Does Western Alienation exist, and how can we fix it?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by someone123

Oil consumption already peaked in the developed world. The global forecasts I've seen suggest an overall peak around 2030-2050. This of course means we won't stop using oil tomorrow, but there's a big difference between a growing industry and a declining industry. Exploration will become less worthwhile since there are already large reserves and production will shift to the places with the lowest cost. This already played out with coal but a few decades before oil.

This can't be stressed enough. Look at where coal is at today. That's oil's next ~20 years.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Natural gas will have longer staying power than oil in terms of transportation and especially electrical production because it has lower emissions {although still very polluting} than oil and is far less dangerous to transport on the oceans as a spill of LNG isn't near as environmentally damaging as an oil spill. That said, several countries have plans to phase out all natural gas like the big one, Germany which wants no natural gas of any kind by 2050 due to it's environmental damage.

NG is also a very good fuel for directly heating air and hot water. It will be used for that for a long time, and some limited transportation use as well.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

Alberta needs to diversify more but they don't seem to want to thats the part I am trying to figure out why people are against diversifying.

That makes 2 of us.

[misher]

There’s a nice article here where 700 scientists got together and explain how climate change has become political rather than scientific. It is a problem but it’s been grossly exaggerated. Personally I do think we should work to cut emissions but it feels like people are being illogical and impatient about it. We’re gradually moving there and there’s no need to burn our economy to the ground to do it.

A global network of more than 700 scientists and professionals has prepared an urgent message: There is no Climate Emergency.
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling
output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have
put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.
To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models?
NATURAL AS WELL AS ANTHROPOGENIC FACTORS CAUSE WARMING
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed (more than 4 billion years), with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended about 150 years ago. Therefore, it is no sur- prise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
New in today’s warming period is the possible influence of human activities. To answer this question we need to decompose global warming measure- ments into a nature-driven component and an anthropogenic component. Looking at the complexity of the Earth’s climate system, accurate decomposi- tion is a major scientific challenge.
WARMING IS FAR SLOWER THAN PREDICTED
The world has warmed significantly less than the rate to be expected on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. The sub- stantial gap between empirical measurements and computer predictions
(a significant bias towards high temperatures) tells us that we are far from understanding climate change. It appears that today’s climate models have many shortcomings.
CLIMATE POLICY RELIES ON INADEQUATE MODELS
Poor predictions also tell us that climate models are not remotely plausible
as policy tools. Model makers most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2 by putting too high sensitivities in their model. In addition, they explicitly set the influence of the solar system to zero. Hence, their output is directly caused by what the model makers themselves have put in.

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Science-behind-the-World-Climate-Declaration.pdf

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Why does it have to all be about manufacturing?

Ontario has been doing very well over the last 20 years and unemployment is very low. We now have many more high tech jobs that pay well. And there are many other industries that are doing much better today. Gold mining has been hot in Northern Ontario for the last 15 years. There are more smaller sized businesses and self-employed people. Things change and we can't forget how a large percentage of Ontarians used to work in agriculture 100 years ago.

We have shortages of people in many things including construction, service sector, automotive mechanics, specialized skills and much more. The issue is that some people aren't able to adapt to changes or be willing to obtain the skills needed for the new jobs.

Ontario is doing better because they did the one thing Alberta doesn't seem to want to do - Diversify. Alberta is happy with their Dutch Disease. It will make them a have not province soon enough. It is interesting, many of the oil workers are Newfoundlanders. These people were negatively affected by the crash of another resource, cod. Now, NL has rebounded, maybe not to as high as it was, but unemployment rate is lower now. Alberta could learn from Newfoundland.

Originally Posted by someone123

It's true that fossil fuel feedstocks are used to make plastics but I think it's something like 4% of the usage in the world that goes into that. Most fossil fuels are burned and used for energy. If we were to move to other energy sources but still wanted current plastic consumption would could easily accommodate that with very low production and low GHG emissions compared to what exists today.

Oil consumption already peaked in the developed world. The global forecasts I've seen suggest an overall peak around 2030-2050. This of course means we won't stop using oil tomorrow, but there's a big difference between a growing industry and a declining industry. Exploration will become less worthwhile since there are already large reserves and production will shift to the places with the lowest cost. This already played out with coal but a few decades before oil.

