Canada's Environmental Stewardship

1ThoughtKnown

I am beginning this thread in the hope it will be a meaningful discussion around what Canada must do as a world leader in environmental science.  These discussions are hoped to be science based and solutions oriented. 
The hope is that within this thread that all participants will respectfully back up their arguments with data and reputable sources for the information.  While this discussion may focus on pipelines (very topical) there are may other important topics to discuss. 
I would like to start out the conversation with an interesting story ran on the CBC website:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/vanadium-shell-oilsands-renewables-1.4608208

Renewables are a growing sector however the storage of the energy continues to cause problems.  This is a win-win as the vanadium metal could be an economic boon for the oil companies and offset the losses in revenue that the elimination of gasoline in automobiles would result in.  I believe this is an exciting development.

1ThoughtKnown

Another discussion point I find interesting.  In this land of winter with our bad roads and slippery sidewalks could we be doing irreparable damage species in our waterways?
 http://www.waterkeeper.ca/blog/2017/11/27/winter-pollution-the-environmental-impacts-of-road-salt
Do we have the social license to simply let water from our municipalities drain into rivers and lakes untreated?  We could be affecting as many as 10% of the species in our waterways due to the run off, not to mention the affect on wildlife. 
I choose to use EcoTraction on our sidewalks myself.  Costs a little bit more but it has zero effect on the environment. Of course, the bigger issue is what is going on the roads. 

1ThoughtKnown

CO2 levels have recently been recorded in Hawaii at 410 ppm. This is the highest recorded levels in 800,000 years based on ice coring samples from Antarctica.  Interestingly last year some blue ice was core sampled which was dated some 2.7 million years back.

PJ_Soul

1ThoughtKnown said:

Another discussion point I find interesting.  In this land of winter with our bad roads and slippery sidewalks could we be doing irreparable damage species in our waterways?
 http://www.waterkeeper.ca/blog/2017/11/27/winter-pollution-the-environmental-impacts-of-road-salt
Do we have the social license to simply let water from our municipalities drain into rivers and lakes untreated?  We could be affecting as many as 10% of the species in our waterways due to the run off, not to mention the affect on wildlife. 
I choose to use EcoTraction on our sidewalks myself.  Costs a little bit more but it has zero effect on the environment. Of course, the bigger issue is what is going on the roads. 

This I'm interested in. For the life of me, I don't understand how in the world it's even still legal to use salt on all the roads when there are alternatives. It causes so much damage to property (cars and shoes especially!), and to the environment. And for some reason hardly anyone seems to GAF. It is so not worth saving some money.

PJ_Soul

BTW, this is a topic that won't get any traction because it's about Canada and in the AET. You might get more of a response in the AMT, although most people on these boards don't give a flying fuck about Canada anyhow. Making the topic a bit more general, or at least to include North America maybe, would perhaps actually get a discussion going.

Meltdown99

PJ_Soul said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Another discussion point I find interesting.  In this land of winter with our bad roads and slippery sidewalks could we be doing irreparable damage species in our waterways?
 http://www.waterkeeper.ca/blog/2017/11/27/winter-pollution-the-environmental-impacts-of-road-salt
Do we have the social license to simply let water from our municipalities drain into rivers and lakes untreated?  We could be affecting as many as 10% of the species in our waterways due to the run off, not to mention the affect on wildlife. 
I choose to use EcoTraction on our sidewalks myself.  Costs a little bit more but it has zero effect on the environment. Of course, the bigger issue is what is going on the roads. 

This I'm interested in. For the life of me, I don't understand how in the world it's even still legal to use salt on all the roads when there are alternatives. It causes so much damage to property (cars and shoes especially!), and to the environment. And for some reason hardly anyone seems to GAF. It is so not worth saving some money.

Have you asked all the environmental politicians why they haven't banned it?? 

PJ_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Another discussion point I find interesting.  In this land of winter with our bad roads and slippery sidewalks could we be doing irreparable damage species in our waterways?
 http://www.waterkeeper.ca/blog/2017/11/27/winter-pollution-the-environmental-impacts-of-road-salt
Do we have the social license to simply let water from our municipalities drain into rivers and lakes untreated?  We could be affecting as many as 10% of the species in our waterways due to the run off, not to mention the affect on wildlife. 
I choose to use EcoTraction on our sidewalks myself.  Costs a little bit more but it has zero effect on the environment. Of course, the bigger issue is what is going on the roads. 

This I'm interested in. For the life of me, I don't understand how in the world it's even still legal to use salt on all the roads when there are alternatives. It causes so much damage to property (cars and shoes especially!), and to the environment. And for some reason hardly anyone seems to GAF. It is so not worth saving some money.

Have you asked all the environmental politicians why they haven't banned it?? 

I don't need to, I already know why. The alternatives cost 6 to 18 times more than salt, and politicians are too out to lunch to get their shit together and do the math on cost of salt vs cost of damage caused by salt. Not to mention how politicians hate to upset industry, which this would do. There was a whole assessment done way back when (before Trudeau) and it did have recommendations, but the government never did anything with it.
Have you asked all the environmental politicians why they haven't banned it??

jeffbr

I know the City of Seattle had banned the use of salt for snow/ice removal. But we had a pretty good storm in 2009, and all hell broke loose. The sand and de-icer combo they were using was simply not effective, and the city shut down. Lots of injuries, couldn't use the streets, businesses closed down, etc... So after that storm they unfortunately went back to salt when necessary. We've had a couple of big (for us) snow events since then and the use of salt has made the streets navigable. So I think at least in Seattle's case, the desire to get away from using salt is there, the environmental impact is acknowledged, but the ineffectiveness of alternatives keep them from completely banning it. Portland, which has historically never used salt, actually started experimenting with it (using some of Seattle's salt) in 2016 during some big storms. They didn't really want to use it either, but were desperate. We don't get a lot of snow, so it isn't a huge impact here, but we also don't have the amount of equipment and expertise needed to really keep the roads clear when the weather turns to shit.

