The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Green Hydrogen only, not blue, grey or any other colour they've been using to greenwash. I don't view that any better than nat gas.

I think there's value in Blue Hydrogen, as a transition fuel, and development path for the O&G sector. Of course, if they take decades to develop, they'll get run over by Green Hydrogen.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

However, I have to remember that it is the internet, which only gives us a sliver of who these people really are.

In the early days of SSP there were in-person meets and I think the atmosphere was a lot friendlier. There was still competitiveness between people living in different places/regions but I don't think it had quite the same feel as today's hot button issues, which seem to multiply over time. I do think it's challenging because if you put together a photo post on SSP it may take 50x the effort and you will get 1-5 responses, while a hot take on certain issues may generate pages and pages.

Aside from trying to be friendlier I think it is good to remember that this forum is meant for recreational purposes and, hopefully, nobody is setting climate change policies or saving/destroying the world based on what is posted here, though maybe somebody will find some food for thought once in a while. Furthermore this is open to the public and attracts a wide range of participants from society, so a lot of specific assumptions about posters turn out to be wrong (you just don't understand issue X because you're from group Y, there are no Zs on here, etc.). And some people don't like sharing personal details; it can be inappropriate to make things too personal, particularly in an accusatory way, and we don't actually know who is most qualified to offer one opinion or another.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by someone123

In the early days of SSP there were in-person meets and I think the atmosphere was a lot friendlier. There was still competitiveness between people living in different places/regions but I don't think it had quite the same feel as today's hot button issues, which appear to become more and more numerous and take up more and more threads.

Aside from trying to be friendlier I think it is good to remember that this forum is just meant for recreational purposes and nobody is really setting climate change policies or saving/destroying the world based on what is posted here. Furthermore this is open to the public and attracts a wide range of participants from wider society, so a lot of specific assumptions about posters turn out to be wrong (you just don't understand issue X because you're from group Y, there are no Zs on here, etc.).

I agree the earlier days were more friendly. Overarching issues like the polarization of society seem to have chipped away at that. Since 2016 when Trump was elected that accelerated significantly. Then the pandemic hit. Now Climate Change is finally receiving the focus it deserves.

A common area where I get sucked into arguments is when I see Devil's Advocate arguments or attempts to muddy the waters around key issues like Vaccination or reducing emissions to fight Climate Change (or previously defending Trump). Perhaps I misinterpret your motives at times.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

The problem with the internet or text messages is that intonation and sarcasm gets lost. I can't tell if you are being self-deprecating here or doubling down on an insult.

The first, not the second. Never the second. I have no problem making fun of myself, especially when someone points out that I wrote something dumb (as in this case), but I really have no interest in spreading bad feelings on this or any site. There's enough of that to go around in the world without me making it worse.

Additionally, I've been on the receiving end of this from time to time and it doesn't feel good. I mean, we aren't all Pulitzer Prize winners, so perhaps our ideas are not always expressed in the clearest form, but I feel that most of us post in good faith, even if our ideas may not be the most popular, or at the forefront of the latest and greatest breaking news on the subject. But to put in time to construct a post that you hope contributes to the conversation only to have somebody (or somebodies...) put it down and insult you just makes you want to refrain from bothering anymore. This is especially frustrating when it's obvious that the person didn't even bother to take the time to fully read and understand the post that you just constructed... like they cherrypicked a sentence or two and then decided to jump all over what they think you were thinking - and, to bring it full circle - to make generalizations about you based on bits and pieces of what they thought you were trying to say. Which is the reason I made the comments I did in the first place...

Anyhow... I don't live in a bubble. It's a forum and I can't let my expectations be unreasonably high. And... I really don't care so much what people on an internet forum think of me, but I do jealously guard my free time, and if this becomes frustrating or annoying, I'll just do something else that is more enjoyable and interesting.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

In the early days of SSP there were in-person meets and I think the atmosphere was a lot friendlier. There was still competitiveness between people living in different places/regions but I don't think it had quite the same feel as today's hot button issues, which seem to multiply over time. I do think it's challenging because if you put together a photo post on SSP it may take 50x the effort and you will get 1-5 responses, while a hot take on certain issues may generate pages and pages.

Aside from trying to be friendlier I think it is good to remember that this forum is meant for recreational purposes and, hopefully, nobody is setting climate change policies or saving/destroying the world based on what is posted here, though maybe somebody will find some food for thought once in a while. Furthermore this is open to the public and attracts a wide range of participants from society, so a lot of specific assumptions about posters turn out to be wrong (you just don't understand issue X because you're from group Y, there are no Zs on here, etc.). And some people don't like sharing personal details; it can be inappropriate to make things too personal, particularly in an accusatory way, and we don't actually know who is most qualified to offer one opinion or another.