Just imagine that the oil sands were at 4% production of what they are at now? If we kick the oil monkey for most of our energy resources, that is the future for Alberta. Sure, it ill have production, but likely half of what it is now, if not lower. If I were an oil worker, I would be planning that I live as frugally as I can so that I can weather the storm on the horizon.

[misher]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ontario is doing better because they did the one thing Alberta doesn't seem to want to do - Diversify.

Or you just follow the Canadian economy like any other province, if you were "diversified" you wouldn't see unemployment spikes when the economy goes bad. Your employment rate has been increasing under Ford, that must rankle. If you look at Alberta there the exact same, up and down with the economy except for a large spike right after Trudeau was elected for the first time.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Now, NL has rebounded, maybe not to as high as it was, but unemployment rate is lower now. Alberta could learn from Newfoundland.

Newfoundland is doing better after the cod fishery was killed off. Do you know what replaced fishing to help the NFLD economy? That would be oil. BTW, NFLD still has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

NG is also a very good fuel for directly heating air and hot water. It will be used for that for a long time, and some limited transportation use as well.

Natural gas however also has a far larger "leakage" level than oil. From production to transportation, NG "leaks" into the atmosphere at a far higher level and it's impact is devastating. NG is essentially methane which is a huge contributor to global warming and NG has a global warming effect a staggering 34X the level of carbon dioxide.

NG maybe be more efficient and cleaner than coal or oil but it still produces one-half the level of pollution as coal and two-thirds the level of oil. NG proponents also cling to the false expectation that countries will switch over from coal to NG for cleaner electrical production but there is no wide scale conversions taking place. Electrical needs are increasing worldwide and new production systems are coming on line all the time especially in the developing world. If they decide to build new electrical production using NG, that still greatly adds to GHG emissions. If you have 2 coal plants and need a 3rd and go for NG, the GHG emissions have still INCREASED.

Hydrogen {using electrolysis}, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, and tide water are clean technologies but NG is just another fossil fuel. NG will do far more damage to the environment as it creates this false illusion {as propagated by places like Alberta & BC} that somehow NG will reduce emissions delaying a REAL transformation to a zero emissions economy. NG is NOT a bridge technology but rather a political excuse for not taking real action.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Jaws

Newfoundland is doing better after the cod fishery was killed off. Do you know what replaced fishing to help the NFLD economy? That would be oil. BTW, NFLD still has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Quebec and Atlantic Canada have the most refining capacity at 124 103m3/d (782 thousand barrels per day (Mb/d)), followed by western Canada at 109 103m3/d (683 Mb/d) and Ontario at 62 103m3/d (390 Mb/d).

https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/crdlndptrlmprdct/rprt/2018rfnryrprt/2018cndnrfnrvrvw-eng.pdf

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Jaws

Newfoundland is doing better after the cod fishery was killed off. Do you know what replaced fishing to help the NFLD economy? That would be oil. BTW, NFLD still has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Their oil is still cheaper than Alberta's... And it isn't because of pipelines, it's because of refining.

[misher]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Their oil is still cheaper than Alberta's... And it isn't because of pipelines, it's because of refining.

When you use slave labour yes you can produce oil cheaper. I know Eastern Canada is a big supporter of slavery and human rights abuse. When dictators come here you shower them with women and money. If its cheaper who cares how it came to be cheaper right?

transactions they wrote in as “companion services” in their expense reports would cost between $600 and $7,500 each. Close to $10,000 in services went to a single escort service in Vancouver. Other payments went to a Montreal strip club and covered events at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto, such as box seats for a Spice Girls concert. The investigation showed that SNC-Lavalin was writing off the expenses as associated with construction projects in Libya, La Presse reported, with the total bill for Gadhafi’s trip totalling nearly $2 million.

But Dubai and the UAE have long been the subject of complaints of mistreatment of workers. Migrant workers say they often face brutal work conditions, shifts of 12 hours or more, and that companies withhold paychecks or workers' passports so as not to let them quit or return home.

