberta government sold the oilsands “at fire-sale prices” with industry “gorg[ing] itself until it grew so big, it began to trip on its own tentacles.” As Urquhart puts it, the “irrational exuberance” of this period, “... encouraged by market fundamentalism’s impact on government decision-making, spawned a litany of damage, problems, and challenges.” ...

851px version of SyncrudeMildredLakeFacility.jpg

 An open mine pit in front of Syncrude’s Mildred Lake facility. Photo: Greenpeace / Eamon MacMahon. ...

Among the impacts chronicled is the price paid by nature and the environment in the tarsands region (an area Urquhart refers to a “landscape of sacrifice,” one that borders Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada’s largest national park and a UNESCO world heritage site). Urquhart also provides a nuanced account of the detrimental effects of the boom on Canada’s ability to meet its international greenhouse gas reduction targets. ...

Donald Gutstein’s latest book, The Big Stall, riffs off many of the same themes. A retired communications professor at Simon Fraser University, Gutstein offers a rollicking and opinionated diatribe about corporate power in an era of climate change rendered Chomsky-style through a blizzard of facts and information. More of a Shadbolt than a Bateman, Gutstein’s painting of how powerful business interests and their propagandists have succeeded in blocking action on climate change is loud, proud and defiantly left-wing. Gutstein, like Taft, clearly relishes exposing the backroom deals and clandestine relationships, both in Canada and the U.S., that help explain the complex politics of climate change, a politics that all three authors would agree has become heavily corporate-dominated.

A provocative aspect of Gutstein’s analysis is his portrayal of the rise of what he calls the “New Gospel” — the notion that governments should respond to climate change by adopting business-friendly policy tools such as carbon pricing. In Gutstein’s view, carbon pricing is a Trojan horse, a measure favoured by business for purely self-interested reasons. His book also offers a highly skeptical interpretation of the Paris Climate Agreement, which he calls “Big Oil’s Deal” due to its reliance on carbon pricing as a policy instrument while eschewing the imposition of binding national targets. ...

All three books recognize that the continuing power exercised by Big Oil is a function of both the efforts of the business interests and their traditional allies as well as the corresponding inability of potential counter-movements to gain political traction. Urquhart, in particular, tackles this complex question with some finesse exploring why Big Labour, environmental groups and First Nations have yet to mount a serious challenge to the dominance of Big Oil. To some extent, these reasons relate to overt efforts by industry to co-opt potential opposition. Institutional factors that fragment and undermine efforts by opponents to have a voice in regulatory decision and policy-making also play a role, as well as more simply what Urquhart calls “the compelling and nature of the ideology of market fundamentalism.” ...

Gutstein concludes The Big Stall with a rabble-rousing chapter that exhorts us to question growth and to question (spoiler alert) economists. Instead, he argues, we should look to the courts and to Parliament to lend recognition to Indigenous rights and to push for the recognition of such rights internationally, including in international climate conventions. In his view, “Big Oil is correct to fear entrenchment of Indigenous rights in climate change treaties, since it could materially affect business as usual.” He also suggests that we should likewise endow nature with binding legal rights to provide a counterbalance to the rights enjoyed by corporations both under domestic and international law. ...

Urquhart is less effusive. In his view, recent experience, federally and provincially, has demonstrated that the “institutional legacy” of Big Oil-friendly rules and institutions is highly resilient even in the face of dramatic electoral change. For Big Oil to be displaced from its dominant role in Canadian politics would require, in his view, substantial changes in the nature of the Canadian state, and for the issue of combating climate change to acquire a much greater level of political/electoral salience. This, he acknowledges, may well “require a degree of mass political organization and mobilization Canadian environmentalism hasn’t seen yet.”

Taft ends his book on a more optimistic note, with some very specific suggestions. In a concluding chapter, he argues that the end game must be “crossing the divide between a high-carbon present and the post-carbon future with determination and speed... the goal of humanity must be to reach zero emissions by mid-century, and even then we will need to brace for lifetimes of climate upheaval.” ...

All three books elucidate the challenges this mobilization will face. The urgency of mounting this mobilization is undeniable, not only as the result of the dwindling time we have left to curb global temperature rises associated with greenhouse gas emissions, but also due to pending actions and decisions on the political front. It seems pretty clear, for example, that the Trudeau government is bound and determined to grant regulatory approval to the TMX pipeline project, which it now owns, by mid-2019. ...

