Canada and global warming: a state of denial

Experts are warning that the record-breaking flooding now occurring in New Brunswick foreshadows the province's future in a world that facing global warming. Too much of our federal, provincial and municipal planning is planning by disaster - start planning after a disaster occurs, followed by relaxing shortly after the emergency has passed. In a world of global warming where climate change caused disasters are becoming increasingly frequent, the costs of doing this in terms of the environment, economy, homes and lives is growing exponentially. 

New Brunswick's record-breaking floods are a jarring reminder climate change is bringing a watery future that will wash away old patterns of life and force many to higher ground permanently, say environmental scientists and hydrologists.

"The reality is that people expect the world to be the way it was, but it's not," said Louise Comeau, a professor at the University of New Brunswick and member of a national panel on climate change adaptation.

When the waters recede, the provincial and federal governments must frankly inform homeowners the future holds more of the same, says hydrologist John Pomeroy, director of the global water futures program at the University of Saskatchewan.

"Sometimes people, when they've been flooded out, it's a good time to offer to buy them out and remove the homes from the dangerous location," Pomeroy said in an interview.

New Brunswick is suffering through record flooding, with rising waters forcing the closure of the Trans-Canada Highway between Moncton and Fredericton and many people being forced out of their homes.

"The floods look like they're getting larger," said Pomeroy, who is working on a fresh models for mapping future floods, in tandem with a network of university scientists studying the nation's largest rivers.

The hydrologist says the public needs to understand historical levels of water flow are no longer guides to the future.

Sudden temperature flips from frigid April snowstorms to 26 C, as occurred during the spring runoffs in parts of New Brunswick, are a feature of climate change that encourage flooding, he said. ...

By 2100, New Brunswick's mean annual temperature will increase by as much as 5 C, while more intense rain and snow will increase the amount of moisture hitting the ground.

Those trends aren't the sole causes of river flooding, but higher seasonal temperatures and precipitation increase the risks, says Al Pietroniro, a senior hydrologist with Environment Canada. "Across the country there's an acceleration of what we call the water cycle, which means because the atmosphere is warming, we're seeing increased precipitation," he said in a telephone interview. ...

Comeau, who has authored studies on the impact of climate change in her province, says she suspects that floods once expected every 30 years are now more likely to be "once every five years or even every two to three years." Every region of New Brunswick now has flooding stories to share describing dislocation and disruption, she says. In addition, an ice storm on the Acadian Peninsula in January 2017 caused power, communication and transportation disruptions. ...

Blair Feltmate, the head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo, says that "New Brunswick has an attitude of management by disaster. New Brunswick seems to rush to address risk when it's happening, and then, after the event subsides, the province relaxes and waits for its next disaster."

https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/record-floods-show-world-has-changed-and-n-b...

The statement that global oil production is increasing suggests that despite all our efforts there is nothing we can do about it. However, the Montreal Protocol on the global level and California's effective dealing with smog, starting in the 1970s, shows that environmental problems can be solved at the global and local levels. 

The Montreal Protocol, finalized in 1987, is a global agreement to protect the stratospheric ozone layer by phasing out the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). The stratospheric ozone layer filters out harmful ultraviolet radiation, which is associated with an increased prevalence of skin cancer and cataracts, reduced agricultural productivity, and disruption of marine ecosystems. ...

The Montreal Protocol has proven to be innovative and successful, and is the first treaty to achieve universal ratification by all countries in the world. Leveraging worldwide participation, the Montreal Protocol has sent clear signals to the global market and placed the ozone layer, which was in peril, on a path to repair. Full implementation of the Montreal Protocol is expected to result in avoidance of more than 280 million cases of skin cancer, approximately 1.6 million skin cancer deaths, and more than 45 million cases of cataracts in the United States alone by the end of the century, with even greater benefits worldwide.

https://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/chemicalpollution/83007.htm

When we see photos of Beijing shrouded in a veil of thick smog, we’re horrified. How can the Chinese live with such terrible air pollution? One answer is: Americans did. Back in the 1950s and '60s, people in Los Angeles breathed some of the dirtiest air in the world. Los Angeles still has smog, of course, but it’s not nearly as bad as it used to be. How did the city get its act together?

