David Suzuki versus Justin Trudeau

[waldo]

Once the air becomes so toxic, it's killing us, I have no doubt in my mind every country won't have a problem building gigantic air filter everywhere on earth. There will be nothing stoping it if our survival depends on it. That being said, I don't want to waste my time with the environment until our survival depends on it.

Business as usual until that day.

I have full confidence that once pollution is a direct threat to the survival of the human race, the problem will be addressed swiftly and withought delay by all countries. Unlimited resources and money will be allocated to solving the problem. A whole new industry will be born from it.

It's only a matter of time, but there is no point jumping the gun on it. It has to threaten the whole human race dramatically, only then will the resolve be universal from all countries. Until that happens we are wasting our time slowing down the inevitable.

That's exactly what will happen. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.

We are so good at survival we are overwhelming this planet with population. Surviving is what humans do best. We will always find a way.

notwithstanding you don't grasp the most basic and fundamental distinction between traditional "toxic" focused pollution and GHG emissions, just who/what will you wait for... are you waiting for... to advise you just when to begin to be concerned? Note to the naive: there is no so-called silver bullet geo-engineering solution to a multi-decades build-up of long-term atmospheric emission accumulation!

.

[Smallc]

Note to the naive: there is no so-called silver bullet geo-engineering solution to a multi-decades build-up of long-term atmospheric emission accumulation!

.

Nothing exists until there is a need for it.

[waldo]

Nothing exists until there is a need for it.

again... just who/what will you wait for... are you waiting for... to advise you just when to begin to be concerned... that there is a need for "something" to be done?

[Smallc]

again... just who/what will you wait for... are you waiting for... to advise you just when to begin to be concerned... that there is a need for "something" to be done?

I'm concerned right now. That said, the situation is not dire enough that we've been driven to act in any big way. When it gets there, we will. That's what's different about humanity.

[waldo]

I'm concerned right now. That said, the situation is not dire enough that we've been driven to act in any big way. When it gets there, we will. That's what's different about humanity.

you're "concerned" enough to belittle and trivialize, hey! I'll play: so you presume to now state, "not dire enough"... based on what? Again, just who/what will you wait for... are you waiting for... to advise you just when, as you now say, "it gets dire enough"?

[WIP]

We are so good at survival we are overwhelming this planet with population. Surviving is what humans do best. We will always find a way.

That is a faith-based assumption that I don't share, and don't believe should ever be tested. How would we know the answer? If a surviving remnant population made it through a major bottleneck, they might have lost all ability to record that information to warn future generations. And if nobody survived, who's going to write up the final chapter?

[Smallc]

you're "concerned" enough to belittle and trivialize, hey! I'll play: so you presume to now state, "not dire enough"... based on what?

Governments react when people really care about something. Most people are like me. They care, but it isn't impacting their daily lives. When that changes, so will their attitude, and so will the response of government. There is always a solution.

[WIP]

If necessary, we will find some artificial way to do it.

I've noticed that the IPCC seems to be placing a lot of their hope in the promise of carbon capture and storage.....one report I came across estimated CCS could sequester between 10 and 55% of emitted carbon by 2100. Off the top, that makes a pretty big barn door to drive through, since a 10% reduction would barely slow down the increasing amounts of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere....let alone if carbon starts getting released large scale from the Arctic. But, even a 55% reduction....if feasible, would require substantial capital investment and energy supplies. I don't see any way of getting around the problem without reducing carbon emissions to start with.

Then there's the fact that global warming isn't the only environmental problem this world faces today! There's also rapidly declining wildlife habitats, groundwater depletion and topsoil loss, overpopulation (of humans), continuing buildup of plastic wastes in the oceans.....these are all problems that can't be dealt unless we stop demands for increasing economic growth....the world's not growing any bigger to accommodate all of our demands!

