Derek H. Burney: Climate-obsessed politicians must wake to reality of how essential oil and gas are to life

[Army Guy]

Is climate change just a in fashion or is it all a big lie. It seems more and more people are screaming the world is coming to an end, done by our greed and stupidity, and yet we Canadians are happy letting our government handle this crises. As we sit back in our chairs and write occasional posts "like this one" ya I'm just as guilty. This Government has made some very impressive promises before not just during the election Campaign but to the world , such as Justin signing onto the new NATO agreement and then the next day in from of the worlds media tells them he has no intention of keeping his promise.. He tells the UN "Canada is back" and will take more UN peace keeping missions, by surpassing our records we had before, today we have just over 60 soldiers out of 63,000 on UN sponsored missions... years later Justin flexes his sagging muscles and again announces he promises to send x amount of troops and equipment, so far it is not happening...there are more examples , but i think we all know where this is going.... My impression is Canadians are not that concerned about our international reputation as we continue to support the man in charge. 

I think those that are serious about climate change should be thinking hard over who they throw their support to...How is that working for you so far.. do we really think oil and gas are just going to die...maybe we need to rethink how we are going to accomplish all of this, may be this is not a viable plan. I remember years ago everyone thought the world oil supply was in short supply, now we are limiting our exploration, R&D, any future pipelines the complete opposite of the last crises...... or is this just another fashion statement and in a few years we will be on to another topic...

Derek H. Burney: Climate-obsessed politicians must wake to reality of how essential oil and gas are to life (msn.com)

[Michael Hardner]

52 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

 do we really think oil and gas are just going to die...maybe we need to rethink how we are going to accomplish all of this, may be this is not a viable plan. 

This post reflects an unawareness of what has already been done.  Carbon emission isn't climbing as fast because of the changes that have already been adopted.  Governments have shown that they can act to mitigate risks.  

Oil and gas were always going to die at some point because it's a limited resource.

These are all just facts I'm telling you...

[Army Guy]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This post reflects an unawareness of what has already been done.  Carbon emission isn't climbing as fast because of the changes that have already been adopted.  Governments have shown that they can act to mitigate risks.  

Oil and gas were always going to die at some point because it's a limited resource.

These are all just facts I'm telling you...

Perhaps there is an unawareness in my opinion or the article, but there are many factors as to why carbon missions are gone down, covid 19 plays a huge role, price of fuel and goods plays another major factor, that and people are on their own accord taking steps to reduce carbon foot print, way before the government started to offer rebates... And I'm not sure what major steps Justin has taken to reduce the nations carbon foot print, he has put a price on carbon, but everything else is not going to take effect for years, even i can make promises i have no intention of keeping or paying for.... We have invested a billion dollars in Alberta's hydrogen fuel plant, but we have yet to make anything that burns it, in huge quantity's. 

Current oil and gas resources are going to have pressure put on to them as Justin is going to strangle exploration of fossil fuels and decrease out put. we still have not decrease the products that are made of petroleum products like plastic, carbon fiber, car parts, petroleum products are in everything we have. and todate we are getting rid of plastic straws and plastic bags...not much of an achievement is it... 

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

1.Perhaps there is an unawareness in my opinion or the article, but there are many factors as to why carbon missions are gone down,  

2. Current oil and gas resources are going to have pressure put on to them as Justin is going to strangle exploration of fossil fuels and decrease out put.  

1. Yes, there are a lot of factors... closing a coal plant is one way to reduce CO2 eisions.
2.  Gradual reduction, yes

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, there are a lot of factors... closing a coal plant is one way to reduce CO2 eisions.
2.  Gradual reduction, yes

Canada has very limited amount of coal plants, so sure it would have a small impact, but i think covid is the main reason emissions have faded over the last 2 years. I really don't think any government action todate is going to lower emissions all that much. It sets lofty goals like closing all coal fired plants, by 2030, i think there is less than 12 operating in all Canada. hence the very small reduction. my point is we talk a good game but our actions don't match our promises.

