Climate Change will benefit Canada

[Argus]

It's interesting to see the contrast between this and the doomsayers who predict not only the end of civilization but the end of the human race is just around the corner.

Apparently not!

Finally, someone proclaimed an obvious truth that few dare to utter publicly. According to Moody’s Analytics, Canada will benefit from climate change. Although it will shock many, this forecast should surprise no one. Canada is a very large, cold country, with 90 per cent of its population huddled within 100 miles of its southern border and an enormous agricultural potential if the land warms up. There will also be new opportunities for oil, gas and mineral development in the Arctic. And let’s not ignore the greater personal comfort of living in a more hospitable climate.

According to a CBC story about Moody’s study, “when all the changes to things like tourism demand, crop yields and the growing season are factored in, there’s a slight net positive.”

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/joe-oliver-heres-a-truth-few-dare-to-utter-canada-will-benefit-from-climate-change

[Michael Hardner]

It's no surprise at all that Canada will benefit.  The Climate-Deniers are loud idiots, and they drown out those who say dumb things supporting Climate Change scenarios.

[eyeball]

From the OP's article.

Quote

In a last-gasp rationale for sacrifice to the climate gods, we are urged to serve as a shining example of rectitude, presumably to inspire or shame others into action for their own good. Now we have truly arrived in fantasyland. Does anyone seriously imagine Canada can convince the four biggest carbon emitters, China, the U.S., India and Russia, who together are responsible for 57 per cent of global emissions, to follow our example of sequestered resources and undermined prosperity?

Probably not, in any case the real rationale for sequestering just about the very worst oil in terms of the CO2 its loaded with is to prevent it from being burned.  We should be boycotted and made an example of for even threatening to exploit the Tar Sands.  I also fail to see how fueling the growth of the worst most powerful dictatorship on the planet is in anyone's interest.

[Shady]

There's really nothing wrong with acknowledging all of the impacts of climate change.  Unless of course you have a political agenda.  Then you keep certain aspects under wraps as long as possible.

[Benz]

What are we going to do with those benefits? Bigger Zoos for polar bears?

It's like if we had said in 2006, if the edge funds collaps, it will affect only the americans and our economy will benefit from it. It's not exactly how it happened. All the points raised by Moody are only one angle of it. There are side effects that we may adapt for the best, but others are unpredictable.

It's annoying to have a moral, really. I wish I could see it like the inertia-ists. They seem to be living so well with that. It reminds me what Ash in the Alien movie said about the creature. 

"I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality."

Edited August 16, 2019 by Benz

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

There's really nothing wrong with acknowledging all of the impacts of climate change.  Unless of course you have a political agenda.  Then you keep certain aspects under wraps as long as possible.

One aspect I call BS on is the timeline predicted in the Financial Posts very Cornucopian prediction of benefits, only 19 years apparently to the land of milk and honey.   I recall tales of how the Sahara will become Earth's bread basket too with the advent of global warming. Hows that working out btw?

The only way anyone could swallow the promise of such a moon would have to be possessed by the same political agenda it takes to promote it.

[Guest]

I think Dialamah already said this elsewhere, but it doesn't matter a damn if climate change benefits Canada.  The problem with climate change is not with what will eventually grow where, or where the water for it will come from.  The problem with climate change is fitting all the people it doesn't benefit into the areas that it does.

Because they ain't gonna want to stay outside.

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think Dialamah already said this elsewhere, but it doesn't matter a damn if climate change benefits Canada.  The problem with climate change is not with what will eventually grow where, or where the water for it will come from.  The problem with climate change is fitting all the people it doesn't benefit into the areas that it does.

Because they ain't gonna want to stay outside.

Oliver's column basically said that warming was inevitable and we should be doing something to prepare for that instead of puffing out our chests and bragging about how great our emissions reductions will be. He said the economy would benefit, which is good, because without a strong economy a government lacks resources to manage problems like this.

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think Dialamah already said this elsewhere, but it doesn't matter a damn if climate change benefits Canada.  The problem with climate change is not with what will eventually grow where, or where the water for it will come from.  The problem with climate change is fitting all the people it doesn't benefit into the areas that it does.

Because they ain't gonna want to stay outside.

Let them eat cake. Sheesh man, get with the program already.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Oliver's column basically said that warming was inevitable and we should be doing something to prepare for that instead of puffing out our chests and bragging about how great our emissions reductions will be. He said the economy would benefit, which is good, because without a strong economy a government lacks resources to manage problems like this.