[waldo]

Governments react when people really care about something. Most people are like me. They care, but it isn't impacting their daily lives. When that changes, so will their attitude, and so will the response of government. There is always a solution.

why so evasive? Who/what informs governments of national/global impacting influences; rather... who/what should inform responsible, accountable governments? It's always quite telling to read a "do nothing, delay at all costs" fake skeptic imply that a country's localized and regional focused concerns can be isolated from global impacting influences... you know, Canada's isolated atmosphere and oceans! Notwithstanding you would presume to "rely upon the uneducated masses" to drive government response!

[ReeferMadness]

Governments react when people really care about something. Most people are like me. They care, but it isn't impacting their daily lives. When that changes, so will their attitude, and so will the response of government. There is always a solution.

Depressing thought. Sounds like people are generally too stupid to survive over the long term. I hope you're wrong.

[WIP]

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but once again, the limits to growth seem to be doing what environmental groups and spineless politicians can't or won't do: close out risky and expensive tight oil drilling ventures. Earlier today, Shell announced that they are shutting down their Arctic drilling venture indefinitely, and with no other oil companies in the US or Russia willing to invest billions into Arctic ventures, Arctic oil spills are no longer a threat to be concerned with!

After more than eight years of planning and drilling, costing more than $7 billion, Royal Dutch Shell announced that it is shutting down its plans to drill for oil in the Arctic. The bombshell announcement dooms any chance of offshore oil development in the U.S. Arctic for years.

Shell said that it had completed its exploration well that it was drilling this summer, a well drilled at 6,800 feet of depth called the Burger J. Shell was focusing on the Burger prospect, located off the northwest coast of Alaska in the Chukchi Sea, which it thought could hold a massive volume of oil.

On September 28, the company announced that it had “found indications of oil and gas in the Burger J well, but these are not sufficient to warrant further exploration in the Burger prospect. The well will be sealed and abandoned in accordance with U.S. regulations.”

After the disappointing results, Shell will not try again. “Shell will now cease further exploration activity in offshore Alaska for the foreseeable future.” The company cited both the poor results from its highly touted Burger J well, but also the extraordinarily high costs of Arctic drilling, as well as the “unpredictable federal regulatory environment in offshore Alaska.”.................................................

However, low oil prices were the nail in the coffin for the ill-fated Arctic drilling program. Oil from the Chukchi Sea is far from profitable when oil prices are at $50 per barrel. The costs to drill are exceptional, with unique challenges that aren’t found elsewhere. Drillers have to avoid sea ice. Offshore Alaska occasionally experiences hurricane-force winds (Shell had to briefly pause this summer’s drilling because of bad weather). The drilling season is short, with federal guidelines only allowing drilling for a few months out of the year. Even worse, there is inadequate infrastructure – the closes deep-water port is 1,000 miles away.

So, they were drilling a mile and a quarter under the Arctic sea floor and still hadn't reached the oil and gas deposit they were hoping for. Recall that the BP Horizon disaster in the Gulf, hit that major gas deposit about a mile under the seafloor, and needless to say this venture would have had to find a huge oil deposit to justify costs. And with oil at $50. per barrel, they could never pay for the costs of getting that oil to the nearest export terminal 1000 miles away.

Some time, I'd like to come across something from the geologists who are studying and mapping out the Arctic seafloor...because if we think of how oil, gas and coal deposits are the buildup over millions of years of organic material trapped underground, it would seem to reason that over Earth's geologic history, the Arctic and Antarctic regions should be relatively poor areas to look for carbon deposits! But, somebody at Shell decided it would be a good enough gamble to waste 8 billion dollars on!

And the reason why the oil companies are still spending huge amounts of cash to develop "unconventional" oil like deep sea, tarsands and shales, is because the easy stuff has already been tapped, and the large conventional oil fields are all past their points of peak production. An oil company has only two choices: find another way to make money or try to go after the last drops of oil that can be exploited for profit. And that's what's getting difficult today! OIl at over $100 a barrel causes our wasteful economies to stall out and decline, and then low demand for oil creates low oil prices that can't allow further exploration and development. Some of that may return when prices inevitably spike upwards again, but will there be enough cash available to start up these tight oil ventures? Eventually the time comes when we transition towards renewable energy supplies and a lot less energy consumption per capita....or we play road warrior and fight for control of the gas stations.