PJ_Soul

Lol. Even with salt Vancouver is complete chaos in a snowstorm. And then there were the "salt riots" of January 2017. There was a long cold icy/snowy stretch that winter (very mild winter conditions to most of the northern hemisphere, but to some Vancouverites it was like end of days), so metro Vancouver started giving out salt for free, once the stores ran out (the supply was low because we normally don't need so much). They would deliver a dump truck full of it to selected fire halls, and people could come with a shovel and bucket and take some home for their icy driveways....... You should have seen these horrible beasts who went for their free salt. They were literally fighting each other, pushing over old people and shit to get way more salt that they could need.... It was like one of those scenes out of a war zone, where starving refugees fight for limited food supplies. I was so ashamed on behalf of my city! The depressing thing is, I'm not sure it would be any different no matter what the pile of free shit was. I believe it could have been a pile of free jelly beans or free kleenex or free shampoo samples or free Bic pens, and I think those fuckers would have acted in the exact same way. The only bright spot is that it got a ton of media coverage and these greedy bastards were publicly shamed (and this whole shaming concept keeps coming up.... I'm starting to feel like public shaming is the only way to get any points across when it comes to antisocial bahaviour).

Meltdown99

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Another discussion point I find interesting.  In this land of winter with our bad roads and slippery sidewalks could we be doing irreparable damage species in our waterways?
 http://www.waterkeeper.ca/blog/2017/11/27/winter-pollution-the-environmental-impacts-of-road-salt
Do we have the social license to simply let water from our municipalities drain into rivers and lakes untreated?  We could be affecting as many as 10% of the species in our waterways due to the run off, not to mention the affect on wildlife. 
I choose to use EcoTraction on our sidewalks myself.  Costs a little bit more but it has zero effect on the environment. Of course, the bigger issue is what is going on the roads. 

This I'm interested in. For the life of me, I don't understand how in the world it's even still legal to use salt on all the roads when there are alternatives. It causes so much damage to property (cars and shoes especially!), and to the environment. And for some reason hardly anyone seems to GAF. It is so not worth saving some money.

Have you asked all the environmental politicians why they haven't banned it?? 

I don't need to, I already know why. The alternatives cost 6 to 18 times more than salt, and politicians are too out to lunch to get their shit together and do the math on cost of salt vs cost of damage caused by salt. Not to mention how politicians hate to upset industry, which this would do. There was a whole assessment done way back when (before Trudeau) and it did have recommendations, but the government never did anything with it.
Have you asked all the environmental politicians why they haven't banned it??

No, why would I?  Once they introduced carbon taxes I no longer care much about the cause...It's not all that important to me.  The politicians and eco people think you can tax the earth green again...

Why don't they use those carbon taxes that so many sheeple are fond of paying to replace salt as use on the roads?  But we know carbon taxes have nothing to do with the environment ... just ask Wynn in Ontario...she says if Ford gets rid of the carbon tax that it will cost 40000 public sector jobs ... she let the cat out of the bag ... its just another made up tax for the sheeple to fall in line and pay.

PJ_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Another discussion point I find interesting.  In this land of winter with our bad roads and slippery sidewalks could we be doing irreparable damage species in our waterways?
 http://www.waterkeeper.ca/blog/2017/11/27/winter-pollution-the-environmental-impacts-of-road-salt
Do we have the social license to simply let water from our municipalities drain into rivers and lakes untreated?  We could be affecting as many as 10% of the species in our waterways due to the run off, not to mention the affect on wildlife. 
I choose to use EcoTraction on our sidewalks myself.  Costs a little bit more but it has zero effect on the environment. Of course, the bigger issue is what is going on the roads. 

This I'm interested in. For the life of me, I don't understand how in the world it's even still legal to use salt on all the roads when there are alternatives. It causes so much damage to property (cars and shoes especially!), and to the environment. And for some reason hardly anyone seems to GAF. It is so not worth saving some money.

Have you asked all the environmental politicians why they haven't banned it?? 

I don't need to, I already know why. The alternatives cost 6 to 18 times more than salt, and politicians are too out to lunch to get their shit together and do the math on cost of salt vs cost of damage caused by salt. Not to mention how politicians hate to upset industry, which this would do. There was a whole assessment done way back when (before Trudeau) and it did have recommendations, but the government never did anything with it.
Have you asked all the environmental politicians why they haven't banned it??

No, why would I?  Once they introduced carbon taxes I no longer care much about the cause...It's not all that important to me.  The politicians and eco people think you can tax the earth green again...

Why don't they use those carbon taxes that so many sheeple are fond of paying to replace salt as use on the roads?  But we know carbon taxes have nothing to do with the environment ... just ask Wynn in Ontario...she says if Ford gets rid of the carbon tax that it will cost 40000 public sector jobs ... she let the cat out of the bag ... its just another made up tax for the sheeple to fall in line and pay.

You totally lost me at "sheeple".