And so, within weeks, it’s likely we will be embroiled in a second round of lawsuits and protests challenging the TMX project, and the process by which it has secured “re-approval” — a re-approval pursuant to the very Harper rules that Justin Trudeau promised, if elected, he would repeal to restore public trust, but which nonetheless still govern the TMX review process.

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/01/28/Canada-Petro-Paralysis/

 

 

 

jerrym

The Trudeau Liberal federal government gap between their 2030 Paris Agreement emissions target and actual emissions continues to grow wider and wider with each new year. AND THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS! It hopes it solve the problem by playing games with the numbers. 

The numbers come from the latest climate pollution projections report,"Canada's Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions Projections 2018." Each year, the government tallies up its projections, and each year the picture has gotten worse. ...

Back in 2016, the Canadian government projected that all current and proposed policies (plus emissions credits they hope to be able to count) would get Canada to within 44 million tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) of the 2030 target.  The next year the projected "emissions gap" widened to 66 MtCO2.  And now, the government's newest projections show the gap has widened even further. They now project a gap of 78 MtCO2.  Unfortunately, that's the good news. According to the new report, Canada's actual emissions are projected to be even higher than that: 115 MtCO2 above their 2030 Paris target, or less than halfway to the target. 

The government is hoping to reduce that number by 37 MtCO2 in "emissions credits" which would be bought from California and claimed from carbon in Canada’s forests. However, these credits are uncertain. For one thing Canada doesn't have permission to count them under the Paris Agreement. For another, the amount is speculative at this point.

The gap between Canada's proposed climate efforts and its 2030 Paris Agreement target has grown even wider in the last year. The federal government is now predicting a gap larger than all emissions from the province of Quebec. The numbers come from the latest climate pollution projections report,"Canada's Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions Projections 2018." Each year, the government tallies up its projections, and each year the picture has gotten worse.

Back in 2016, the Canadian government projected that all current and proposed policies (plus emissions credits they hope to be able to count) would get Canada to within 44 million tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) of the 2030 target.  The next year the projected "emissions gap" widened to 66 MtCO2.  And now, the government's newest projections show the gap has widened even further. They now project a gap of 78 MtCO2. ...

Unfortunately, that's the good news. According to the new report, Canada's actual emissions are projected to be even higher than that: 115 MtCO2 above their 2030 Paris target, or less than halfway to the target. The government is hoping to reduce that number by 37 MtCO2 in "emissions credits" which would be bought from California and claimed from carbon in Canada’s forests. However, these credits are uncertain. For one thing Canada doesn't have permission to count them under the Paris Agreement. For another, the amount is speculative at this point. ...

With or without these credits, the latest report shows that Canada is on track to miss its 2030 climate target by a large and growing amount. ...

The federal and provincial governments have proposed — but not yet enacted — several new climate policies. These would improve the situation but would still get Canada less than halfway to the goal. ...

 The Canadian government is also hoping to count some "emissions credits" towards the target. The new report lists projections for two kinds of "credits." One is an ongoing effort to claim credits that Quebec is buying from California under the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). The second is a newly introduced effort to count some carbon credits from Canada’s forests (LULUCF).  Both are speculative at this point. My chart shows them as dashed grey boxes, just below the oil & gas sector. They are currently projected to add up to 37 MtCO2 in 2030. ...

But the most important thing to note is that even if the government finds a way to count these credits, Canada still wouldn’t be close to meeting its 2030 Paris target. Canada's climate gap would be 78 MtCO2. That's more than the province of Quebec emits today. And, as mentioned above, this emissions gap keeps growing significantly wider each time the government updates its projections. ...

If the oil & gas sector reduced emissions in line with the national goal — a 30 per cent reduction from 2005 levels — then this sector's emissions would fall by 47 MtCO2 by 2030. The yellow bar on the chart shows what this would look like. In this scenario, Canada as a whole would be on track to meet its 2030 Paris climate target. ...