It took decades. Los Angeles had its first real smog attack during World War II, a smog strong enough that some people suspected a Japanese chemical attack. But it wasn’t until 1975 that the U.S. required new cars to have catalytic converters, “the key piece of technology that allowed everything to change,” according to Mary Nichols, chairman of California’s Air Resources Board. In between, there were frustrating years of scientific research, industry denial, politics, protest and an unwavering attachment to the automobile. ...

Arie Haagen-Smit, a biochemist who had been studying the flavor of pineapples at the California Institute of Technology, not only made that discovery, but fought hard to convince politicians, regulators and industry that cars were the biggest smog culprit in Los Angeles.

The oil and automobile industries pushed back on his research. Chip Jacobs, co-author of “Smogtown: The Lung-Burning History of Pollution in Los Angeles,” says a turning point came when the oil industry-funded Stanford Research Institute sent a member to Caltech to discredit Haagen-Smit’s findings. ...

Automakers were slow to respond, wary of any change that would add cost to their vehicles. “It’s like the stages of grief,” said Nichols. “At first you deny it. Then you fight against it. And finally you grudgingly accept it, embrace it and move on.” That process took almost two decades. ...

These rallies and media events were among the earliest “environmental” protests in the U.S. The word “environmentalism” wasn’t really in the vocabulary yet. ...

“The elected officials finally believed that cars were a big part of the problem and were going to regulate them, in spite of what the automobile manufacturers said,” James Lents said. ...

“It wasn’t until the Clean Air Act in 1970 that you had a law that said, 'we’re going to set an air quality standard based on a public health measurement, and then the government will go out and take whatever action is needed to reach those limits,'” Nichols said. “But that was a shift, and it was based on growing populist opposition to how bad the air was.” ...

Nichols says by 2030 California needs to “move people and goods” with zero emissions technology. That gives the state 15 years to get its act together. Can it do it again?

https://www.marketplace.org/2014/07/14/sustainability/we-used-be-china/l...

The problem globally is we don't have 15 years where we do little or nothing about global warming and then decide to tackle the problem. 

I have already described the catastrophic effects last years forest fires in BC. had in 2017 and earlier years in the first post of this thread, destroying an area larger than PEI in 2017 alone, destroying homes, greatly slowing the economy of the Interior of the province and costing more than $400 million to fight the forest fires. The destruction of forests also means long term destruction of part of the provinces forest industry. 

However, climate change is also brought about another major source of damage to its forest industry because global warming has permitted the exponential growth of the pine beetle population by enabling it to survive in large numbers during milder winters. 

In 2012, the BC government announced that pine beetle population growth due to warmer winters will reduce harvestable pine trees by up to 2/3, thereby costing thousands of forestry and related jobs by 2020.

A decade after billions of mountain pine beetles chewed their way through British Columbia’s lodgepole pine forest, the Interior timber supply has begun a dramatic drop.  ...

He said the beetle killed 54% of the merchantable pine that was to be harvested. But in some areas, specifically the central Interior, 80% to 90% of the merchantable pine was killed. “That’s where the impact is going to be felt more significantly,” Nussbaum said in a later interview. (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/closed-bc-interior...)

Sawmills in Williams Lake, Quesnel, Prince George, and Houston are just a few of the many sawmills that have already closed. Climate change has cost thousands of jobs will be lost in the forestry sector because of climate change. 

The mountain pine beetle has crossed into Alberta and will spread across the country. 

The province (Alberta) has invested $484 million in decade-long fight against destructive bark beetle. 

In Alberta's drawn-out fight against mountain pine beetles, slowing the invasion is as close to winning as the province will get, researchers say.

"They're pushing eastward and they certainly are knocking on the door of Saskatchewan," research scientist Allan Carroll said about the destructive bark beetle." ...

Mountain pine beetles are chewing into the forestry industry, though Undershultz was unable to put a figure on the loss. Alberta's forest sector employs 19,600 people and contributes up to $6 billion annually to the provincial economy. Approximately six million hectares of pine are at risk of attack by the beetle, he said. More could fall victim if conditions are favourable.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/mountain-pine-beetle-alberta-moun...

Billions of mountain pine beetles from B.C. are expected to devastate forests in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime provinces as they munch their way east over the next two decades, scientists predict in a new documentary.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/mountain-pine-beetle-poised-to-ravage-...

The fact that the oil carried by the Trans Mountain pipeline or other pipelines is in diluted bitumen form makes it much more problematic.

