Skeptical about Trudeau's commitment to climate change.

[Keepitsimple]

The tar sands have only begun to be exploited. It's when they are fully exploited that we will see these numbers sky-rocket.

The oil sands have been under development for almost half a century. Double their current production - and it's less than 0.3 percent of world emissions. Quadruple it and it's 0.6 percent. Climb out from under your bed. Your concerns are on a par with alarmist activist Leonardo DiCaprio saying that Calgary locals were "horrified" by a chinook that he experienced.

Late addition from a blogger that I just had to add:

But hey, thanks for the laugh, Leo. I can’t wait for your next visit to Alberta. You might want to stay away from the locals, though. I think they’ve pegged you as an easy mark now, and there is no telling what they will try to tell you next. Like if they tell you to pull their finger, just don’t do it, Leo. And if you do, that warm gust of wind that follows? That’s not climate change, either.

Trust me on this one.

Theresa

Link: http://www.mcmurraymusings.com/2015/12/thoughts-on-chinooks-climate-change-and.html

Edited December 12, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

The tar sands have only begun to be exploited. It's when they are fully exploited that we will see these numbers sky-rocket.

Really? How much bigger do you imagine they could get? Right now they produce 8% of Canada's total.

India's emissions will grow next year by 100% of Canada's total. That's twelve and a half times the emissions from the Alberta oil sands. And they're going to do the same thing the year after that, and every year for the next twenty years as they expand their energy production and economy.

So what possible difference do you imagine closing down the oil sands will make to the planet?

[Argus]

notwithstanding the standard MLW member 'Argus' repeated choice to continue to ignore emissions related to tarsands product exported to and burned in other countries.

This is gibberish, an attempt to get around the numbers by expanding the damage beyond the bounds of reality.

By your 'logic' we could save all you progressives from your guilt by simply closing down all our oil production and importing all our oil from other countries Then we could burn as much CO2 as we wanted because it would be THEIR fault!

It's also interesting that you never extend your 'logic' to the fact that when Western nations impose prohibitive taxes on CO2 emitters those emitters simply move to third world jurisdictions which have no carbon taxes. You all pat each other on the back about how wonderful you've all been while the former workers line up at the employment office and the smoke stacks simply relocate to another jurisidction!

[G Huxley]

Per capita the tar sands is a much worse polluter than other sources of oil.

[Argus]

Per capita the tar sands is a much worse polluter than other sources of oil.

Per capita? Why is it whenever the illogical of your complaints is demonstrated you change the goal posts and switch to another standard of measurement?

[G Huxley]

Everyone knows the tar sands are worse per capita by far than extracting regular oil.

[ironstone]

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?

I think the whole climate change/global warming movement has very little to do with the actual climate.It's more to do with the transfer of wealth from the West to developing nations and of course,most of that wealth will end up in the hands of the leaders.

As for the oil sands,Trudeau doesn't have to do anything.Rachel Notley....need I say more?

[Guest]

Everyone knows the tar sands are worse per capita by far than extracting regular oil.

Yeah, but so what? If you take the net emissions, that is, oil sands emissions minus the emissions that would result in all the users of the stuff getting it from somewhere else, then compare that to the planned coal plant emissions from just India and the Philipines over the next few years, what benefit is there to putting all those people out of work?

[eyeball]

I think the whole climate change/global warming movement has very little to do with the actual climate.It's more to do with the transfer of wealth from the West to developing nations and of course,most of that wealth will end up in the hands of the leaders.

I've never been able to understand the concern over this transfer of wealth in light of how much we've transferred in the wake of things like the TPP and other trade agreements.

I guess trade agreement transfers are okay because most of that wealth ends up in the hands of wealthy people.

Edited December 13, 2015 by eyeball

[Argus]

Everyone knows the tar sands are worse per capita by far than extracting regular oil.

I'm not interested in what you think 'everyone knows'. I like numbers. And the number 0.144% of world emissions fails to impress me in terms of the significance of the oil sands on world CO2 emissions.

[Argus]

I've never been able to understand the concern over this transfer of wealth in light of how much we've transferred in the wake of things like the TPP and other trade agreements.

If your guilty conscience is overwhelming feel free to give whatever wealth you enjoy to some scruffy third world denizens. I worked for my money and I'd like to keep it.

[ironstone]

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?

Between the oil sands and Chinese/Indian emissions,which one has the bigger impact?

[ironstone]

I've never been able to understand the concern over this transfer of wealth in light of how much we've transferred in the wake of things like the TPP and other trade agreements.

I guess trade agreement transfers are okay because most of that wealth ends up in the hands of wealthy people.

I think the trade agreements actually do have some tangible benefits,unlike just handing over billions no strings attached in the name of climate change.I do think Trudeau is fully committed to playing the climate change game.This means that he and other progressive leaders in Canada will quickly implement carbon taxes(gas,heating oil,natural gas.propane)which will raise the prices on everything.