1ThoughtKnown

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Meltdown99 said:

PJ_Soul said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Another discussion point I find interesting.  In this land of winter with our bad roads and slippery sidewalks could we be doing irreparable damage species in our waterways?
 http://www.waterkeeper.ca/blog/2017/11/27/winter-pollution-the-environmental-impacts-of-road-salt
Do we have the social license to simply let water from our municipalities drain into rivers and lakes untreated?  We could be affecting as many as 10% of the species in our waterways due to the run off, not to mention the affect on wildlife. 
I choose to use EcoTraction on our sidewalks myself.  Costs a little bit more but it has zero effect on the environment. Of course, the bigger issue is what is going on the roads. 

This I'm interested in. For the life of me, I don't understand how in the world it's even still legal to use salt on all the roads when there are alternatives. It causes so much damage to property (cars and shoes especially!), and to the environment. And for some reason hardly anyone seems to GAF. It is so not worth saving some money.

Have you asked all the environmental politicians why they haven't banned it?? 

I don't need to, I already know why. The alternatives cost 6 to 18 times more than salt, and politicians are too out to lunch to get their shit together and do the math on cost of salt vs cost of damage caused by salt. Not to mention how politicians hate to upset industry, which this would do. There was a whole assessment done way back when (before Trudeau) and it did have recommendations, but the government never did anything with it.
Have you asked all the environmental politicians why they haven't banned it??

No, why would I?  Once they introduced carbon taxes I no longer care much about the cause...It's not all that important to me.  The politicians and eco people think you can tax the earth green again...

Why don't they use those carbon taxes that so many sheeple are fond of paying to replace salt as use on the roads?  But we know carbon taxes have nothing to do with the environment ... just ask Wynn in Ontario...she says if Ford gets rid of the carbon tax that it will cost 40000 public sector jobs ... she let the cat out of the bag ... its just another made up tax for the sheeple to fall in line and pay.

Ive actually researched carbon taxation and I have come to the conclusion there is no better way to drive change.  The science of climate change is real.  Ive been digging into a lot of the stuff on the IPCC website and of course other places and the scientific community has reached a consensus that if the temperature of the earth rises above 2 degrees. That's the tipping point. The damage will be irreversible. 

Have a look at RCP2.6 vs. RCP8.5 if you want a harsh look at reality. Climate Change modelling doesn't lie.  This isn't even the next generation anymore. This is going to affect us. 

Change will take time, but making something more expensive results in consumer change. How many people smoke with cigarettes up around what $15 a pack (its almost all tax)?  It is a step in the right direction.  If we don't mitigate the amount of carbon in the atmosphere we are going to have to adapt and the changes are not going to be good.

1ThoughtKnown

PJ_Soul said:

BTW, this is a topic that won't get any traction because it's about Canada and in the AET. You might get more of a response in the AMT, although most people on these boards don't give a flying fuck about Canada anyhow. Making the topic a bit more general, or at least to include North America maybe, would perhaps actually get a discussion going.

Oh well, it was worth an effort. I have hardly ever tried to start a discussion. I am hoping this one will deal with the science of our world.  Politics can stay over in Canadian Politics Redux.

The science of climate change is astounding.  I am partially upset with myself for never researching, but there is more information out there than I can read.. and none of it is good.  Everyone knows about the plastic in the ocean but what about the extra anthropogenically produced CO2 the ocean has been trying to handle is resulting in ocean acidification. The pH balance of the ocean is off and this bad for the production of carbonate becuase we are warming the ocean. 

1ThoughtKnown

PJ_Soul said:

Lol. Even with salt Vancouver is complete chaos in a snowstorm. And then there were the "salt riots" of January 2017. There was a long cold icy/snowy stretch that winter (very mild winter conditions to most of the northern hemisphere, but to some Vancouverites it was like end of days), so metro Vancouver started giving out salt for free, once the stores ran out (the supply was low because we normally don't need so much). They would deliver a dump truck full of it to selected fire halls, and people could come with a shovel and bucket and take some home for their icy driveways....... You should have seen these horrible beasts who went for their free salt. They were literally fighting each other, pushing over old people and shit to get way more salt that they could need.... It was like one of those scenes out of a war zone, where starving refugees fight for limited food supplies. I was so ashamed on behalf of my city! The depressing thing is, I'm not sure it would be any different no matter what the pile of free shit was. I believe it could have been a pile of free jelly beans or free kleenex or free shampoo samples or free Bic pens, and I think those fuckers would have acted in the exact same way. The only bright spot is that it got a ton of media coverage and these greedy bastards were publicly shamed (and this whole shaming concept keeps coming up.... I'm starting to feel like public shaming is the only way to get any points across when it comes to antisocial bahaviour).

I was at my in-laws in Sudbury, Ontario over the long weekend.  I noticed all the dandelions everywhere and asked the father-in-law what was up with that.  Provincial law states you cant use weed killers anymore.  I really had to stop and think and decide if I am ever going to spray my lawn again.  I didn't think that was bad but there must be something to it if a province outlawed it. 

I use that to illustrate if we pressure out municipalities to stop using road salt they will.  The alternative is too expensive, just use sand and gravel. Maybe less people will drive in the winter and leave the roads to us

Thirty Bills Unpaid

1Thought...

Without trying to come across as confrontational... I thought you were a big oil guy? Here you are coming across as very environmentally sensitive.

I refrained from posting anything earlier because I wasn't sure what your angle was.

What happened?

oftenreading

I don’t really know what to add at this point but I do hope this thread continues. I try to be mindful every day of my carbon footprint, particularly by doing the majority of my trips on my bike or on foot. I try to buy the alternative of any item with the least packaging. Unfortunately, I don’t have an area to garden in at this point and I really miss that. All of that is a drop in the bucket. 

I agree that pressing every level of government to make changes to minimize negative impacts is a priority, and has to be looked at as at least equal to, if not more important than, the usual buzzwords of jobs and the economy. 