 Mapped: The world’s coal power plants in 2020 (carbonbrief.org)

Not so many years ago there was a huge panic OIL was running out, now we have said no more exploration or new wells, which means we have is what we have, Now we have declared fossil fuels the enemy, by taxing the shit out of it, then taking most of those taxes and giving it back to the people, thats a brilliant plan...Has it changed your driving habits...or just lighten your wallet...  which also punishes those of us in the rural settings. with no public infra structure such as busses, trains, etc......  and we still have not yet found a suitable replacement...putting the cart before the horse. And until that break through comes, we are not going to make any goals because we will still be using fossil fuels and a few electrical cars is not going to save the planet.  

[Yzermandius19]

gas use instead of coal is the main driver of lower carbon emissions

fracking ftw

as usual the free market does a much better job than the government at addressing the issue

yet the fake environmentalists want to kill the driver of those lower carbon emissions

Edited December 22, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Queenmandy85]

22 hours ago, Army Guy said:

and we still have not yet found a suitable replacement...putting the cart before the horse. And until that break through comes, we are not going to make any goals because we will still be using fossil fuels and a few electrical cars is not going to save the planet. 

We found the most suitable replacement 70 years ago and then let people who don't know what they are talking about, scare people away from it. It, being nuclear power. That's what happens when we let American style anti-science into our educational system. Not only does nuclear power let us radically reduce carbon emissions, but the extraction and refining of uranium brings long term prosperity to western Canada, and the rebuilding of the rail system means prosperity for the east. It means future generations will have the 10's of thousands of products derived from petroleum and coal. Coal and oil are far too valuable to burn as fuel. Without coal, you cannot make steel.  Without steel, you cannot make large scale energy, and without large scale energy, most of us die. It is imperative that we conserve our petroleum, coal and iron for future generations. 

[Yzermandius19]

26 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is imperative that we conserve our petroleum, coal and iron for future generations. 

there is no danger of running out of any of the three any time soon

heavy handed government restrictions are not required to conserve enough for future generations

and future generations won't need as much as alternative fuel sources are discovered and fuel efficiency increases

just because there isn't an infinite amount doesn't mean we are anywhere near running out of them

Edited December 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Queenmandy85]

28 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

future generations won't need as much as alternative fuel sources are discovered and fuel efficiency increases

I wasn't talking about fuel. You cannot make steel without coal. You cannot generate electricity without steel to make the generators and oil to lubricate the machinery. Our entire technological civilization relies on them.

 

31 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

there is no danger of running out of any of the three any time soon

Viable oil will run out within two centuries at the current rate of consumption. After that, everything grinds to a halt. 

 

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I wasn't talking about fuel. You cannot make steel without coal. You cannot generate electricity without steel to make the generators and oil to lubricate the machinery. Our entire technological civilization relies on them.

 

Viable oil will run out within two centuries at the current rate of consumption. After that, everything grinds to a halt. 

that assumes that more won't be found and/or that the rate of consumption won't change

two assumptions that make no sense at all

more is found all the time, fuel efficiency improves all the time, more alternative fuel sources crop up on the regular and are improved in viability

and none of that is factored into your equation

Edited December 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[blackbird]

On 12/21/2021 at 10:45 AM, Michael Hardner said:

This post reflects an unawareness of what has already been done.  Carbon emission isn't climbing as fast because of the changes that have already been adopted.  Governments have shown that they can act to mitigate risks.  

Oil and gas were always going to die at some point because it's a limited resource.

These are all just facts I'm telling you...

Common Michael, are you serious?  Oil and gas are what drive the world and make life on earth possible for billions of people and the demand is increasing.  There is nothing on earth that stands a chance of replacing oil and gas.

Canada contributes a total of about 0.18 parts per million of human-produced CO2 to the atmosphere.  The total CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 PPM, which is a miniscule atmospheric gas.  Out of that nature provides 97% of the CO2 and mankind contributes 3%.   Out of the 3% man contributes, Canada contributes 1.5% of human emissions.  So tell me again why this is a climate emergency that mankind is causing?  But I know you don't accept facts and will stick to your liberal dogmas.