However, instead of reducing emissions, the oil & gas sector is on track to increase its climate pollution by 23 per cent. That's creating an emissions gap from just this one sector of 84 MtCO2. And as we've seen above, that's bigger than the nation's entire gap. If the government continues on the current path of allowing the oil & gas sector to emit 84 MtCO2 more than its share of the nation's target, then they will need to choose other parts of the economy to make large additional cuts to make up for it. That's known as "burden shifting" and in this case the burden is the size of all the emissions from Canada’s second most populous province.  That’s the elephant in the room when it comes to Canada's climate goals. How large will governments allow the oil & gas emissions burden to grow? And the follow-up question is: who will government pick to shoulder that burden? 

Unfortunately, as with previous climate reports, the government fails to address these critical questions. Instead of answers, it projects only a widening climate gap — now 78 to 115 MtCO2 — without any specifics about how it plans to close the gap. ...

The government's own calculations show that Canada's managed forests have transitioned from small carbon sinks into large carbon emitters in recent years. ...

The primary reason for this switch to carbon emitting is the increasing scale of wildfires and insect outbreaks. Both increases are being driven in large part by human-induced climate change. Even though our forests are shifting into being huge carbon emitters, Canada hopes to claim carbon credits from them. ...

Whether Canada can find a way claim carbon offsets from forestlands that have become large carbon emitters is yet to be seen.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/01/30/analysis/canadas-climate-gap...

 

 

jerrym

The British medical magazine has a new report out that climate change is interacting with undernutrition and obesity to create a global pandemic. 

The Lancet calls it the “Global Syndemic.” The report’s authors say we’re facing three pandemics — undernutrition, obesity and climate change — that are interacting to form a “synergy of epidemics,” or syndemic, and it’s a global problem. ...

Climate change is having serious effects on human health, bringing “crop failures, reduced food production, extreme weather events that produce droughts and flooding, increased food-borne and other infectious diseases, and civil unrest.” Those climate effects, the report says, will end up costing five to 10 per cent of global GDP, while investing just one per cent of GDP could stop the increase in climate change.

The Lancet report is blunt about why we do so little, citing “the power of vested interests by commercial actors whose engagement in policy often constitutes a conflict of interest that is at odds with the public good and planetary health.” 

For example, “The fossil fuel and food industries that are responsible for driving the Global Syndemic receive more than $5 trillion in annual subsidies from governments.” In other words, we’re spending our tax dollars on the razors that are cutting our own throats. ...

Among its recommendations, the report calls for “double-duty” actions, things like promoting public transit, which results in both increased physical activity and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.  Similarly, promoting plant-based diets and reducing meat consumption will help reduce obesity and heart disease and cut methane production from livestock. Cutting subsidies to fossil fuel and the food industries would allow subsidies to sustainable energy and transportation as well as local food-production systems.

Health Canada’s recently updated food guide is largely in step with the Lancet report. But the meat and processed-food industries are fighting the changes, just as the fossil fuel industry has fought action on climate change. 

To counter such lobbies, the report recommends “collective approaches to common challenges” by building new coalitions both nationally and internationally.

https://www.thetyee.ca/News/2019/02/01/Malnutrition-Obesity-Threaten-Fut...

Aristotleded24

jerrym wrote:
Not only do the climate change models predicted the extreme cold temperatures they also predicted the extreme temperature changes that will accompany them, both of which conditions will cause major societal problems. To be fair this theory needs further data to confirm it but so far it appears to explain what is happening in this area well. 

Wednesday's high temperature in Chicago is forecast to be 12 below zero. Low temperatures from 5 to 15 below zero are likely in Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Albany and Burlington with wind chills as low as 40 below Thursday morning. ...

The cold blast won't last very long. The coldest air will be in retreat by Friday. By Sunday temperatures will back in the 50s in parts of the Ohio Valley — feeling like 100 degrees warmer than this week's lowest wind chills.

It should be noted that this theory is relatively new and there is a lot of debate in the climate science community about the extent to which such a connection exists. CBS News reached out to two leading climate scientists for comment about whether or not a portion of the recent Arctic outbreaks can be traced to climate change. Here's what they had to say:

Dr. Judah Cohen, a climate scientist at Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), told us:

I have argued that low sea ice and extensive snow cover [in autumn] as a result of Arctic amplification have resulted in more frequent weakenings or disruptions of the polar vortex in recent decades.