Wisely stated. Thanks for bringing common sense and understanding to the conversation.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Hydrogen should help with this. They crying shame is that they never built a nuke in Ft. Mac. Using clean power for SAGD ops makes the oilsands look a lot different from an emissions perspective.

Hydrogen is our future energy source. Full stop.

Why did oil become the world's universal energy source? Yes, big business could make a fortune off it and yes they bribed our politicians but that was only possible because oil has endless applications. It also is portable so countries with little could import it from somewhere else.

Hydrogen, and ONLY hydrogen, is our new "one size fits all" energy source. There is no place or industry that uses oil that cannot use hydrogen which is quite unlike battery or pure electric. Manufacturing, heating our homes, agriculture, mining, and every form of transport imaginable can be run on hydrogen. What's more, hydrogen, unlike battery/electric is portable so any country has access to it and what's more every country can produce it.

Green hydrogen is ideal but, at least over the next 50 years, blue hydrogen will be the hydrogen of choice. Still not completely green but would still decrease our emissions by over 95% as blue hydrogen produces, on average, only 5% more GHG emissions than totally green hydrogen.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Hydrogen is our future energy source. Full stop.

Why did oil become the world's universal energy source? Yes, big business could make a fortune off it and yes they bribed our politicians but that was only possible because oil has endless applications. It also is portable so countries with little could import it from somewhere else.

Hydrogen, and ONLY hydrogen, is our new "one size fits all" energy source. There is no place or industry that uses oil that cannot use hydrogen which is quite unlike battery or pure electric. Manufacturing, heating our homes, agriculture, mining, and every form of transport imaginable can be run on hydrogen. What's more, hydrogen, unlike battery/electric is portable so any country has access to it and what's more every country can produce it.

Green hydrogen is ideal but, at least over the next 50 years, blue hydrogen will be the hydrogen of choice. Still not completely green but would still decrease our emissions by over 95% as blue hydrogen produces, on average, only 5% more GHG emissions than totally green hydrogen.

Generally agree with oil can be replaced by hydrogen as an energy source. No argument there. The bolded part is unequivocally false.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Why did oil become the world's universal energy source?

Because it's incredibly energy dense and easily portable. Hydrogen is neither of those things. It will find some niche uses, that's it.

[Truenorth00]

1) Hydrogen is not an energy source. It's a carrier.

2) The business case for Blue Hydrogen is predicated on Green Hydrogen not getting cheaper than Blue Hydrogen. No guarantee that doesn't happen over a time horizon that hurts their business case. Green hydrogen costs keep falling, especially as electrolyzer production ramps up. It's a similar trend to battery manufacturing. If the majors in Alberta take a decade to pivot, they are going to be running up against some adverse economics.

[O-tacular]

Alberta funding $131M in new emission reduction projects

EDMONTON - The Alberta government is providing $131 million in funding towards seven emission reduction projects.
The province claims the projects will create 2,200 jobs and cut nearly three million tonnes of emission between now and 2030.

“We are moving Alberta forward with climate policies that are creating jobs and actually reducing emissions,” said Premier Jason Kenney.

The funded projects will be led by energy companies and include the construction of a new carbon capture and storage project, the creation of a blue hydrogen plant, and the installation of heat-recovery technology at a mine facility.

Alberta has touted a number of similar investments throughout the month as signs the province sits at the edge of an economic boom.

On Wednesday, the province announced nearly $50 million in funding for projects advancing clean energy innovation.

The previous week, a $2.5-billion carbon-neutral ammonia and methanol production facility was announced in northern Alberta, as well as a$4.3-billion investment in a new cloud computing operation in Calgary.

Kenney on Wednesday called it "one of the biggest weeks in the history of the Alberta economy."

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/alberta-...ects-1.5671431

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by travis3000

Um okay? I've been to BC before. I know the topography well. There are also many roads out there. Just was curious if they were all closed and blocking access for travel.

I meant to address this earlier. How ell do you know BC's topography? You need to drive from Vancouver to Alberta to realize how mountainous it really is, not just visit Vancouver. With a width of 1,000 km, most of it is mountainous. That's 5x the width of the Alps between populated areas of northern and southern Europe.

The Globe & Mail has a good article on the challenges of BC's highway system:

B.C.’s devastated highways are slowly reopening, but a full recovery won’t take place until next year
B.C.’s fabled road engineers face a new challenge: how to rebuild the province’s paralyzed highway network quickly enough to reanimate an immobilized province and robustly enough to avoid perils of climate change
PATRICK WHITE
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY
UPDATED 1 HOUR AGO

The B.C. highway system is an affront to nature.