Honestly no wonder the West is alienated, we're horrified at the human rights abuses and corruption the East supports. Your relationship with the Middle East/Africa and dictators drags Canada's name through the mud.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Their oil is still cheaper than Alberta's... And it isn't because of pipelines, it's because of refining.

Refined product still needs to get to market

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Their oil is still cheaper than Alberta's... And it isn't because of pipelines, it's because of refining.

? Maybe it's just the way you have written this, but your post makes no sense.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by CityTech

It's not that there isn't going to be a market for oil. There isn't going to be a market for high cost oil. Which any oil operation in the developed world is going to be, generally.

It's the same way with manufacturing. We didn't stop driving cars. Far from it, the number of cars being built is higher than ever before in history. But Ontario's (and the USA's, and Europe's, etc.) car industry still declined. It didn't disappear, either. There still exists car plants in Ontario where people work. It's just that it shrunk/stopped growing. This is because changes in global market dynamics (namely, free trade and the rise of emerging economies with lower costs).

It's the same with Alberta oil. It's a mistake to assume that just because world oil is climbing, Alberta oil is necessarily going to keep growing. It doesn't work that way. If it did, North America and Europe would still have a growing car industry.

If there is still the same demand for oil, unless there is some huge new supply of very low cost oil, then there will be no lack of demand for "high cost oil". Markets don't work like that.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This can't be stressed enough. Look at where coal is at today.

It's 60% higher than it was in 2000? And still at near historically high levels.



And the primary reason why it's down at all is natural gas.

[misher]

Originally Posted by accord1999

It's 60% higher than it was in 2000? And still at near historically high levels.

And the primary reason why it's down at all is natural gas.

And nuclear, a lot of places in America, Canada, and Europe got off coal and onto nuclear in the 70's. Power use and population were dramatically increasing.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by accord1999

It's 60% higher than it was in 2000? And still at near historically high levels.

And the primary reason why it's down at all is natural gas.

How's the industry doing in developed nations?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by misher

When you use slave labour yes you can produce oil cheaper. I know Eastern Canada is a big supporter of slavery and human rights abuse. When dictators come here you shower them with women and money. If its cheaper who cares how it came to be cheaper right?

Honestly no wonder the West is alienated, we're horrified at the human rights abuses and corruption the East supports. Your relationship with the Middle East/Africa and dictators drags Canada's name through the mud.

I am talking about the oil coming from NL, not the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Jaws

Refined product still needs to get to market

Originally Posted by milomilo

? Maybe it's just the way you have written this, but your post makes no sense.

So, an offshore platform has a long underwater pipe to land, where there are tanks. Those tanks are emptied by ships and then the ship brings it to a refinery at tidewater, like Irving in Saint John or Imperial Oil in Dartmouth.

Now, if there was an ocean right near where Alberta's oil is, this would be a no brainer.

Also, the processes to refine oil from Bitumen and crude oil are slightly different, and are a different cost overall. That is one of many reason the various oil in unrefined states have differing pricing.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am talking about the oil coming from NL, not the Middle East.





So, an offshore platform has a long underwater pipe to land, where there are tanks. Those tanks are emptied by ships and then the ship brings it to a refinery at tidewater, like Irving in Saint John or Imperial Oil in Dartmouth.

Now, if there was an ocean right near where Alberta's oil is, this would be a no brainer.

Also, the processes to refine oil from Bitumen and crude oil are slightly different, and are a different cost overall. That is one of many reason the various oil in unrefined states have differing pricing.

You appear to believe you have a better understanding than other posters on this, but that's probably not the case. Most of the Alberta posters will have a decent understanding of how the oil gets to market, and are well aware that Albertan bitumen sells at a discount.

There's no pipeline from the platforms off Newfoundland, FYI. It's offloaded onto tankers first. I've been onboard when it happens.

[ssiguy]

Actually there is nothing really wrong with coal for electrical production per-se. It is vastly safer to transport and store than either natural gas or oil. The problem is that they burn it and then allow the smoke to enter the atmosphere instead of using carbon capture and sending it back into the ground where it belongs.