When the polar vortex is weak or "perturbed," the flow of air is weaker and meanders north and south (rather than west to east). This allows a redistribution of air masses where cold air from the Arctic spills into the mid-latitudes and warm air from the subtropics is carried into the Arctic.

Dr. Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said:

These questions test the limits of both our available data (the apparent increase in frequency of these events is quite recent and so at best only just starting to emerge from the background noise) and the model simulations.

As we showed in our recent Science article, current generation climate models don't resolve some of the key processes involved in the jet stream dynamics behind many types of weather extremes.

Honest scientists can legitimately differ based on reasonable interpretations of the evidence to date.

In summary, most scientists involved with this kind of research are intrigued by the theory. It is a very active area of research. Generally, they agree that more study and improved climate models are needed to zero in on the causes and effects.

">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/polar-vortex-what-is-the-2019-polar-vortex-...

While Iqaluit in the far north has actually seen several days warmer than Winnipeg in the last week.

jerrym

ETA: Another just released report states that at least one third and up to two thirds of Asian glaciers could disappear by 2100 threatening the freshwater supply for two billion people. This is because the glaciers of the Hindu Kush-Himalaya (HKH) provide the water that is essential for some 250 million people in the mountainous region in addition to 1.65 billion others below in the river valleys, according to the report.

This is almost certainly going to greatly increase the number climate change refugees and bring about a global economic downturn as Asia drives much of the world's economy now, including on Canada. 

Even radical climate change action won’t save glaciers, endangering 2 billion people

The Khumbu glacier

 Melting ice on Khumbu glacier in the Everest-Khumbu region. Himalayan glaciers are a water source for 250 millions people. Photograph: Alex Treadway/ICIMOD

At least a third of the huge ice fields in Asia’s towering mountain chain are doomed to melt due to climate change, according to a landmark report, with serious consequences for almost 2 billion people. Even if carbon emissions are dramatically and rapidly cut and succeed in limiting global warming to 1.5C, 36% of the glaciers along in the Hindu Kush and Himalaya range will have gone by 2100. If emissions are not cut, the loss soars to two-thirds, the report found.

The glaciers are a critical water store for the 250 million people who live in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya (HKH) region, and 1.65 billion people rely on the great rivers that flow from the peaks into India, Pakistan, China and other nations.

“This is the climate crisis you haven’t heard of,” said Philippus Wester of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (Icimod), who led the report. “In the best of possible worlds, if we get really ambitious [in tackling climate change], even then we will lose one-third of the glaciers and be in trouble. That for us was the shocking finding.” Wester said that, despite being far more populous, the HKH region had received less attention than other places, such as low-lying island states and the Arctic, that are also highly vulnerable to global warming. ...

The new report, requested by the eight nations the mountains span, is intended to change that. More than 200 scientists worked on the report over five years, with another 125 experts peer reviewing their work. Until recently the impact of climate change on the ice in the HKH region was uncertain, said Wester. “But we really do know enough now to take action, and action is urgently needed,” he added. ...

The HKH region runs from Afghanistan to Myanmar and is the planet’s “third pole”, harbouring more ice than anywhere outside Arctic and Antarctica. ...

Since the 1970s, about 15% of the ice in the HKH region has disappeared as temperatures have risen. ...

The melting glaciers will increase river flows through to 2050 to 2060, he said, pushing up the risk of high-altitude lakes bursting their banks and engulfing communities. But from the 2060s, river flows will go into decline. The Indus and central Asian rivers will be most affected. “Those areas will be hard hit,” said Wester.

Lower flows will cut the power from the hydrodams that generate much of the region’s electricity. But the most serious impact will be on farmers in the foothills and downstream. They rely on predictable water supplies to grow the crops that feed the nations in the mountains’ shadows.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/04/a-third-of-himalayan...

LB Cultured Thought

jerrym wrote:

After all the promises from the Trudeau Liberals that the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline will meet the highest environmental standards, we are finding out the truth. Examples of pipeline work in Burnaby and Chilliwack have demonstrated the damage the pipeline is doing to BC waterways and fish, as well as the commercial salmon industry. Since this is occurring in communities, where what has happened is readily visible to the public, one has to wonder what is happening in the backwoods where people generally are not likely to see the damage. 