1ThoughtKnown

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

1Thought...

Without trying to come across as confrontational... I thought you were a big oil guy? Here you are coming across as very environmentally sensitive.

I refrained from posting anything earlier because I wasn't sure what your angle was.

What happened?

Thirty, I suppose that would be understandable.   I am for exploiting the resource with a caveat.  Allow me to try to explain. Fossil fuel emissions are so misunderstood.  It isn't just oil, it's factories, coal, production of steel, natural gas and a host of other industries which are resulting in the rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere. 

Oil is still required and therefore I believe pipelines must be built.  The demand is too great to not get a slice of the pie.  I am a firm believer that it is part of a greater plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. 

On the Canadian politics thread it was clear to me this was too much a political opinion a personal opinion NIMBY look at the environment.  The fact is, spills in the ocean or your backyard of oil pales in comparison to the damage greenhouse gases are doing to the environment of everyone. Its not just the BC coast... its everywhere.

I don't believe we should just "leave the stuff in the ground" either. Is that a reasonable solution?  We need a combination of mitigation (reduce reliance on fossil fuels) and adaptation (carbon capture, sea walls for rising oceans, etc.)

Finally the greatest power comes from knowledge.  I am currently taking an Environmental Management Certificate from the University of Calgary as part of my career development (I am a Health & Safety Advisor).  Originally this education was to "sharpen my saw" and since my employer was paying for it, why not?  Another challenge!

As part of the curriculum there was an optional course called "The Science of Global Warming and Climate Change".  The instructor is a hydrologist (and an esteemed one at that) named Richard Manz.  In the 15 hours of lectures and our own studies I realized the "science doesn't lie" and the climate change modelling being done has been perfected over time and shows some disturbing results.  Not for generations to come, but for our generation (old buggers in our forties and so on). The temperature on the globe has risen approximately 0.9C since 1900 and the projections of RCP8.5 (current anthropocentric greenhouse gas emission rates) are dire.  Google it... there are great charts available.

The best part? We have time to fix this. 2C is the "no turning back point". Economics still exist and we need capital to turn alternative energy sources into an economy. Not just for us, but for the emerging nations of the world who simply want (and deserve) our cushy standard of living. 

So that's a self-admittedly long-winded answer to your question.  I felt very misunderstood with the political rabble, because it is political-will more than anything else which holds us back from change.  I work for an transmission company (only privately owned one in Canada) which supports renewable energy development.  Why? Our customers want it. Our biggest direct customers? Oil companies. I am proud to work for such an organization. 

These customers... they know the future too.  We have time to still make money off this resource and use the money for R&D to develop technologies to better the world at the same time.  To be against a pipeline simply because of possible oil tanker spills or minor leaks along the way is irresponsible for the larger global problem of climate change, in my opinion.  I am not a NIMBY environmental advocate.  I hope this explains my positioning a little better.

1ThoughtKnown

oftenreading said:

I don’t really know what to add at this point but I do hope this thread continues. I try to be mindful every day of my carbon footprint, particularly by doing the majority of my trips on my bike or on foot. I try to buy the alternative of any item with the least packaging. Unfortunately, I don’t have an area to garden in at this point and I really miss that. All of that is a drop in the bucket. 

I agree that pressing every level of government to make changes to minimize negative impacts is a priority, and has to be looked at as at least equal to, if not more important than, the usual buzzwords of jobs and the economy. 

I am looking at my own brand of consumerism as well.  I was never a climate change denier as I am too intelligent for that.  I was just not aware of how dire the situation is (stated above).  It is like I have awoken from a long sleep of ignorance or complacency. 

I have  very deep and personal connection with nature, especially the mountains (grown up near Jasper and in the Similkameen valley).  Here in Calgary and we have a one hour drive towards the awe of Banff and Kananaskis.

We need solutions but politicians must also consider the economy and jobs. People need an income. The new economy is being created. Notley has said Alberta has the highest level of renewable energy investment in Canada.  Change is coming, believe me. Much much faster than you think

PJ_Soul

Apparently, the 3 activities that individuals do that harm the environment the most are:
1) Having children
2) Driving cars
3) Flying overseas

And, btw, those who cause the most harm in this world? Rich people. The top 10% in terms of wealth create the lion's share of environmental damage, particularly in developed nations. A rich person in America creates 10 times more carbon emissions than a poor person, and the top 10% accounts for half of all carbon emissions. And the rich in the USA emit WAAAAYYYY more carbon than rich people in any other nation, as individuals. Canada's rich people are about half as bad, but still hold second place in the world as far as that goes.

oftenreading

PJ_Soul said:

Apparently, the 3 activities that individuals do that harm the environment the most are:
1) Having children
2) Driving cars
3) Flying overseas

And, btw, those who cause the most harm in this world? Rich people. The top 10% in terms of wealth create the lion's share of environmental damage, particularly in developed nations. A rich person in America creates 10 times more carbon emissions than a poor person, and the top 10% accounts for half of all carbon emissions. And the rich in the USA emit WAAAAYYYY more carbon than rich people in any other nation, as individuals. Canada's rich people are about half as bad, but still hold second place in the world as far as that goes.

Yay! I’m not rich!

oftenreading

And I rarely drive. 

But there’s no damn way I’m giving up my tickets to see PJ in Europe this summer. 

Leaving in 30 days and counting....

PJ_Soul

I do none of the top 3. No kids, I have always lived car-free and plan on doing so forever, or at least until I'm so old I can't walk anymore, and I'm too poor to fly, lol... which means, of course, that I pollute the least across the board. *pat on back for being poor* Well, Vancouver poor, anyway. I'd live like a queen up north or in the prairies or the maritimes.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

1Thought...