Ah.  Well, I certainly agree that preparation is the only thing possible. We're sure as hell not stopping it.

Looking at eyeball's post above, investing in bakeries would seem to be a good idea.

Edited August 15, 2019 by bcsapper

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Let them eat cake. Sheesh man, get with the program already.

To paraphrase Chief Martin Brody:  "we're going to need a bigger cake".

[eyeball]

23 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

To paraphrase Chief Martin Brody:  "we're going to need a bigger cake".

You don't believe the good folks down at the Financial Post that because of CC we'll be able to provide that cake?  In fact if I didn't know any better I'd say the FP just gave a green light endorsement for putting the pedal to the metal.

[Moonlight Graham]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

From the OP's article.

Probably not, in any case the real rationale for sequestering just about the very worst oil in terms of the CO2 its loaded with is to prevent it from being burned.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but unless i'm mistaken, all oil has the same amount of CO2 in it, at least when it's burned in a vehicle.

Almost all the difference in CO2 emitted in different types of oil use is in the energy it takes to produce and refine it.  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/albertas-oil-sands-crude-the-science-behind-the-debate/article11837683/

[Moonlight Graham]

Climate change would be good for Canada in the very long run, my uneducated guess is that in the short and medium term it would be very expensive in terms of adaptation etc..

The problem is that humans are very good at adapting, but many animal and even plant species aren't. Vast changes to our ecosystems especially up north is going to cause unpredictable effects.  What scares me are the unknowns.  Scientists who think they know what will likely happen don't know what they're talking about.  There's too many variables to factor.  What happens to one species of plant/animal will affect others.

It's like taking prescription medications.  By taking them you are changing your body's overall chemical balance.  So by changing a small part your body chemistry in one area, this will often have impacts on other chemicals and bodily systems, often leading to undesirable side effects in other areas of your body that have nothing to do with your original ailment.  And no doctor can accurately predict which side effects a patient will get compared to other patients, there's too many variables.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but unless i'm mistaken, all oil has the same amount of CO2 in it, at least when it's burned in a vehicle.

Almost all the difference in CO2 emitted in different types of oil use is in the energy it takes to produce and refine it.  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/albertas-oil-sands-crude-the-science-behind-the-debate/article11837683/

Your own source says that, depending who it talked to, there's anything from a 12% - 34% higher amount emitted from Tar Sands oil. From well to wheel it states - both production and consumption.

Note that's assuming consumption based on European and North American standards, I suspect when its burned according to China's and India's standards that emissions will be higher still. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by eyeball

[J4L]

I wonder of Winnipeg will become a major international transportation hub, once the Northwest Passage opens up, and the Government builds better infrastructure to accommodate the increase traffic at the Port of Churchill.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Climate change would be good for Canada in the very long run, my uneducated guess is that in the short and medium term it would be very expensive in terms of adaptation etc.. 

And really, we don't know.  And really, if it's slightly better for Canadian agriculture and makes other countries uninhabitable it's a no-go.

[Moonlight Graham]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Your own source says that, depending who it talked to, there's anything from a 12% - 34% higher amount emitted from Tar Sands oil. From well to wheel it states - both production and consumption.

Note that's assuming consumption based on European and North American standards, I suspect when its burned according to China's and India's standards that emissions will be higher still. 

That's not true at all.  Gasoline at the pumps & in your tank burns the same amount of CO2 regardless of source.  Look at the "carbon in fuel" part of the graph from this chart from my link:

 

[eyeball]

On 8/16/2019 at 9:04 AM, Moonlight Graham said:

That's not true at all.  Gasoline at the pumps & in your tank burns the same amount of CO2 regardless of source.  Look at the "carbon in fuel" part of the graph from this chart from my link:

 

I can see what you're saying about refined gasoline but It still looks like Tar Sands oil are still amongst the worst sources of CO2 on the planet.  Considering the size of the Tar Sands its nuts to be opening up such a huge reserve of such a dirty fossil fuel when we should be phasing fossil fuels out.

Speaking of nuts, aren't we amongst other things trying to capitalize on providing so-called ethical-oil that isn't from a dictatorship, so why on Earth would we want to sell it to the biggest most dangerous dictatorship on the planet? To make them even bigger and more powerful?