Skeptical about Trudeau's commitment to climate change.

[G Huxley]

So it seems Trudeau is playing politics out of both sides of the mouth. His 2.5 billion or so dollars to help developing countries reduce climate emissions looks like a bad euphemism for serious graft. SNC Lavalin ring a bell? So while he fills the bank accounts of African dictators and simultaneously provides major commissions for Quebec and Montreal construction companies, he can use this to do nothing about the tar sands by saying that he has helped offset emissions in other countries and so doesn't need to do much within his own.

The whole thing reaks.

What does everyone else think?

Edited November 29, 2015 by G Huxley

[TimG]

His 2.5 billion or so dollars to help developing countries reduce climate emissions looks like a bad euphemism for serious graft.

If a politician claims to spend money for "climate change" he/she is spending money to reward politically connected rent seekers. There is no such thing as a "climate change policy" that is not an excuse for graft. The only way to prevent this vote out governments that insist on wasting money on "climate change" policies. Edited November 29, 2015 by TimG

[Guest]

And the oil sands won't matter anyway. Nothing that happens in Alberta is ever going to affect the climate.

[G Huxley]

"And the oil sands won't matter anyway. Nothing that happens in Alberta is ever going to affect the climate."

What a delightful fantasy you live in.

[G Huxley]

"If a politician claims to spend money for "climate change" he/she is spending money to reward politically connected rent seekers."

Usually the case and looks to be the case here.

"There is no such thing as a "climate change policy" that is not an excuse for graft. The only way to prevent this vote out governments that insist on wasting money on "climate change" policies."

This I strongly disagree with. Destroying the environment for profit is the worst form of graft.

Edited November 29, 2015 by G Huxley

[Guest]

"And the oil sands won't matter anyway. Nothing that happens in Alberta is ever going to affect the climate."

What a delightful fantasy you live in.

Yes of course. Because Chinese and Indian emissions pale next to Fort Mac's. Talking of fantasy. Not so delightful, though. Just silly.

[TimG]

Destroying the environment for profit is the worst form of graft.

Except you actually need to provide evidence that the "environment" is getting destroyed by a given activity. In the case of CO2 there is no evidence that the warming represents a net harm to date. The predictions of future harms are just that - predictions that may or may not come to pass. Furthermore, society needs energy to function so it is not simply a question of making a profit - it is a question of keeping the economy running so people don't starve to death in the dark and without viable alternatives to emitting CO2 there is no choice but to emit CO2. Edited November 29, 2015 by TimG

[G Huxley]

Yes of course. Because Chinese and Indian emissions pale next to Fort Mac's. Talking of fantasy. Not so delightful, though. Just silly.

What is silly is that you suggest that Indian and Chinese emissions (many of which have their origins in Canadian fossil fuels) can affect the climate, but the oil sands can't. Do you realizes the contradictory absurdity of such a statement?

[G Huxley]

TimG anthropogenic climate change is an obvious fact. There is countless scientific data to affirm this, but if you won't read any of it then it is meaningless to you. As an example I would suggest reading this month's National Geographic.

As opposed to there not being viable alternatives to fossil fuels this is obviously false.

Wind, solar, geothermal etc., are all viable alternatives.

[Guest]

What is silly is that you suggest that Indian and Chinese emissions (many of which have their origins in Canadian fossil fuels) can affect the climate, but the oil sands can't. Do you realizes the contradictory absurdity of such a statement?

Okay I see. You're talking in absolute terms, not relative terms. I didn't realize. Yes, of course the oil sands will affect the climate. So will the steak I had last night, given the cow isn't around any longer to emit greenhouse gases.

[TimG]

TimG anthropogenic climate change is an obvious fact.

Where did I say otherwise? The problem with AGW zealots is they can't read arguments and insist on constructing strawmen. What I said was the predictions that climate change will be bad are just predictions - not facts. There is a difference between facts and predictions. You should learn it.

As opposed to there not being viable alternatives to fossil fuels this is obviously false. Wind, solar, geothermal etc., are all viable alternatives.

Nope. intermittent sources cannot provide the base load power we need. Geothermal, like hydro, is limited by location and cannot provide enough power. Edited November 29, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

"And the oil sands won't matter anyway. Nothing that happens in Alberta is ever going to affect the climate."

What a delightful fantasy you live in.

Canada's entire CO2 emissions are 500k KT per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Alberta's oil sands account for 8.7% of that, according to the Alberta government. http://www.energy.alberta.ca/oilsands/791.asp

8.7% x 500,000 kt = 43,500 KT

India, meanwhile, plans to INCREASE its yearly emissions by 10 MILLION KT over the next 20 years.

I'll make it even simpler for you to understand. Every year for the next twenty years, India will bring the equivalent of 11 new Canadian oil sands on line.