Without trying to come across as confrontational... I thought you were a big oil guy? Here you are coming across as very environmentally sensitive.

I refrained from posting anything earlier because I wasn't sure what your angle was.

What happened?

Thirty, I suppose that would be understandable.   I am for exploiting the resource with a caveat.  Allow me to try to explain. Fossil fuel emissions are so misunderstood.  It isn't just oil, it's factories, coal, production of steel, natural gas and a host of other industries which are resulting in the rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere. 

Oil is still required and therefore I believe pipelines must be built.  The demand is too great to not get a slice of the pie.  I am a firm believer that it is part of a greater plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. 

On the Canadian politics thread it was clear to me this was too much a political opinion a personal opinion NIMBY look at the environment.  The fact is, spills in the ocean or your backyard of oil pales in comparison to the damage greenhouse gases are doing to the environment of everyone. Its not just the BC coast... its everywhere.

I don't believe we should just "leave the stuff in the ground" either. Is that a reasonable solution?  We need a combination of mitigation (reduce reliance on fossil fuels) and adaptation (carbon capture, sea walls for rising oceans, etc.)

Finally the greatest power comes from knowledge.  I am currently taking an Environmental Management Certificate from the University of Calgary as part of my career development (I am a Health & Safety Advisor).  Originally this education was to "sharpen my saw" and since my employer was paying for it, why not?  Another challenge!

As part of the curriculum there was an optional course called "The Science of Global Warming and Climate Change".  The instructor is a hydrologist (and an esteemed one at that) named Richard Manz.  In the 15 hours of lectures and our own studies I realized the "science doesn't lie" and the climate change modelling being done has been perfected over time and shows some disturbing results.  Not for generations to come, but for our generation (old buggers in our forties and so on). The temperature on the globe has risen approximately 0.9C since 1900 and the projections of RCP8.5 (current anthropocentric greenhouse gas emission rates) are dire.  Google it... there are great charts available.

The best part? We have time to fix this. 2C is the "no turning back point". Economics still exist and we need capital to turn alternative energy sources into an economy. Not just for us, but for the emerging nations of the world who simply want (and deserve) our cushy standard of living. 

So that's a self-admittedly long-winded answer to your question.  I felt very misunderstood with the political rabble, because it is political-will more than anything else which holds us back from change.  I work for an transmission company (only privately owned one in Canada) which supports renewable energy development.  Why? Our customers want it. Our biggest direct customers? Oil companies. I am proud to work for such an organization. 

These customers... they know the future too.  We have time to still make money off this resource and use the money for R&D to develop technologies to better the world at the same time.  To be against a pipeline simply because of possible oil tanker spills or minor leaks along the way is irresponsible for the larger global problem of climate change, in my opinion.  I am not a NIMBY environmental advocate.  I hope this explains my positioning a little better.

This explains your position very well- thanks for taking the time to do it.

We're not fully on the same page, but we're not miles apart either. There's pragmatism in what you state and I typically view myself (or wish to view myself) as a pragmatic.

Sometimes I wonder if the efforts to save the environment are worth it. We are on a collision course with a cataclysmic climate shift in the future. Barring a massive plague or world war where billions are wiped out... it's an inevitability. So what do we do? Do we try to preserve to eke out a few more generations... or do we accept the same fate the dinosaurs fared?

1ThoughtKnown

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

1Thought...

Without trying to come across as confrontational... I thought you were a big oil guy? Here you are coming across as very environmentally sensitive.

I refrained from posting anything earlier because I wasn't sure what your angle was.

What happened?

Thirty, I suppose that would be understandable.   I am for exploiting the resource with a caveat.  Allow me to try to explain. Fossil fuel emissions are so misunderstood.  It isn't just oil, it's factories, coal, production of steel, natural gas and a host of other industries which are resulting in the rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere. 

Oil is still required and therefore I believe pipelines must be built.  The demand is too great to not get a slice of the pie.  I am a firm believer that it is part of a greater plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. 

On the Canadian politics thread it was clear to me this was too much a political opinion a personal opinion NIMBY look at the environment.  The fact is, spills in the ocean or your backyard of oil pales in comparison to the damage greenhouse gases are doing to the environment of everyone. Its not just the BC coast... its everywhere.

I don't believe we should just "leave the stuff in the ground" either. Is that a reasonable solution?  We need a combination of mitigation (reduce reliance on fossil fuels) and adaptation (carbon capture, sea walls for rising oceans, etc.)

Finally the greatest power comes from knowledge.  I am currently taking an Environmental Management Certificate from the University of Calgary as part of my career development (I am a Health & Safety Advisor).  Originally this education was to "sharpen my saw" and since my employer was paying for it, why not?  Another challenge!

As part of the curriculum there was an optional course called "The Science of Global Warming and Climate Change".  The instructor is a hydrologist (and an esteemed one at that) named Richard Manz.  In the 15 hours of lectures and our own studies I realized the "science doesn't lie" and the climate change modelling being done has been perfected over time and shows some disturbing results.  Not for generations to come, but for our generation (old buggers in our forties and so on). The temperature on the globe has risen approximately 0.9C since 1900 and the projections of RCP8.5 (current anthropocentric greenhouse gas emission rates) are dire.  Google it... there are great charts available.

The best part? We have time to fix this. 2C is the "no turning back point". Economics still exist and we need capital to turn alternative energy sources into an economy. Not just for us, but for the emerging nations of the world who simply want (and deserve) our cushy standard of living. 