 

This is a great example of why news reporters should either require a science degree or have an editor with a science degree. Alternatively, they could take 10 minutes to run this kind of story past an impartial expert...

Firstly, this appears to be an ephemeral stream, which doesn't mean it can’t provide good salmon habitat, but limits the times in which in could. Second, consider that the entire span of “destroyed” habitat is about 17m (both sides) within the entire stream. Third, remember that a qualified professional (likely a Professional Biologist) was onsite the entire time…planning, monitoring, and signing off on this work.

Also probably important context for this story: this was a span of pipe within a river where the pipe had become exposed over time due to erosion, and they were adding cover to the pipe to restore the natural habitat. Back in the day, crossing a river with a pipeline meant blocking the stream, cutting into the ground to lay the pipe, then patching things up and bringing the water back. I’ve worked over 100 stream crossings for pipeline construction (as the Professional Biologist onsite monitoring), and none have used this old method. Everything these days is a horizontal directional drill job, so absolutely no effect in the waterway (as confirmed by an onsite Biologist).

Also important, the habitat laid down by the company here probably works as good fish habitat. The main deterioration one might see given the pictures in the news article might be vegetative, except we know this was already an ongoing right of way.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Oilpatch giants deny involvement in covert U.S. pollution campaign

Three Canadian oilpatch giants say they had nothing to do with a campaign to weaken car emissions rules backed by a U.S. trade group to which they belong.

In comments to National Observer, officials from Suncor, Husky and Cenovus distanced themselves from recent findings by investigations at the New York Times and ProPublica that revealed how a U.S. association representing oil refiners, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), was behind an effort last year to weaken vehicle standards.

A Suncor executive also sits on the board of directors of AFPM — an organization which says it’s on the lookout for environmental “overregulation” and which was involved in a 2016 battle against a crackdown on U.S. power plant pollution. Canadian oil and gas producer Irving Oil is also a member, as are other multinational companies with Canadian interests, including Exxon and Chevron.

Andrew Gage, staff lawyer at Vancouver-based West Coast Environmental Law, argued that their membership in the group showed how Canadian industry was complicit in actions that delay tackling climate change.

"These types of industry-led attacks on climate policy emphasize how far the oil and gas industry will go to keep making profits, while the rest of us pay the price of climate change,” said Gage. “That's true not only for the U.S. fossil fuel industry, but industry players in Canada and around the world.".....

montgomery

epaulo13 wrote:

Oilpatch giants deny involvement in covert U.S. pollution campaign

Three Canadian oilpatch giants say they had nothing to do with a campaign to weaken car emissions rules backed by a U.S. trade group to which they belong.

In comments to National Observer, officials from Suncor, Husky and Cenovus distanced themselves from recent findings by investigations at the New York Times and ProPublica that revealed how a U.S. association representing oil refiners, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), was behind an effort last year to weaken vehicle standards.

A Suncor executive also sits on the board of directors of AFPM — an organization which says it’s on the lookout for environmental “overregulation” and which was involved in a 2016 battle against a crackdown on U.S. power plant pollution. Canadian oil and gas producer Irving Oil is also a member, as are other multinational companies with Canadian interests, including Exxon and Chevron.

Andrew Gage, staff lawyer at Vancouver-based West Coast Environmental Law, argued that their membership in the group showed how Canadian industry was complicit in actions that delay tackling climate change.

"These types of industry-led attacks on climate policy emphasize how far the oil and gas industry will go to keep making profits, while the rest of us pay the price of climate change,” said Gage. “That's true not only for the U.S. fossil fuel industry, but industry players in Canada and around the world.".....

Half of NDP supporters, probably 2/3's of Liberal supporters, and probably all Conservative supporters, aren't siding with big oil as much as they are taking a carefully thought out position in favour of the pipeline.

That which I personally find appealing with the idea of going ahead is the issue of Canada being blackmailed by the US on oil prices. I think it's time to bite the bullet and go with Notley and crew. There are negative environmental issues that can be weighed both ways, as to the concerns of continuing with fossil fuels. As to what I understand your issues to bee, I would say they pale in comparison to the big issues against the pipeline, already mentioned.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding your issues? Sometimes it's hard to seaparte your issues from the issues in the links you post. Is it safe to say they're the same?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

montgomery

..your response has nothing to do with the post you quoted. if you really want to discuss the pipeline there is a pipeline thread that can be found in the bc topics. 

montgomery

epaulo13 wrote:

montgomery

..your response has nothing to do with the post you quoted. if you really want to discuss the pipeline there is a pipeline thread that can be found in the bc topics. 