While crude oil can be devastating to environments when spilled, diluted bitumen from the tar sands is even more difficult to clean up. When mined, tar sands bitumen is so heavy and thick that it can only travel through pipelines when combined with chemical diluents, including benzene (a human carcinogen). As officials discovered after the 2010 Enbridge pipeline spill in Kalamazoo, cleaning up diluted bitumen comes with a brand new set of challenges. When spilled in waterways, the heavy bitumen sinks to the bottom, so conventional clean-up techniques had little effect. At the same time, the chemical diluents such as benzene evaporate and cause toxic clouds in the air. (https://www.wildernesscommittee.org/frequently_asked_questions_regarding_the_kinder_morgan_pipeline_proposal )

 Although the April 9th 2015 spill of an estimated 2700 L bunker fuel by the bulk carrier cargo ship Marathassa into Burrard Inlet was tiny compared to a large oil tanker, it resulted in the closing of Metro Vancouver beaches, reduced tourism business, and caused health problems among some nearby residents, including nausea and headaches. Imagine what a large tanker spill could do.

For comparison, the 1990 Exxon Valdez disaster has been conservatively estimated at 416 million litres. In 2007, a Kinder Morgan pipeline spilled 234,000 litres, which triggered an evacuation of 50 homes and eventually soiled the shoreline of Burrard Inlet. The average tanker that would move bitumen from the Trans Mountain Pipeline would carry 750,000 barrels, or 119 million litres. (http://rabble.ca/news/2015/04/poor-response-to-toxic-spill-vancouver-warns-against-bitumen )

In fact, “Up to 100,000 birds could die in the case of a major oil spill in Burrard Inlet, according to a new report commissioned by the City of Vancouver.” (http://www.news1130.com/2015/05/18/massive-oil-spill-in-burrard-inlet-could-kill-up-to-10000-birds/ )

Furthermore, the company that was heavily criticized for its slow clean-up response was majority-owned by Kinder Morgan.

The failure to have a quick response by the Kinder Morgan-owned WCRC and the Coast Guard to the Marathassa oil spill into English Bay not only resulted in environmental damage to this beach but to many other beaches in Metro Vancouver, according to a forensic analysis of other beaches.

The response to the bunker fuel spill in Vancouver's English Bay was "very disappointing" says Anita Burke, an international expert in responding to and restoring ecosystems affected by industrial and natural disasters.

"We clearly have large gaps in our ability to respond and take care of our coast … it's embarrassing, frankly," said Burke, who worked with Shell and its subsidiaries on corporate responsibility and sustainable development for 17 years. 

Western Canada Marine Response Corporation — the company tasked with cleanup arrived on site more than four hours after the Coast Guard had been notified, and booms weren't fully secured around the cargo ship until more than 12 hours after the call. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-oil-spill-response-embarrassing-says-international-expert-1.3053567 )

The scathing 90-page assessment, released by the 570-member Tsleil-Waututh First Nation of North Vancouver, includes separate scientific research that says Kinder Morgan has underestimated the environmental and public health risks of major and minor oil spills in Burrard Inlet. The report, noting the seven-fold increase in oil tanker traffic if the project proceeds, said it necessarily increases the likelihood of spills both large and small.

The scientific report from the two SFU academics, one of five cited in the appendix of the full assessment, said Kinder Morgan has underestimated the risk of a spill. Gunton and Broadbent assert that there is a 79- to 87-per-cent likelihood of a spill at the terminal or in the inlet over any 50-year period. (http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/kinder-morgan-underestimates-risks-of-pipeline-expansion-report-1.1948311 )

Unfortunately, Canada has an extremely poor record when it comes to dealing with its emissions and fossil fuel production. 

A European report released to coincide with the United Nations conference ranks Canada 55th of 58 countries in terms of tackling greenhouse gas emissions, ahead of only Iran, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.

A Washington-based group, the Center for Global Development, issued a separate report Monday that ranked Canada 27th on the environment out of the world’s wealthiest 27 countries.

(http://www.citopbroker.com/news/canada-ranks-worst-on-climate-policy-amo...)

