Everyone, before responding to this person, be advised that this is a climate change “skeptic” who shills for the Oil and Gas industry and spouts doomerist propaganda that any anti-emissions policy in Canada is pointless because we are “only” producing 1.5% of global emissions.

Glad you warned ‘everyone’ about my ‘doomerist propaganda’.

Or maybe I just think for myself, look at the facts as best as they can be determined, and don’t buy into the ‘doom and gloom’ propaganda that says we’re all going to be dead from climate change in the next few years.

I didnt say ANY emissions policy in Canada is pointless. REASONABLE and moderate policy is fine, but things like requiring all cars sold in Canada to be EVs by 2035 are just ridiculous and wrong headed, especially in Canada (and I even drive one).

Who is the “we” that didn’t want the Trans Mountain pipeline? Would that be the Gov of Canada that gets about 1.25 billion in revenue this year from the pipeline? Would that be the 15,000 well paid employees that built and run the pipeline? Would that be the AB and BC gov’s who gain a lot of income tax from those employees? Would that be the people in China, South Korea, Japan, and India who buy most of that oil so they don’t have to burn coal to power their industries and don’t have to rely on shady countries like Russia? Or is it Quebecers who benefit from 14 BILLION a year in transfer payments, the vast majority of which comes from Alberta’s oil revenues? Which “we” are we referring to?

So more partie like the Bloc Québécois?

It’s both, really. Trump and PP.

I said its ‘half real’ as in I believe its the only half the cause for climate change.

As for reason lets try a little reason here: Lets say Canada were to drop into the ocean. The entire country ceases to exist. Now that we’ve removed that 1.5% of global emissions, the change in the climate is now what? Almost nothing. Because 98.5% of emissions weren’t even coming from us, and the globe did not even notice when it was 1.5% less. The world still continues to warm, the climate continues to change. CANADA. DOESNT. MATTER. on the global scale.

Even less logical is the people who just want to kill the entire Canadian Oil and Gas industry. So that would reduce global emissions by 0.5% at MOST. Lovely. Now the world still has 99.5% of the same emissions, but we also have thousands and thousands of people out of work. We are now IMPORTING oil and gas because we still need it, even if we didnt use it for gas/diesel which means production increases elsewhere, likely Saudi Arabia where there are less environmental controls. The gov’s now have to raise billions more in taxes because oil revenues are gone, so everyone is now facing major tax hikes on top of crazy high inflation. Seems like a lovely scenario - especially since NO ONE in the world is going to notice or be better off because emissions have only minutely changed. It makes NO sense.

That’s just what their conservative party is called - they literally used to be the PCs. Same story with the Saskatchewan party.

Wow, just wow…

For starters, your belief does not matter. There are lots and lots of scientists that actually work on this, with real world data, and the consensus is that climate change is mostly of human origin (I didn’t say most emissions, but climate change itself; it’s not just about total emissions but about the planet’s capacity to absorb those), and even you could easily see that natural emissions were taken care of by that very same nature, until the industrial revolution, where what we add to the whole cycle started overwhelming nature’s ability to recycle emissions. Your feelings are of no significance.

As for the rest, as other have said, just because you feel (again) that we don’t matter doesn’t mean we don’t. 1.5% is a lot, whether you feel it is or not, especially considering we’re only 0.5% of the population. If you still don’t understand my point, it means we’re a huge source or emissions per capita. We’re actually polluting more than the US per capita.

If the world wants to reduce their emissions, the whole world has to work on it, not just the few biggest culprits. Also that whole diatribe is missing a pretty crucial point: China, the biggest emitter, is also one of the countries moving toward renewables the fastest.

So what? Do we have to wait until we’re left as one of the biggest emitters until we actually do something about it?

There’s also the fact that our oil comes from oil sands, which is harder to extract and produces even more pollution to extract and refine. All oil is not equal. Also moving away from oil and into renewables means we use less of the first, so no need to import as much. And people here are not even arguing for stopping completely our production, just not to build yet another pipeline (which is not just about expanding production, pipelines are not reliable, very often have leaks that pollute even more, and destroy the environment).

Stop using your feelings and hypotheticals, and use actual data.