So that's a self-admittedly long-winded answer to your question.  I felt very misunderstood with the political rabble, because it is political-will more than anything else which holds us back from change.  I work for an transmission company (only privately owned one in Canada) which supports renewable energy development.  Why? Our customers want it. Our biggest direct customers? Oil companies. I am proud to work for such an organization. 

These customers... they know the future too.  We have time to still make money off this resource and use the money for R&D to develop technologies to better the world at the same time.  To be against a pipeline simply because of possible oil tanker spills or minor leaks along the way is irresponsible for the larger global problem of climate change, in my opinion.  I am not a NIMBY environmental advocate.  I hope this explains my positioning a little better.

This explains your position very well- thanks for taking the time to do it.

We're not fully on the same page, but we're not miles apart either. There's pragmatism in what you state and I typically view myself (or wish to view myself) as a pragmatic.

Sometimes I wonder if the efforts to save the environment are worth it. We are on a collision course with a cataclysmic climate shift in the future. Barring a massive plague or world war where billions are wiped out... it's an inevitability. So what do we do? Do we try to preserve to eke out a few more generations... or do we accept the same fate the dinosaurs fared?

I watch a Noam Chomsky piece today on YouTube.  He sites climate change and nuclear war as the two big "elephants in the room" as it were.  He stated the Republicans pulling the strings behind the scenes are able to do so right now because the Trump narrative is taking everyone's "eye off the ball".  The mainstream media is so caught up in his buffoonery that the Republicans are systematically dismantling everything for the common person in the US.  That includes environmental concerns because as it stands right now, the elites can make big money off everything that is bad for the environment.  They KNOW climate change is real, they just haven't figured out how to make money off it yet. 

My prof also explained to us that this is not uncommon.  Democrats pour money into environmental research and the like and the Republicans regain power and dismantle it.  He also pointed out this happens in Canada. This is a gentlemen who has performed studies and required research dollars so he knows "the game".  

Man, it always comes back to politics *sigh*.  I really want to talk about the science of climate change and provide and receive statistical data to help people "see the light".  If you try to read the information on the IPCC website, like the AR reports, it is some complicated stuff and the summaries don't really tell enough.   The filtered information on climate change received through mainstream media is watered-down.  We need people to start realizing how climate change will affect THEM.  Watch this 3 minute video, it summarizes the possible effects:

https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2040079160/2053603426/mmc2.mp4?code=lancet-site

Thirty Bills Unpaid

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

1Thought...

Without trying to come across as confrontational... I thought you were a big oil guy? Here you are coming across as very environmentally sensitive.

I refrained from posting anything earlier because I wasn't sure what your angle was.

What happened?

Thirty, I suppose that would be understandable.   I am for exploiting the resource with a caveat.  Allow me to try to explain. Fossil fuel emissions are so misunderstood.  It isn't just oil, it's factories, coal, production of steel, natural gas and a host of other industries which are resulting in the rise of CO2 levels in our atmosphere. 

Oil is still required and therefore I believe pipelines must be built.  The demand is too great to not get a slice of the pie.  I am a firm believer that it is part of a greater plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. 

On the Canadian politics thread it was clear to me this was too much a political opinion a personal opinion NIMBY look at the environment.  The fact is, spills in the ocean or your backyard of oil pales in comparison to the damage greenhouse gases are doing to the environment of everyone. Its not just the BC coast... its everywhere.

I don't believe we should just "leave the stuff in the ground" either. Is that a reasonable solution?  We need a combination of mitigation (reduce reliance on fossil fuels) and adaptation (carbon capture, sea walls for rising oceans, etc.)

Finally the greatest power comes from knowledge.  I am currently taking an Environmental Management Certificate from the University of Calgary as part of my career development (I am a Health & Safety Advisor).  Originally this education was to "sharpen my saw" and since my employer was paying for it, why not?  Another challenge!

As part of the curriculum there was an optional course called "The Science of Global Warming and Climate Change".  The instructor is a hydrologist (and an esteemed one at that) named Richard Manz.  In the 15 hours of lectures and our own studies I realized the "science doesn't lie" and the climate change modelling being done has been perfected over time and shows some disturbing results.  Not for generations to come, but for our generation (old buggers in our forties and so on). The temperature on the globe has risen approximately 0.9C since 1900 and the projections of RCP8.5 (current anthropocentric greenhouse gas emission rates) are dire.  Google it... there are great charts available.

The best part? We have time to fix this. 2C is the "no turning back point". Economics still exist and we need capital to turn alternative energy sources into an economy. Not just for us, but for the emerging nations of the world who simply want (and deserve) our cushy standard of living. 

So that's a self-admittedly long-winded answer to your question.  I felt very misunderstood with the political rabble, because it is political-will more than anything else which holds us back from change.  I work for an transmission company (only privately owned one in Canada) which supports renewable energy development.  Why? Our customers want it. Our biggest direct customers? Oil companies. I am proud to work for such an organization. 

These customers... they know the future too.  We have time to still make money off this resource and use the money for R&D to develop technologies to better the world at the same time.  To be against a pipeline simply because of possible oil tanker spills or minor leaks along the way is irresponsible for the larger global problem of climate change, in my opinion.  I am not a NIMBY environmental advocate.  I hope this explains my positioning a little better.

This explains your position very well- thanks for taking the time to do it.

We're not fully on the same page, but we're not miles apart either. There's pragmatism in what you state and I typically view myself (or wish to view myself) as a pragmatic.