This is due to our withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord, our high per-capita fossil fuel consumption, our cold climate and large land area, as well as continually rising carbon emissions - largely due to oil sands development.  On the international scene Canada is part of the problem, not part of a solution so far. (http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/technology/quirks-quarks-blog/2014/03/climate-change-report-the-good-and-bad-news-for-canada-1.html )

Of course switching to a non-fossil fuel economy will involve a transition period that will take time. There is rapid growth in renewable energy. Here's just one example: 

Boosted by a strong solar PV market, renewables accounted for almost two-thirds of net new power capacity around the world in 2016, with almost 165 gigawatts (GW) coming online. This was another record year, largely as a result of booming solar PV deployment in China and around the world, driven by sharp cost reductions and policy support.

Last year, new solar PV capacity around the world grew by 50%, reaching over 74 GW, with China accounting for almost half of this expansion. For the first time, solar PV additions rose faster than any other fuel, surpassing the net growth in coal.

https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/

On Friday May 18, 2018, the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) announced it is looking at the risks associated with climate change and at renewable energy alternatives. It's late to the show, but at least it now recognizes the problem. 

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board chief executive Mark Machin pledged Thursday to step up the assessment of global climate change risks to make better investment decisions, as the fund he oversees posted an annual net return of 11.6 per cent.

“We’re going to make a huge push on it this year… We want to do a much better job of being able to understand the risks that we’re taking on in each investment and the risks we have embedded in the portfolio, and make sure we’re being paid for them,” Machin said in an interview. ...

He said much more work needs to be done on key questions including how quickly the “energy transition” from traditional sources to alternatives and renewables will take place. This will be influenced by a number of factors, from geography to government policy and regulation to social demands.

“Nobody’s cracked this, nobody’s got a great tool kit yet, so we’re having to develop it ourselves,” Machin said.

CPPIB, which invests money for Canada’s national pension scheme, is pairing its plan to build better ways to measure the risks inherent in sectors such as oil and gas with a concerted search for more investments in alternative and renewable energy assets.

The latest in a string of deals, announced last week, is a joint venture with Enbridge Inc. that will see CPPIB acquire holdings in North American renewable power assets and offshore European wind projects.

Last month, the pension organization signed a $741 million agreement to acquire a portfolio of six Canadian operating wind and solar power projects from NextEra Energy Partners LP. 

http://business.financialpost.com/news/cppib-pledges-huge-push-on-climat...

The question is can we transition fast enough nationally and globally to renewables to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

JKR WROTE:

How do countries like Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Germany, and France, manage to have much lower levels of CO2 emissions per capita than Canada?

Martin N. wrote:

"The question is can we transition fast enough nationally and globally to renewables to avoid the worst consequences of climate change."

Well, jerrym, my question is still 'how'.

If you wish, I can lead you toward the solution but it involves stuff like the 5 year forward oil futures price and less government intervention, not more.

Sorry, jerrym, but the solution involves long term strategy from a government that can't see farther than the next photo op.

It is a pleasing thought that Canada can become an example to lead the way, so to speak, in the meeting of arbitrary targets in the mitigation of 'climate change' but that same arbitrary target, a result of political expediency not scientific rigour, makes such a challenge impossible without destroying the fabric of the nation. This notion is empty virtue signaling at best and cynical political posturing otherwise.

Trump's, Harper's, and Kenney's free market approach have and will continue to increase carbon dioxide emissions into the global atmosphere. While shifts in energy markets do play a role it won't solve the problem by themselves. You need government setting emission reductions and regulations, along with the attitude that emissions can be reduced. In fact, the fossil fuel industry has been highly resistant to moving away from fossil fuels, following the strategies developed by the cigarette industry of deny, doubt and delay the changes needed.

The European countries, including Germany and the Scandanavian countries that have similar climates to Canada, mentioned above are not succeeding in reducing their emissions by accident or simply by the free market's invisible hand. On the Climate Change Performance Index below, 13 of the the top 15 countries are European. Free enterprise Canada ranks 51st and the US 56th. 

• These are the Overall Results of this year’s Climate Change Performance Index. The ranking results of this category are defined by a country’s aggregated performance regarding 14 indicators within the four categories GHG Emissions, Renewable Energy, Energy Use and Climate Policy.
• The CCPI 2018 Results illustrate the main regional differences in climate protection and performance within the 56 evaluated countries and the EU. Despite decreasing growth rates in GHG emissions, still no country performed well enough to reach the rating “very high” in this year’s index and therefore the top three ranks remain left open. 
   

https://www.climate-change-performance-index.org (scrolling down the page will show you all the countries rankings)

European governments were deeply involved in these successful reduction in fossil fuel emissions. One example is Germany and the resistance of to this successful coversion has come from the fossil fuel industry. So the marketplace has hardly been leading the way. 