[TimG]

just handing over billions no strings attached in the name of climate change.

Its worse than we thought: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_CLIMATE_COUNTDOWN_FUNNY_MONEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-11-08-29-24

His study, conducted on specific climate grants four years ago, showed a list of "projects without any conceivable climate change connotation," such as Belgium funding for a "love movie festival" in the early 2000s in Africa, a U.S.-funded study on Savannah elephant sounds, and uniforms for park guardians in Central America with aid from Spain.

For their website Adaptation Watch, Weikmans and Brown University environmental studies professor Timmons Roberts studied 5,201 projects mentioned by developed nations and found that 3,444 of them "did not explicitly link project activities to addressing climate vulnerability," Weikmans said.

The 100 billion fund is a scam. Edited December 13, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

Its worse than we thought: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_CLIMATE_COUNTDOWN_FUNNY_MONEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-11-08-29-24

The 100 billion fund is a scam.

You have a problem with taxpayer money going to fund elephant love sound studies in Africa? You clearly are a climate denier and probably hate Africans too!

[eyeball]

Elephant love sound studies? Or studies gathering evidence of climate change impacts to elephant migrations that involved recording sounds they make?

I'd have to agree the first thing they should stop wasting money on is gathering evidence for people who insist on remaining ignorant of it.

[G Huxley]

There's a whole book of horrifying numbers about the Tar Sands:

http://www.amazon.ca/Tar-Sands-Dirty-Future-Continent/dp/1553655559

[Guest]

There's a whole book of horrifying numbers about the Tar Sands:

http://www.amazon.ca/Tar-Sands-Dirty-Future-Continent/dp/1553655559

Again, so what? I don't mean that to sound flippant. I mean it literally. Andrew Nikiforuk could hardly be said to be an unbiased commentator on the subject, but what would you suggest? Even if you shut them down completely, it wouldn't make any difference to the climate. I know, we discussed this before, so I'll make it clear I'm not talking about negligible amounts. I don't necessarily mean significant amounts either. I'd settle for noticable.

That's not to say I would leave them as they are. Although they are already one of the most regulated spots on the planet, I am definitely not against tightening up with regards to the amount of fresh water they do away with, and I think the natives downwind could have more of a say in the health effects.

[dialamah]

A friend of mine, a mortgage broker, is trying to help a woman in Alberta remortgage her home and farm. The problem is that the home is close to tar sands, and the land is no longer suitable for farming. The woman is ill and is getting worse, but (foolishly) refuses to leave her home. She's suing whoever is responsible for not cleaning up the mess that has destroyed her home, livelihood and health, but of course that process is not quick. My friend thinks the chances of getting a mortgage for her are pretty small.

I watched a documentary a while ago about how land has been destroyed by tar sands, and how landowners are left with no recourse. There is some government agency that is supposed to take care of reclaiming this land, but they're seriously behind - about 100 years, I think.

Tar sands have a cost to the climate, and people. I think the costs of that should be on the corporations that profit, not on the government or taxpayers, or on private landowners who risk losing everything.

[Keepitsimple]

There's a whole book of horrifying numbers about the Tar Sands:

http://www.amazon.ca/Tar-Sands-Dirty-Future-Continent/dp/1553655559

Horrifying? My God man - have you not been listening? Have you no sense of proportion? Did you not understand that if the oil sands - which has been developing for half a century - if they increased their production five-fold......that it would still amount to less than one percent (1%) of global emissions? The book you pointed out - a brilliant example of why the majority of North Americans pooh-pooh alarmist claptrap just like that.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[bush_cheney2004]

...Tar sands have a cost to the climate, and people. I think the costs of that should be on the corporations that profit, not on the government or taxpayers, or on private landowners who risk losing everything.

The problem with that is the complicity of government in leases and royalty payments, as well as lax regulatory frameworks for reclaiming the land.

The climate change circus is also going to put a serious hurt on the future value of tar oil sands production....bitumen extraction and storage today for higher oil prices at a later date is no longer a viable strategy.

Edited December 14, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

There's a whole book of horrifying numbers about the Tar Sands:

http://www.amazon.ca/Tar-Sands-Dirty-Future-Continent/dp/1553655559

Yeah? Does it change the fact that it represents 0.144% of the world's CO2 emissions?

Does it change the fact that India alone will increase it's CO2 emissions by 12 times more than the oil sands in EACH of the next twenty years?

[G Huxley]

It's called leading by example. You are setting the model for places like India and China to follow. The claim that the tar sands will make no difference on the climate is false.

[ReeferMadness]

In the real world it has to be 90% baseload and 10% renewables.

Except Uruguay, which has 95% renewable power. Drives Tim crazy but not crazy enough to actually learn from them.

[Guest]

It's called leading by example. You are setting the model for places like India and China to follow. The claim that the tar sands will make no difference on the climate is false.

I think that's fairly naive, if you'll excuse me saying so. China and India will do whatever suits them, regardless of what Canada does.