Yeah o.k., i thought that my comment was on topic and 'did' address your post but I'll accept your opinion and take it elsewhere. 

jerrym

LB Cultured Thought wrote:

jerrym wrote:

After all the promises from the Trudeau Liberals that the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline will meet the highest environmental standards, we are finding out the truth. Examples of pipeline work in Burnaby and Chilliwack have demonstrated the damage the pipeline is doing to BC waterways and fish, as well as the commercial salmon industry. Since this is occurring in communities, where what has happened is readily visible to the public, one has to wonder what is happening in the backwoods where people generally are not likely to see the damage. 

 

This is a great example of why news reporters should either require a science degree or have an editor with a science degree. Alternatively, they could take 10 minutes to run this kind of story past an impartial expert...

Firstly, this appears to be an ephemeral stream, which doesn't mean it can’t provide good salmon habitat, but limits the times in which in could. Second, consider that the entire span of “destroyed” habitat is about 17m (both sides) within the entire stream. Third, remember that a qualified professional (likely a Professional Biologist) was onsite the entire time…planning, monitoring, and signing off on this work.

Also probably important context for this story: this was a span of pipe within a river where the pipe had become exposed over time due to erosion, and they were adding cover to the pipe to restore the natural habitat. Back in the day, crossing a river with a pipeline meant blocking the stream, cutting into the ground to lay the pipe, then patching things up and bringing the water back. I’ve worked over 100 stream crossings for pipeline construction (as the Professional Biologist onsite monitoring), and none have used this old method. Everything these days is a horizontal directional drill job, so absolutely no effect in the waterway (as confirmed by an onsite Biologist).

Also important, the habitat laid down by the company here probably works as good fish habitat. The main deterioration one might see given the pictures in the news article might be vegetative, except we know this was already an ongoing right of way.

You cite your background as a biologist working for a pipeline construction firm as proof of having the expertise to discuss the issue, allegedly on an unbiased manner. Yet you are hardly an "impartial expert" you say reporters should talk to concerning the pipeline, having been paid by the industry involved in pipeline building. You also left out the reference quoted in the article to another biologist, who was not paid by the fossil fuel industry. 

Mike Pearson says the “amateur hour” work on the Stewart Creek crossing in Chilliwack will reduce food sources for coho and chum salmon and limit their ability to hide from predators. The fish are part of the diet of endangered southern resident killer whales.

“There was no consideration given whatsoever to the habitat, which is just not acceptable,” said Pearson, a biologist with 30 years’ experience, in an interview.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-work-on-...

Your criticism is also typical of those who attack evidence related to global warming by picking out small details to criticize  while avoiding discussing the staggering body of  scientific evidence generated by thousands of scientists that this is the number one problem of the 21st century, requiring an enormous shift in the way that we produce and distribute energy if we are to avoid an global environmental and economic catastrophe. According to the October 2018 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to cite just one of the articles in discussed in previous posts, we have just over a decade to act on this. Building more pipelines to carry more fossil fuels is definitely not part of the solution. 

jerrym

2018 was the fourth warmest year in history globally. In addition, twenty of the globally hottest years have occurred in the last 22 years. The last five years are also collectively the hottest five years in history. 

The world in 2018 was 1.5F (0.83C) warmer than the average set between 1951 and 1980, said NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This means 2018’s average global temperatures were the fourth warmest since 1880, placing it behind 2016, 2017 and 2015.

This follows a broader pattern of human-induced climate change, which is boosting increasingly punishing heatwaves, sea level rises and extreme weather. Last year saw a pair of devastatinghurricanes hit the eastern US, while record wildfires ravaged California. There was disastrous flooding in India, a huge typhoon in the Philippines and deadly wildfires in Greece and Sweden. The Arctic, which had its second warmest year on record, experienced temperature highs that astonishedscientists.

“2018 is yet again an extremely warm year on top of a long-term global warming trend,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “The impacts of long-term global warming are already being felt – in coastal flooding, heatwaves, intense precipitation and ecosystem change.” ...