Sometimes I wonder if the efforts to save the environment are worth it. We are on a collision course with a cataclysmic climate shift in the future. Barring a massive plague or world war where billions are wiped out... it's an inevitability. So what do we do? Do we try to preserve to eke out a few more generations... or do we accept the same fate the dinosaurs fared?

I watch a Noam Chomsky piece today on YouTube.  He sites climate change and nuclear war as the two big "elephants in the room" as it were.  He stated the Republicans pulling the strings behind the scenes are able to do so right now because the Trump narrative is taking everyone's "eye off the ball".  The mainstream media is so caught up in his buffoonery that the Republicans are systematically dismantling everything for the common person in the US.  That includes environmental concerns because as it stands right now, the elites can make big money off everything that is bad for the environment.  They KNOW climate change is real, they just haven't figured out how to make money off it yet. 

My prof also explained to us that this is not uncommon.  Democrats our money into environmental research and the like and the Republicans regain power and dismantle it.  He also pointed out this happens in Canada. This is a gentlemen who has performed studies and required research dollars so he knows "the game".  

Man, it always comes back to politics *sigh*.  I really want to talk about the science of climate change and provide and receive statistical data to help people "see the light".  If you try to read the information on the IPCC website, like the AR reports, it is some complicated stuff and the summaries don't really tell enough.   The filtered information on climate change received through mainstream media is watered-down.  We need people to start realizing how climate change will affect THEM.  Watch this 3 minute video, it summarizes the possible effects:

https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2040079160/2053603426/mmc2.mp4?code=lancet-site

Okay... it seems like you are in a better place right now with regards to a suggestion. I wish to recommend a book I recommended to you a while back (which you weren't very receptive to given the context of our confrontational dialogue lol).

If you are looking to probe this area and you have any extra time with your courses... check out The Shock Doctrine (Naomi Klein). It's truly a harrowing account of ruthless, large scale capitalism and supplements what you have written here.

1ThoughtKnown

I will look into it, but at the same time I encourage you to look into Vivian Krause's articles on where Tides gets it's cash.  Isn't it odd to anyone that only Canadian pipelines seem to have this large anti-pipeline agenda against them?  Those same Republican puppet masters are also doing everything they can to keep Canadian oil landlocked.

Once again, we need to stop relying on fossil fuels, but we are decades from not needing oil.  Demand is still RISING.  It will be a combination of mitigation (reduce reliance on fossil fuels) and adaptation (carbon capture technology) which will help us avoid this impending disaster.  Make no mistake, it is real.  Google and compare RCP8.5 (where we are heading) to RCP2.5(what we must do). 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I will.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Browsed quite a bit. From my browsing... this offer scenarios in succinct fashion (appropriate for discussion in a PJ forum):

Some adverse impacts are expected by the time we reach 1.5°C surface warming above pre-industrial temperatures.  For example, widespread coral mortality, hundreds of millions of people at risk of increased water stress, more damage from droughts and heat waves and floods, and increased species extinction rates.  However, by and large these are impacts which we should be able to adapt to, at a cost, but without disastrous consequences.

Once we surpass 2°C (which is internationally considered the "danger limit" beyond which we should not pass), the impacts listed above are exacerbated, and some new impacts will occur.  Coastal flooding will impact millions of people.  Coral bleaching will be widespread (exacerbated by ocean acidification), most coral reefs may not survive (Frieler et al. 2012, Kiessling et al. 2012), global food crop production will decline, and sea levels will rise by close to 1 meter by 2100.  Up to 30% of global species will be at risk for extinction.

At 3–4°C warming, widespread coral mortality will occur (at this point corals are basically toast), and 40–70% of global species are at risk as we continue on the path toward the Earth's sixth mass extinction.  Glacier retreats will threaten water supplies in Central Asia and South America.  The possibility of significant releases of CO2 and methane from ocean hydrates and permafrost could amplify global warming even further beyond our control.  Sea level rise of 1 meter or more would be expected by 2100, with the possibility of destabilization of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, which would cause much more sea level rise and flooding of coastal communities.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html

Timelines for thresholds to be surpassed vary (depending on which RCP scenario is most likely). It seems that left unabated... 2100 is a time where the world would experience widespread 'pain'. 

1ThoughtKnown

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Browsed quite a bit. From my browsing... this offer scenarios in succinct fashion (appropriate for discussion in a PJ forum):

Some adverse impacts are expected by the time we reach 1.5°C surface warming above pre-industrial temperatures.  For example, widespread coral mortality, hundreds of millions of people at risk of increased water stress, more damage from droughts and heat waves and floods, and increased species extinction rates.  However, by and large these are impacts which we should be able to adapt to, at a cost, but without disastrous consequences.

Once we surpass 2°C (which is internationally considered the "danger limit" beyond which we should not pass), the impacts listed above are exacerbated, and some new impacts will occur.  Coastal flooding will impact millions of people.  Coral bleaching will be widespread (exacerbated by ocean acidification), most coral reefs may not survive (Frieler et al. 2012, Kiessling et al. 2012), global food crop production will decline, and sea levels will rise by close to 1 meter by 2100.  Up to 30% of global species will be at risk for extinction.

At 3–4°C warming, widespread coral mortality will occur (at this point corals are basically toast), and 40–70% of global species are at risk as we continue on the path toward the Earth's sixth mass extinction.  Glacier retreats will threaten water supplies in Central Asia and South America.  The possibility of significant releases of CO2 and methane from ocean hydrates and permafrost could amplify global warming even further beyond our control.  Sea level rise of 1 meter or more would be expected by 2100, with the possibility of destabilization of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, which would cause much more sea level rise and flooding of coastal communities.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html

Timelines for thresholds to be surpassed vary (depending on which RCP scenario is most likely). It seems that left unabated... 2100 is a time where the world would experience widespread 'pain'. 