Or maybe I just think for myself, look at the facts as best as they can be determined,

Think for yourself, but base your thinking on actual science: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/summary-for-policymakers/ Anything less than that puts you in the same category as the antivaxxer lunatics. But you’ve already clearly said that “anthropogenic global warming is only half real”, so I don’t know what the point of continuing this discussion is.

don’t buy into the ‘doom and gloom’ propaganda that says we’re all going to be dead from climate change in the next few years.

That’s a gross misrepresentation of what the science says and what climate-science-driven policy is about. Read the IPCC summary for policymakers and argue with facts, not with strawman arguments.

REASONABLE and moderate policy is fine

Yea, that’s the problem. Your Overton Window is out of calibration because you’re not based on reality but on vibes. What you consider “reasonable” is in fact already an extremist fantasy, because, counter-intiutively, your “normal” is an extremist unsustainable status quo.

Ok but how do you get there? Voting con never gets you closer to that.

The government, who had to bail out a private investor who got halfway done and walked. Why did they walk? Probably due to the protesting and fighting they had to do to get that pipeline in the ground? But yeah, it was sooo wanted. Yeah, we make money. How much would we be making if it was all ours? I betcha it would be a lot more, hey? That’s where my real argument was centered. We get a pittance of the actual value of the resource because we sell off our resources instead of taking them to market.

How is voting con breaking the 2-party grip? That is enabling the system.

We’re actually polluting more than the US per capita.

The planet does not care about PER CAPITA emissions which is exactly why this is a GLOBAL problem and not a Canadian problem. If there was ONE person in Canada emitting 1.5% of the world’s emissions, 98.5% of it would still not be coming from Canada so that per capita argument is moot. The climate only care about totals.

until we’re left as one of the biggest emitters

Mathematically impossible. China could score a MASSIVE feat and cut their emissions by 1/3 and they would STILL emit fifteen times more than Canada. We will NEVER be one of the biggest emitters because we are such a tiny emitter to begin with.

Going back to my initial analogy, the climate is not going to notice if we give up our teaspoon and start using a thimble when China is still using a 3.5 gallon pail instead of a 5 gallon pail to sink the boat.

Im not using feelings, Im using reason and math. 1/3 less of China’s 33% emissions is an 11% reduction. 1/3 less of Canada’s 1.5% emissions is 0.5% which is a margin of error in the science that is based on a computer calculated formula with inexact inputs.

You’ll notice in these latest talks about pipelines that the gov often mentions indigenous groups as they are the primary protesters for any new pipeline. But it really didnt make sense for them to protest (and do massive vandalism of heavy equipment at one location) when the TransMountain was just a twinning of a pipeline that was already there since 1953. There will always be some bands that protest, but the majority are in favor because they also gain employment and royalties.

It was fascinating to listen to a CBC Special a few years back when they traveled across western Canada to ask people how they felt about the pipeline that was running under their property. The majority of people they spoke to, rural or urban, had NO idea there was even a pipeline underneath them. If they dont even know it, it obviously is not impacting their lives in any negative way. But people gotta protest anyway.

Sigh

“using reason and math” and yet you disagree with the scientific consensus that climate change is man made (“only half” is disagreeing) because of a feeling.

Also what’s the threshold to “be a problem”? 1.5%? Why?

That would leave only 8 (maybe 10, depending on the source) countries that “matter”, with a total of 67-69% of the world’s emissions. So more than 30% of the world’s emissions are not a problem?

Seriously…

The point is focus. It is futile to point the firehose at the weeds on fire in the flower bed when the entire house is going up in flames.

And right now to put out the fire the focus should be on the countries that can actually make a difference, primarily China, the US, India and EU next.

But those also happen to be our biggest trading partners. So in a capitalist country like Canada no one, including the government, wants to damage the bottom line, so instead of having a policy with some teeth like “we will cut our trade with those countries by half until they lower their emissions” what is the message you hear? You hear, “Buy an EV, save the planet” “Get solar panels, save the planet” as if that’s going to actually a dent in emissions in Canada.

It will make an imperceptible dent but the resounding message is please continue to buy buy buy more products and DONT stop spending money on our trading partners. That doesnt make sense and its why I know that our gov’s are not actually serious about climate change.