He added he was “very concerned with what is going on in the Arctic”, which is heating up at around double the rate of the global average. Average extent of sea ice in the Arctic was the second smallest on record in 2018. ...

“The long-term temperature trend is far more important than the ranking of individual years, and that trend is an upward one,“ said Petteri Taalas, secretary general of the WMO. “The 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years. The degree of warming during the past four years has been exceptional, both on land and in the ocean.”

Taalas said the extreme weather events of the past year have had “devastating repercussions” for people, economies and ecosystems.

“Many of the extreme weather events are consistent with what we expect from a changing climate,” he said. “This is a reality we need to face up to. Greenhouse gas emission reduction and climate adaptation measures should be a top global priority.”

Schmidt said that without an El Niño, 2017 would be the warmest year on record, with 2018 the third warmest. This year has started with mild El Nino conditions, “which suggests 2019 will be warmer than 2018 but that’s more a rule of thumb than a firm prediction”, Schmidt said.

The relentless warming has highlighted the steep challenges faced by governments if they want to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The world needs to halve its greenhouse gas emissions by the 2030s to avoid breaching limits set out in the Paris climate agreement, the UN warned last year, at a time when global emissions show no sign of decline. ...

In January, the same organization warned that levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide will rise by a near-record amount in 2019. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have not been as prevalent on Earth for at least 3 million years – a period when the seas were 10-20 meters higher.

“The Earth has taken a walloping since 2014,” said Brenda Ekwurzel, director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Eighteen of the 19 warmest years since record keeping began have occurred since 2001. That means kids graduating from high school have only known a world of record-breaking temperatures.”

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/06/news/2018-was-worlds-fourth-...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..worth repeating.

Ocasio-Cortez & Markey Unveil Sweeping “Green New Deal” to Radically Shift U.S. Off Fossil Fuels

quote:

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Congressmember Ocasio-Cortez on 60 Minutes, Kate Oronoff, talking about the payment of how you can fund the Green New Deal.

KATE ORONOFF: Right. And as she rightly points out, and has several times since, we never ask this question when we’ve decided on national priorities. So, whether that’s the New Deal itself, whether that’s World War II, when the nation decides that it wants to do something, we don’t talk about, you know, “Who will we have to tax in order to do this? Who will have to pay up?” We have the resources. We denominate our own currency. And, you know, there’s no reason why we should sort of hold this conversation hostage, about dealing with the existential threat of climate change, to these sort of parochial concerns about the deficit and these sort of abstract ideas.

What’s also worth bringing up is that, you know, this conversation is never had in relief to the massive amount of costs that climate change will bring about if we don’t do anything about it, which the National Climate Assessment report has said, you know, could be up into the trillions of dollars. The United States is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change. And so I think that really has to be a part of the conversation, is not sort of how much will this cost us now, but how much will it cost us if we don’t do anything about it.

LB Cultured Thought

jerrym wrote:

You cite your background as a biologist working for a pipeline construction firm as proof of having the expertise to discuss the issue, allegedly on an unbiased manner. Yet you are hardly an "impartial expert" you say reporters should talk to concerning the pipeline, having been paid by the industry involved in pipeline building. You also left out the reference quoted in the article to another biologist, who was not paid by the fossil fuel industry. 

Mike Pearson says the “amateur hour” work on the Stewart Creek crossing in Chilliwack will reduce food sources for coho and chum salmon and limit their ability to hide from predators. The fish are part of the diet of endangered southern resident killer whales.

“There was no consideration given whatsoever to the habitat, which is just not acceptable,” said Pearson, a biologist with 30 years’ experience, in an interview.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-work-on-...

Your criticism is also typical of those who attack evidence related to global warming by picking out small details to criticize  while avoiding discussing the staggering body of  scientific evidence generated by thousands of scientists that this is the number one problem of the 21st century, requiring an enormous shift in the way that we produce and distribute energy if we are to avoid an global environmental and economic catastrophe. According to the October 2018 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to cite just one of the articles in discussed in previous posts, we have just over a decade to act on this. Building more pipelines to carry more fossil fuels is definitely not part of the solution. 