Vehicles originating in the Lower Mainland snake across alluvial flood plains, cling to sheer canyon walls, climb slide-prone summits and, occasionally, bore directly through mountain ranges.

The roads follow First Nations footpaths and precarious wagon trails carved into cliffs during the fur trade and gold rush eras. Parts of Highway 1 and Highway 99, for instance, travel the rough path of the Cariboo Wagon Road, heralded as the eighth wonder of the world when the Royal Engineers completed it in 1865 to convey gold seekers north.

Every so often, nature obliterates these feats of engineering. The 1894 Fraser River flood wiped out portions of the Cariboo Road, which wouldn’t be replaced for decades. A 1965 Hope landslide killed four people and dropped so much debris on the Hope-Princeton Highway that engineers had to reroute the road permanently...

....Fortunately, B.C.’s Ministry of Transportation is a forerunner in integrating climate-change projections into its engineering. At the urging of then-chief engineer Dirk Nyland, the ministry began assessing select roads, including the Coquihalla, for climate-change vulnerability about 12 years ago using something called the PIEVC Protocol and found they were particularly susceptible to failure from extreme precipitation.

He urged engineers to take climate-change projections into account with new designs, but many groaned at the prospect, arguing that climate modelling was unproven and imprecise.

“The takeaway was that there was a huge chasm between the language of engineers and the language of scientists,” said highway engineer Zane Sloan, who rallied behind Mr. Nyland’s climate-change push.

In 2015, the ministry issued a policy stating that all new engineering designs needed to take climate-change projections into account, not just historical climate data, as was accepted practice.....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...recovery-wont/

[MolsonExport]

The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing

Why is meaningful action to avert the climate crisis proving so difficult? It is, at least in part, because of ads.

The fossil fuel industry has perpetrated a multi-decade, multibillion dollar disinformation, propaganda and lobbying campaign to delay climate action by confusing the public and policymakers about the climate crisis and its solutions. This has involved a remarkable array of advertisements – with headlines ranging from “Lies they tell our children” to “Oil pumps life” – seeking to convince the public that the climate crisis is not real, not human-made, not serious and not solvable. The campaign continues to this day.

As recently as last month, six big oil CEOs were summoned to US Congress to answer for the industry’s history of discrediting climate science – yet they lied under oath about it. In other words, the fossil fuel industry is now misleading the public about its history of misleading the public.

We are experts in the history of climate disinformation, and we want to set the record straight. So here, in black and white (and color), is a selection of big oil’s thousands of deceptive climate ads from 1984 to 2021. This isn’t an exhaustive analysis, of which we have published several, but a brief, illustrated history – like the “sizzle reels” that creatives use to highlight their best work – of the 30-plus year evolution of fossil fuel industry propaganda. This is big oil’s PR sizzle reel.

[...]

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing

Just like the tobacco industry. Except they have given the entire world a terminal case of lung cancer.

[MolsonExport]

BBC


bbc

[Acajack]

Any thoughts on David Suzuki saying "pipelines will be blown up" if leaders don't address climate change?

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Any thoughts on David Suzuki saying "pipelines will be blown up" if leaders don't address climate change?

Why, is someone on this forum PR for David Suzuki?

Someone can both agree with the overall viewpoint of someone without agreeing with absolutely every statement that comes out of their mouths.

[Hackslack]

Surely Suzuki isn’t talking about Canada? With Trudeaus recent pledge to cap emission, the carbon tax, banning ICE vehicles in 2035, it seems like Canada is a leader of the pack? Wtf does he expect, an immediate transition, he should be heading to those countries that haven’t committed to tackling climate change to make those statements. He just comes off as a senile fool when making those ludicrous, extremist claims, always trying to shame.

[MolsonExport]

Forum Search: Pipelines

(?)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Why, is someone on this forum PR for David Suzuki?

Someone can both agree with the overall viewpoint of someone without agreeing with absolutely every statement that comes out of their mouths.

So is this going to be another topic that can't be discussed because it makes people uncomfortable?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Any thoughts on David Suzuki saying "pipelines will be blown up" if leaders don't address climate change?

Dumb.

Pipeline down for 5 days in Van and were rationing gas, mass gas thefts, statins out of fuel.

Imagine no pipeline for a month or two. We cant handle it.

The sentiment is not necessarily incorrect, but I don't think even Suzuki knows that the repercussions actually look like.