In the early 1990s, Germany launched Energiewende, or "energy revolution," a program "to combat climate change, avoid nuclear risks, improve energy security and guarantee competitiveness and growth." Renewable energy grew from four per cent in 1990 to more than 27 per cent in 2014, including a significant increase in citizen-owned power projects, according to energy think tank Agora Energiewende.

Germany's greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 27 per cent during that time. Its goal is to reduce emissions 40 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 80 per cent by 2050. Polls show that 90 per cent of Germans like the program -- even though it means paying higher rates for electricity.

There's good reason for this widespread support. The primary technologies of wind and solar have become cost-competitive with conventional energy sources. Variable renewable sources and "flexibility options" for conventional and renewable power generation are making baseload power obsolete -- which means the system is geared to wind and solar rather than nuclear or coal. It's one of the most reliable energy systems in the world. And it's created jobs and revenue.

Energiewende hasn't solved all of Germany's emissions and energy issues. Electricity rates are among Europe's highest, although they're expected to come down as more renewable energy becomes available, and efficient usage means "actual costs to households are comparable to countries with lower prices but higher consumption levels."

The country still gets more energy from coal than renewables, transportation and heating consume significant energy from conventional sources and heavy industry makes Germany one of Western Europe's highest emitters. Opposition from power utilities and coal companies, with consequent government compromises, has also slowed progress. But a range of initiatives and tools has put Germany on track to meeting its long-term climate commitments.

One tool Germany used to achieve its rapid progress was a feed-in tariff, which guarantees renewable energy producers -- individuals, businesses, community organizations and power companies -- access to the grid and payment from power utilities for energy they put into the system. At first, the tariff wasn't enough to cover costs, but in 2000 Germany introduced a law that guaranteed feed-in tariffs for 20 years at prices high enough for producers to profit. As renewable energy costs drop and more is brought into the system, tariffs go down.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/david-suzuki/2016/06/germanys-energy-rev...

In January 2018, the German government agreed to scrap its 2020 target of reducing greenhouse gases by 40% in 2020 from 1990 levels because the target was unreachable. However, the difference between Germany and Canada was that Germany had only reduced emissions by 31.7-32.5% instead of the target 40% by the end of 2017, although the German government continues to reduce emssions as much as possible in the remaining time. Canada, by contrast, has increased it emissions by 17% over 1990 levels by 2016. The Liberals under Chretien, Martin and Trudeau, as well as the Conservatives under Harper, have continued to pursue fossil fuel production growth with the support of the fossil fuel industry. The difference in attitude in which the Germans consider a 32% reduction in emissions a failure and Canadian governments and its fossil fuel allies tout their emission increase of 17% as a good plan, is revealing of their real goals, as is the ongoing resistance to change of the German fossil fuel companies. Without government action, Germany would be in the same boat as Canada.

Germany’s two biggest political parties have agreed to scrap the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 40% from 1990 levels by 2020. ...

“We will agree on a package of measures that will close the gap as far as possible and reach the target at the beginning of the 2020s,” the working group wrote. ...

A leaked government document in October warned without further action, emissions cuts were only forecast to reach 31.7-32.5% in 2020. That would be “a disaster for Germany’s international reputation as a climate leader,” the environment ministry wrote.

Despite a booming renewables sector, Germany still gets 39% of its power from coal. A cross-party commission has been established to create a phaseout plan for the dirty fuel, but it remains a politically charged subject, with utilities and mining unions playing for more time to transition.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/01/08/germany-set-abandon-2020-cli...

We also know that the fossil fuel industry followed the cigarette industry lead in denying climate change. Just as the cigarette industry denied smoking's danger to one's health and engaged in a denial campaign, the fossil fuel industry has imitated the cigarette industry in its denial of climate change. In fact, the fossil fuel industry often used the same people to sway public opinion. 

Last week, Willie Soon was caught failing to disclose conflicts of interest in his climate research and congressional testimony after having received over $1.2 million in funding from fossil fuel companies. ...

Soon’s funding and failure to disclose conflicts of interest raises red flags, and upon further investigation, the underlying problem is clear. Willie Soon does really bad science, and yet is treated as a climate expert and used by members of Congress to justify opposition to climate policies.