And you're worried about Alberta?!

Edited November 29, 2015 by Argus

[Guest]

So, according to reports, the best possible outcome of the Paris meeting will be a legally binding agreement that will require all signatories to come up with emissions limits, but will require none of them to actually meet those limits. Is it even worth going?

[-1=e^ipi]

Is it even worth going?

Sure it is. Free food, lots of selfies, ability to give climate funds to rent seekers, etc.

[G Huxley]

"Yes, of course the oil sands will affect the climate."

- BC Sapper

Glad you realize that.

Edited November 29, 2015 by G Huxley

[G Huxley]

"What I said was the predictions that climate change will be bad are just predictions - not facts."

They are facts. They are already a major problem, not in some futuristic sense. Read this month's National Geo if you are still in denial.

"Nope. intermittent sources cannot provide the base load power we need. Geothermal, like hydro, is limited by location and cannot provide enough power."

Leave 10% for base load power and 90% renewables.

Argus:

It's called lead by example. India and China are following the example you set.

[Guest]

"Yes, of course the oil sands will affect the climate."

- BC Sapper

Glad you realize that.

Well, like I said, I didn't realize we were talking about such a tiny amount

[TimG]

They are facts. They are already a major problem, not in some futuristic sense.

Storms and droughts happen whether the planet was warming or not. I realize it is a bit of an obsession among AGW zealot to find ways to blame every natural weather fluctuation on AGW but from a statistical perspective most of such efforts are BS. Statistically speaking there is no evidence that the weather fluctuations are outside of the normal range seen over the last 1000-2000 years.

Leave 10% for base load power and 90% renewables.

In the real world it has to be 90% baseload and 10% renewables. Edited November 29, 2015 by TimG

[Bryan]

So it seems Trudeau is playing politics out of both sides of the mouth. His 2.5 billion or so dollars to help developing countries reduce climate emissions looks like a bad euphemism for serious graft.

That's what politicians do. Say all the right things with no intention of following through. It works for them, because not only do most people not check to see if they followed up, most of the commitments are far enough in the future that they just try to blame a future government for not enacting the plan.

The problem in politics is, the opposite approach (actually being honest) gets the most public scorn. The public demands platitudes.

[socialist]

"What I said was the predictions that climate change will be bad are just predictions - not facts."

They are facts. They are already a major problem, not in some futuristic sense. Read this month's National Geo if you are still in denial.

"Nope. intermittent sources cannot provide the base load power we need. Geothermal, like hydro, is limited by location and cannot provide enough power."

Leave 10% for base load power and 90% renewables.

Argus:

It's called lead by example. India and China are following the example you set.

Why can't the arrogant Warmists" admit that we have very little control over the Earth's 4.5 Billion year old climate change cycles? They are bound and determined to cook the books to create the illusion of the "Mann Made Climate Change" so they can confiscate assets from the Working/Earning class and give it to the Parasite class and therefore gaining themselves Control & Power over Everyone..Why can't the "Warmists" admit that we have very little control over the Earth's 4.5 Billion year old climate change cycles? They are bound and determine to cook the books to create the illusion of the "Mann Made Climate Change" s so they can confiscate assets from the Working/Earning class and give it to the Parasite class and therefore gaining themselves Control & Power over Everyone.

[G Huxley]

Actually the burden of proof should be on the polluters because they are playing Russian roulette with the the planet's biosphere, but there is tons of evidence out there for people who actually want to see the reality of what's happening. e.g. this month's issue of Nat Geo covered this exceptionally.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... e.g. this month's issue of Nat Geo covered this exceptionally.

National Geographic is an American magazine/journal for a non-profit society of the same name. However, it is now majority owned by 21st Century Fox (73%) and climate change articles are great for sales/circulation.

[Hal 9000]

Actually the burden of proof should be on the polluters because they are playing Russian roulette with the the planet's biosphere, but there is tons of evidence out there for people who actually want to see the reality of what's happening. e.g. this month's issue of Nat Geo covered this exceptionally.

Wow, you've mentioned the Nat Geo article 3 times already, it clearly had a major impact on you.

[-1=e^ipi]

Actually the burden of proof should be on the polluters because they are playing Russian roulette with the the planet's biosphere, but there is tons of evidence out there for people who actually want to see the reality of what's happening. e.g. this month's issue of Nat Geo covered this exceptionally.

And the fact that we don't fund defence for invasions by flying spaghetti monsters in case they attack us means that our government is playing roulette with our lives.

[Topaz]

Justin can't so this alone, its the whole world problem and the corporations have more responsibility since many help create the problem. The only way every country will be on board if there's a law , ready to punish those who don't do anything to help, like no trading with other countries etc.