[Smallc]

Depressing thought. Sounds like people are generally too stupid to survive over the long term. I hope you're wrong.

No, not at all. Humanity reacts when necessary, and never before. It has never been any different.

[Smallc]

why so evasive?

How am I being evasive? That's how things always work. Those of us that live in the real world know that.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, not at all. Humanity reacts when necessary, and never before. It has never been any different.

Very true....but as we have seen throughout this "climate change" circus, the true believers thought that humanity would just roll over and go "green". They are blinded and consumed by their own false "religion".

Edited September 29, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

No, not at all. Humanity reacts when necessary, and never before. It has never been any different.

a banal platitude! Oh wait... in spite of your protestations that simply act to rationalize the Harper Conservative "do nothing" positions, humanity (as you say) is responding; whether that's in terms of recent focused country-to-country emission agreements (U.S.-China, U.S.-India, Euro group, etc.), direct pronouncements from country's (China's recent day cap™ announcement) or in regards UNFCCC COP iterative meetings. Or will you be yet another nay-sayer to the upcoming Paris COP... if the meeting doesn't result in legally binding agreements, will you trumpet forward and claim, "humanity just wasn't ready"?

[waldo]

Very true....but as we have seen throughout this "climate change" circus, the true believers thought that humanity would just roll over and go "green". They are blinded and consumed by their own false "religion".

I'm shocked you would couch your statement in words like "true believers"... "false religion"! How completely unlike you.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, not at all. Humanity reacts when necessary, and never before. It has never been any different.

Now there is a bumper sticker for the "head in the sand" crowd if ever I've heard one.

[Freddy]

Here is a good one for you: Bleeding harts will bleed.

[Freddy]

That is a faith-based assumption that I don't share, and don't believe should ever be tested. How would we know the answer? If a surviving remnant population made it through a major bottleneck, they might have lost all ability to record that information to warn future generations. And if nobody survived, who's going to write up the final chapter?

Whoever is strong enough to survive. I can understand why the weak are concerned.

Going to be a lot less bleeding harts after that bottleneck

Edited September 29, 2015 by Freddy

[Smallc]

Now there is a bumper sticker for the "head in the sand" crowd if ever I've heard one.

No matter what you think of it, history pretty much universally bears it out.

[ToadBrother]

Very true....but as we have seen throughout this "climate change" circus, the true believers thought that humanity would just roll over and go "green". They are blinded and consumed by their own false "religion".

Are you saying that the vast majority of climatologists are members of a "false religion"? Please do tell...

[Keepitsimple]

to your self-stated knowledge - citation request.

Why do you need a cite? Do you not believe/don't know that there are only a handful of actual projects that are operational? If you don't, I'd be pleased to find a cite for you.

[waldo]

Why do you need a cite? Do you not believe/don't know that there are only a handful of actual projects that are operational? If you don't, I'd be pleased to find a cite for you.

projects? You used the word "wells"! In any case, this is simply you, once again, deflecting away from your big-time failure and lack of knowledge concerning surface mining versus in situ drilling! I note you haven't managed to yet comment on that graphic I put forward that speaks to industry supplied projections... I mean, c'mon... that was the thrust of your failed post, right?

[PIK]

Good for trudeau for sticking it to Suzuki.

[Argus]

You're right. It's hopeless. Give up.

If by 'it' you mean global warming, then yes, it actually IS hopeless. It's happening and it's going to continue to happen, and there is absolutely nothing anyone is going to do about it in time to matter. A better use for money would be research into how to prepare for and ameliorate the likely outcomes of a warmer globe, as well as alternative energy.