Exactly.  This is the stuff I have been learning Thirty. I have to tell you, when I read your post it sent chills through me.  I am absolutely convinced there is NOTHING more important in the world right now than this. 

Now, in my research (to further convince me we are not getting the truth here in Alberta) is that our federal government de-linked the relationship between GHG emissions and economic growth as far back as 2007.

(Saint-Jacques, G. Canada’s Climate Change Mitigation Plan. Government of Canada, May 17, 2012)

 

Then I watch the "Climate Change Guy":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCX

He presents the climate change scenario in a "risk assessment matrix".  The only bad scenario of mitigation is possible economic suffering.  If our government has debunked this myth then mitigation actions must be taken, right? The only provinces in Canada not reducing GHG's are Mantioba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Of this list Alberta is the WORST.  Approximately 70% of Canada's emissions are from Alberta and our rates are rising (unlike much of Canada which are lowering theirs with 2020 Copenhagen targets in mind). 

I'm a safety professional so I began to think about this from a risk assessment perspective.  What does this mean to the Average Canadian. What does it mean to me? An analogy came to me:

As a safety advisor I can tell you when you are looking at airborne hazard control it is broken into three parts.  The source, the path and the receiver.  It is always best to eliminate the hazard at its source.  This presents the safest process for workers. An example, a hood vent at the point of welding process taking fumes directly to a filter/scrubbers and released to the atmosphere.  A path mitigation would be overall-dilution ventilation (less effective) and the receiver mitigation would be a respiratory mask, etc. (which is more like adaptation). While all will work in theory, the best and most effective hazard control is the hood vent.  It requires little to no effort of the worker.

In the greenhouse gas context, if the carbon emissions are removed from the source, this requires little to know effort of people in society.  Carbon is reduced or mitigated through other means and requires no action by people.  Eliminating the hazard (this to the environment) at the source is the best and most effective strategy as the adaptation for humans will not be a $150 respiratory mask with a p100 filter, it will be far greater than anyone can predict.  The risk in relying on adaptation is too great to consider.

Paracelsus was the first person to inform humanity that all chemicals and gases are toxins, even the ones produced naturally.  The only determination of whether a chemical or gas is toxic to humans is the DOSE.  We are anthropogenically increasing the dose of CO2 in the atmosphere and the dose of this and other GHG's is going to change the environment around us. How could it not?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I agree with you: adaptation cannot be the answer. Having said that... you can successfully surmise I also agree with your analogy.

I'm pragmatic in nature and a realist. I truly feel we're too ignorant to help ourselves. We 'might' be able to thwart our impending self destruction, but that would obviously demand changes from every scale of humanity (large to micro). I just don't think we can overcome the propensity for selfishness or greed to do so though.

I care. I'll do my part. But the reality is we are on a sinking ship. And my original question looms: do we make every effort to try and sustain humanity for eternity... make some efforts to eke out a few more generations before shit hits the fan... or say 'f**k it let's enjoy this ride?

If the answer to my question is suggestion one... then we have to hit the brakes hard.

1ThoughtKnown

There is hope in the mitigation side. The Shell Scotford Upgrader in Fort Saskatchewan (east of Edmonton) is one example of successful Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS):

The upgrading process requires the production of hydrogen and that process results in the creation of CO2.  The Shell Canada Quest project captures the CO2 from the upgrader hydrogen manufacturing plants using a product called Amine which absorbs the CO2.  The CO2 is then separated from the Amine and is pressurized to a liquid form where it is sent by pipeline 65km north of the site to three inject well sites.  The liquid CO2 is injected over 2km below the earth’s surface where it is locked beneath water-tight rock.

Another example is in Saskatchewan at the Boundary Dam Power Station, the first power station in the world to successfully use CCS technology. It produces 115 megawatts (MW) of power (enough to power about 100,000 Saskatchewan homes) and is capable of reducing CO2 emissions by up to 90 per cent. Coal is cheap to use and coal plants are very reliable. However, burning coal also creates harmful C02 emissions. SaskPower is increasing their use of renewable resources, but these power sources together can’t replace coal overnight. They still need a constant power source that keeps electricity available and affordable for the people of Saskatchewan. In April 2018, the CCS facility demonstrated reliability, being available 94.9% of the time. The CCS facility captured 70,039 tonnes of carbon dioxide in April 2018, which represents 72 per cent of its maximum capacity.

One more example is how CCS can be economically viable:

An Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) project which intends to use CO2 to flood the Clive oil field in Central Alberta. This results in increased production and recovery of additional quantities of oil reserves from existing reservoir after traditional primary and secondary recovery techniques have been exhausted. The Clive field will be designed to receive CO2 volumes from sources in the Alberta Industrial Heartland and pipeline systems will then be used to distribute the received CO2 to the well injection locations. The CO2 will be securely and permanently injected in this contained geological formation (Clive field) used for EOR purposes and permanent CO2 storage.

So not all is doom-and-gloom.  For oil producing nations, the CCS mitigation is the best option as it places the GHG's back in the ground where it belongs to ensure the Earth's Carbon Cycle is maintained.  Oil is going to be used for quite some time yet and the energy companies will use some of the profits to R&D new technologies.  To your post, this cant happen overnight, but spreading the knowledge and convincing the "deniers" will ensure that the policy makers (people in government who can make change) will understand this is what the public wants.  People just don't really understand the science and who can blame them? I didn't until I took a 15-hr optional University Course.