The reason Soon can be treated as an expert is that he’s been able to publish climate-related research in peer-reviewed journals. To get bad science published in peer-reviewed journals, Soon has followed the same strategies as other climate contrarians with flawed research. He has submitted papers to relatively obscure, non-climate science journals, and he’s exploited “pal review” with friendly journal editors. ...

The fossil fuel industry has used the same tactics as the tobacco industry, which successfully prevented Congress from regulating its dangerous and harmful product for many decades. ...

Both industries funded their own scientists, like Willie Soon, who would produce research to cast doubt on the prevailing scientific consensus. Members of Congress then cite this shoddy research to claim the science isn’t settled, and to justify delaying legislative action. Industry-funded scientists like Willie Soon, and science in general, are just pawns in this effort.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20...

In 2008, Shell Oil's internal documents proposed two future scenarios, called Blueprints and Scramble, for how the world might respond to climate change. Their own scenarios see government coordination of a global response to climate change as being needed to avoid the catastrophe of the Scramble scenario. 

Big oil companies believe in climate change. How could they not? Already, the melting Arctic is opening up new shipping lanes that could allow them to tap into vast deposits of oil and natural gas. ...

One problem, Funk finds: The people in a position to profit or protect themselves from climate change are, by and large, those who are already well-off. And the “fixes” they’re coming up with tend to come at the expense of those most vulnerable. As Funk puts it, “The hardest truth about climate change is that it is not equally bad for everyone.” ...

And then there’s Shell. Multinational businesses have a reputation for either denying or downplaying climate change. In fact, Shell has been preparing for it for decades. The company’s business depends on being able to anticipate and respond quickly to seismic shifts in the energy market. So it employs a team of big-thinking futurists, called scenario planners, to keep it a step ahead.

In 2008 the company (Shell) released a fresh pair of scenarios for how the world might respond to climate change over the coming decades. Both were predicated on what the company called “three hard truths”: that global energy demand is rising, that the supply of conventional energy will not be able to keep up, and that climate change is both real and dangerous.

One scenario, called “Blueprints,” envisioned an increasingly urgent and systematic global effort to cut emissions and develop cleaner technologies. Change would come from the bottom up, as individuals, corporations, and cities laid a foundation for national and international policies. The results would include carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, electric cars, solar panels, and carbon-capture technology for power plants. Those actions wouldn’t stop climate change. The seas would rise, hurricanes would wreck cities, and so on. But the results wouldn’t be catastrophic.

A second scenario, called “Scramble,” envisioned the world continuing to balk at real action, because “curbing the growth of energy demand—and hence economic growth—is simply too unpopular for politicians to undertake,” as Shell’s scenario planners put it in an interview with Funk. Coal and biofuels would drive the growth of developing countries, choking the air and driving up food prices. While Indonesia and Brazil were mowing down rainforests to grown palm oil and sugarcane, Canada and the United States would turn their attention toward “unconventional oil projects” like Canada’s tar sands. ...

Climate activists would grow increasingly shrill, but the general public would suffer “alarm fatigue.” Rich and poor nations would deadlock over who should do what as emissions spiraled past 550 parts per million. (In 2013 they reached 400 ppm for the first time—a frightening milestone.) At that point the impacts of climate change would be too great to ignore—but it would be too late to do much about it. In the final stage of the Scramble scenario, the planners wrote, “An increasing fraction of economic activity and innovation is ultimately directed towards preparing for the impact of climate change.”  

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/02/windfall_m...

Unfortunately, this forest fire pattern is repeating itself again this year and its only May. Four First Nations communities in Manitoba with more than 2,000 inhabitants have already been evacuated because of the threat of forest fires near their homes. 

More than 2,000 people have been forced from their homes, at least 600 from the Little Grand Rapids and Pauingassi First Nations, as dozens of wildfires blaze through Manitoba.

There are 51 fires currently active in the province. Eighty firefighters from Ontario and two water bombers from Quebec are helping local teams battle the blazes.

Four First Nations communities have already been evacuated. Little Grand Rapids, approximately 260 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg, is considered to be the hardest-hit among them. ...

Evacuation orders have also been issued for Pauingassi, Sapotaweyak Cree Nation and Jackhead.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/2-000-people-forced-from-homes-as-51-fires...