[Queenmandy85]

40 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

that assumes that more won't be found and/or that the rate of consumption won't change

two assumptions that make no sense at all

more is found all the time, fuel efficiency improves all the time, more alternative fuel sources crop up on the regular and are improved in viability

and none of that is factored into your equation

The longer we can preserve these resources, the longer we can survive. Why not transition to nuclear power? We have enough uranium to last over two centuries and the earth has enough thorium to last for thousands of years. The export market for nuclear technology is huge. Yzer, why are you so welded to burning up the pillars of civilization?

[Yzermandius19]

24 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The longer we can preserve these resources, the longer we can survive. Why not transition to nuclear power? We have enough uranium to last over two centuries and the earth has enough thorium to last for thousands of years. The export market for nuclear technology is huge. Yzer, why are you so welded to burning up the pillars of civilization?

I'm all for nuclear power

I'm all for oil

I'm not for putting all eggs in one basket

it doesn't have to be one or the other

diversification ftw

keep nonsensical government regulations that stiffle the production of cheaper energy out of it

the market will diversify the energy sector better than central planning ever will

I take issue with people who will only accept government regulation and bans as the best solution to the problem

because it's actually the worst way to address the issue

Edited December 23, 2021 by Yzermandius19

[Faramir]

Its a fraud.  And the propaganda out there is ridiculous.  Even if we agree with the UN assertion of 2% higher temperatures that would not result in sea levels rising to an extent where would we see sunken cities.  And wouldn't you think if that was even a possibility that one would be able to get house insurance say in Miami beach?  If our cities are going to sink wouldn't one think there should be a fire sale on homes in San Diego?

[Faramir]

On 12/21/2021 at 10:45 AM, Michael Hardner said:

This post reflects an unawareness of what has already been done.  Carbon emission isn't climbing as fast because of the changes that have already been adopted.  Governments have shown that they can act to mitigate risks.  

Oil and gas were always going to die at some point because it's a limited resource.

These are all just facts I'm telling you...

Oil resources are for all intents and purposes essentially limitless.  That is what drove oil prices into the ground.  With shale gas offline there is still untapped resources of oil in Saudi Arabia.  They have barely touched their oil reserves.  With shale gas now economical, the reserves are 100 times that of conventional gas.  I'm not saying the internal combustion engine is not a dinosaur.  It is.  But oil resources are plentiful and the doomsayers are constantly proved wrong by the industry.  Carter once said in 1980 that the US was using the maximum it would ever need for electrical energy.  In fact consumption has tripled and supply has kept pace.  The world was to run out of food and there was to be mass starvation at the end of the 1970s.  Something else that proved not to be true.  Now we are reaching peak population growth.  Soon the population will start contracting.

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Faramir said:

1. Oil resources are for all intents and purposes essentially limitless.  That is what drove oil prices into the ground.  With shale gas offline there is still untapped resources of oil in Saudi Arabia.  They have barely touched their oil reserves.  With shale gas now economical, the reserves are 100 times that of conventional gas.  I'm not saying the internal combustion engine is not a dinosaur.  It is. 

2. But oil resources are plentiful and the doomsayers are constantly proved wrong by the industry. 

3. Carter once said in 1980 that the US was using the maximum it would ever need for electrical energy.  In fact consumption has tripled and supply has kept pace.  The world was to run out of food and there was to be mass starvation at the end of the 1970s.  Something else that proved not to be true.  Now we are reaching peak population growth.  Soon the population will start contracting.

1. We have 200 years left as someone here posted.
2. I can agree here.
3. I can also agree with most of this but don't make the mistake of quoting chatter in the same breath as deep research.  Yes they were worried about the 'population boom' but that kind of chatter is not supported by the research that shows decreased population growth.

The degree to which the mass media reports incorrect math astounds me.  

[Yzermandius19]

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. We have 200 years left as someone here posted.

I disproved that

but the Malthusian club just wants to stick it's fingers in it's ears

pretend no more oil will be discovered, that fuel efficiency will not improve, that alternative fuel sources won't be discovered or made more economical

and assumes present trends will continue for 200 years unchanged

because that is what the 200 years left estimate is based on

anyone who buys into that estimate is being extremely irrational

it is a totally worthless estimate

Edited December 24, 2021 by Yzermandius19