Not sure what my comment had to do with global warming... I'm a scientist, so obviously I am quite aware how global warming works and how we might combat that problem. In fact, I have personally managed multiple greenhouse gas offset projects  (on 3 continents), with a net impact equivalent to taking many millions of cars off the road. Though, I'm sure, you've done far more, since you're not one of those who picks at small details. Perhaps you could detail your own projects for us here!

As for my expertise on stream crossings for pipelines, yes, I gained that while working for pipeline companies. You see, having a professional biologist onsite to monitor operations and ensure fish habitat is protected isn't a requirement for pipeline construction, yet it's something most Alberta companies have been doing for a while now (at a significant cost sometimes). So these oil companies are clearly willing to put some money behind environmental protection. Let me know when greenpeace, or whichever silly environmental group you follow, is willing to actually put money behind real environmental protection....instead of just stoking fear of safe green technologies. That is how expertise works, and the fact you aren't clear on that is why fake news is created in the first place...to please your uninformed ears. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

The End of Ice: Dahr Jamail on Climate Disruption from the Melting Himalayas to Insect Extinction

DAHR JAMAIL: They’re more indications of how far along we already are, regarding human-caused climate disruption. Excuse me. They essentially underscore that we are on a warming trend now that’s unprecedented, unlike anything that we’ve ever seen since humans have been on the planet. And it’s very disconcerting. And we can really look across the globe and see these giant alarm bells, like the melting of the glaciers in the Himalaya, the collapse of insect populations, which that same report said, at the current trajectory, assuming we don’t speed up or these trends don’t speed up, which they may well do that, we could lose all insects by 2100.

If we look at what’s happening to glaciers in the United States, just in the contiguous 48 states, in Glacier National Park, a lead expert there told me that we could probably not have any glaciers left whatsoever in Glacier National Park by just 2030. That’s just 11 years from now. He went on to say, along with several other experts, which is that there could be no glaciers left anywhere in the contiguous 48 at all by 2100. And then, think about the implications of this, not just for, of course, the natural implications then on ecosystems, which are massive, but like the Hindu Kush, so many people depend on these glaciers for drinking water and irrigation. So, these alarm bells are ringing very, very loudly all around us. And that’s really just a few of the overt ones right now.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Dahr, in your new book, you talk about—at one point, you say, “As a species, we now hang over the abyss of a geoengineered future we have created for ourselves. At our insistence, our voracious appetite is consuming nature itself. We have refused to heed the warnings Earth has been sending, and there is no rescue team on its way.” That’s a pretty dim sense of what lies ahead. Could you talk about the response of governments and the human race to what’s going on?

DAHR JAMAIL: Well, it is why I think we’re in such a grim situation. Because I went to many of the hotspots, the front lines of climate disruption around the world, from Denali up in Alaska to the Amazon rainforest to the Great Barrier Reef to South Florida for sea level rise and many other places. And in each place, really, what we’ve seen is catastrophic declines of—whether it’s biodiversity in the Amazon to the loss of ice up in the Alaskan Range to how fast now sea level rise is starting to accelerate, and that all of these crises that are—it’s a myriad of them happening simultaneously, held against the backdrop of—you know, the majority of the population, even in this country, with a fossil fuel industry-driven denial mechanism, even here, we have the majority of the people understand that climate disruption is real and that something needs to be done about it. And yet, like other countries, as well, we have a government that is not only not doing anything about it, but is instead stomping on the gas. And so, another reason things are so grim.

And really, when you connect all the dots and look at what’s happening across the planet, against the backdrop of this really pathetic government response on any—in any way that’s coming close to what has to happen to actually mitigate this crisis. I mean, we all know it’s—the cat’s out of the bag on the fact we’re not going to stop it. The only question is: Are we going to be able to mitigate it?

And, you know, the best science now shows that even if we stopped all fossil fuel emissions today, and everything—you know, all governments started to react accordingly, most likely we have a minimum of 3 degrees C warming that’s already baked into the system. And so, hold that up against how governments are reacting. I mean, we should be having global, coordinated response on a dramatically emergency level. And instead, it’s business as usual in at least the leading countries—you know, the U.S., China, India and Russia, the leading greenhouse gas-emitting countries on the planet. And instead of going into an emergency response and mandated CO2 emission cuts and getting off fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, they’re just stomping on the gas and pretending like we can keep kicking this can down the road.

Pages