JKR wrote:

Quote:

What solutions do you recommend to deal with climate change? Would a fee on carbon be a good policy to deal      with nimbyism?

Martin N. wrote:

Reduce global coal use by using oil

Reduce oil use by using natural gas

Reduce natural gas use by using renewables and, as they become commercially viable, emerging technologies.

Government needs to insulate 'the poor', who cannot reduce energy consumption except by freezing or starving.  

Consumption taxes on carbon should be directed toward facilitating installation of renewables at the homeowner level, even the municipal level.

Poor people drive clunkers because they can't afford better and need to drive because they can't afford to live closer. Make rapid transit options available. The lynchpin in rapid transit is the societal change required to obtain an occupancy rate that makes the system self-sustaining. Removing clunkers off the road and removing supports for private vehicle ownership such as 'free' use of road infrastructure where road use is paid out of general revenue will encourage such societal change.

The downside to any progress on this issue is politicians who much prefer to blather on uselessly and greenwash tax grabs. Nearest to their hearts is their own entitlements and the reelection required to maintain them so they blanch at the thought of irate villagers waving pitchforks because their tranquility is being disturbed.

[/quote]

Nice job of trying to avoid discussing all the evidence that the fossil fuel industry has engaed in climate change denial and increasing fossil fuel demand when it's own research showed that was a major problem in the 1970s. Not only did the fossil fuel sector deny that climate change was primarily caused by fossil fuel production, it produced its own fraudulent research to back its denial up, which has resulted in them being sued by the states of New York, California, and most recently Massachusetts, as well as numerous cities and towns, for the resulting damage done to society. The fossil fuel industry was aided and abetted by the financial sector's financing of their coal, oil and natural gas projects.

 Just a reminder: while some politicians have been bought off by the fossil fuel companies, it takes two sides to engage in this. Of the top 15 countries measured on the Climate Change Performance Index for their carbon dioxide emissions reductions, 13 are in Europe  where governments have been heavily involved in develping policies to bring about emissions, while free enterprise Canada and the United States rank 51st and 56th (see posts 33 to 35). Posts 40 to 45 show how the fossil fuel industry went about denying climate change using the same strategies as the cigarette industry, and, as a result, now faces government lawsuits over the fraud involved the resultant damage.

In the United States in the late 1970s, President Carter began an alternative energy program that had it not been stopped by the fossil fuel funded Reagan administration would have meant we were much futher down the road in a transition like the one you described from coal to oil to natural gas to renewables. 

Carter faced a crisis from a combination of economic problems, failed policies of his predecessors and, finally, an Iranian revolution that cut access to some Middle Eastern oil.

Carter met the problems by starting sweeping oil-reduction reforms, including creation of the Cabinet-level Department of Energy.

He began spending millions of dollars researching alternative sources for electrical power, including solar power. He got utilities to cut their use of oil for electricity and ramp up their use of natural gas or coal. ...

“Up until Carter, we were getting about 20 percent of our electricity from oil generation,” said Jay Hakes, director of the Energy Information Administration under Carter and an authority on modern presidents and oil. “And post-Carter, it went down to about 3 percent.”

Carter insisted that U.S. automakers build more fuel-efficient cars, with a goal of 27.5 miles per gallon over the following decade – a requirement passed under Gerald Ford but put into force by Carter. ...

Reagan and Congress stopped aggressively pushing new auto efficiency standards, acceding to Detroit’s desire to leave them at Carter-era levels. They let the solar tax benefit expire, and the nascent solar industry went belly- up.

It was time to let the markets work their magic and stop all this government tinkering, Reagan and conservatives said.

Bad stuff? A recipe for the fix we’re in today? A number of environmentalists and conservationists say so.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2005-10-12/was-jimmy-carter-right/

The following report:

presents a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence on what the oil industry knew about climate science, when they knew it, and what they did with the information. It combines that synthesis with an update on the latest developments in accountability research and science, which have dramatically improved our ability to identify the impacts of climate change on individuals and communities, the corporate actors that contributed to those impacts, and the nature of their contributions. The report presents this evidence in the context of the core elements of legal responsibility in tort and human rights law. It concludes that oil industry actors had early knowledge of climate risks and important opportunities to act on those risks, but repeatedly failed to do so. Those failures give raise to potential legal responsibilities under an array of legal theories.

http://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Smoke-Fumes-FINAL.pdf