The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Hardhatdan]

It's almost like Alberta does a disportionate amount of oil production that all of Canada uses or benefits from. Weird.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

It's almost like Alberta does a disportionate amount of oil production that all of Canada uses or benefits from. Weird.

It's almost like every other major jurisdiction takes carbon emissions seriously and has a plan to reduce them. Weird.

[zahav]

I am not sure what thread to post this, since the Provincial Economies, Climate Change, and Western Alienation overlap so much lol. But this is kind of a scary article in the way it is written. Not in it's defence of oil necessarily, but in it's weird political boogeyman comments. And this was posted in the Calgary Herald, so it was taken seriously. You can see how the divides are really becoming scary:

Smith: Indoctrination in Alberta's classrooms must stop
DANIELLE SMITH Updated: November 29, 2019

Some Alberta students are being taught that capitalism and oilsands development are evil, says columnist Danielle Smith.

The efforts to convince Canadians that the Alberta energy sector is the best in class and deserves to be supported are being undermined right here at home. Rather than focus on the detractors outside Alberta’s borders, we need to focus on the detractors within our own publicly funded school system.

I’ve known since I was a teenager that some public school social studies teachers seem to lean toward Marxism. I came home one day from Grade 8 social studies class telling my parents that my teacher thought the Soviet Union was just terrific. My dad had a different view. He didn’t think much of the fact that Joseph Stalin had starved 10 million people, mostly Ukrainians, and he went to the school to let my teacher know. This story has a happy ending — it firmly cemented for me that authoritarian regimes are the most evil ideologies ever invented by humanity. If you want to give me the old yarn that communism just hasn’t been implemented right yet, I give you the China Papers released this week. Even the Chinese, for all their tolerance of wealth creation and billionaires, have no problem setting up detention camps to surveil, capture, detain and re-educate their Uighur population.

So I shouldn’t have really been surprised when a parent sent me her Grade 10 son’s social studies unit test this week, chock-a-block full of Marxist themes and anti-oilsands rhetoric.

Some of the assertions in the test were things like, “Free trade is behind many of the ills of the modern world. It makes people poorer and deprives them of power by putting the economy in the hands of transnational corporations. It should be stopped.” And an exercise where a student is supposed to identify irony, showing an editorial cartoon of a T-shirt shop with anti-trade and anti-capitalist slogans on it. Get it? It’s ironic that the shopkeeper makes a profit selling “Capitalism Sucks” T-shirts. The takeaway for the 14-year-old student probably isn’t the nuance of adult hypocrisy. The takeaway is that capitalism sucks.

Question 15 is another gem. It begins with the statement: “The proposed (oil)sands development will tear a hole in Canada’s lungs — our vital boreal ecosystem … It is essential that an integrated land management plan be in place that recognizes and protects the integrity of this critical ecosystem.” Then students are asked to choose what the author of the quote probably thinks. Are oilsands the best thing that ever happened to northern Alberta or should they be more strictly regulated? Well, duh.

The student is never asked to ponder whether the statement is true. Is Canada’s boreal forest the “lungs” of the earth? Is continued development going to “tear a hole” in those lungs? With most future development of oilsands to take place with such innovations as steam-assisted gravity drainage, or SAGD, instead of mining, it seems unlikely.

So what is the point of this? This is not education. It’s indoctrination. And it’s got to stop.

The problem is how to stop it? I was informed when I spoke about this on the air that the test was probably taken from a “test pool” that was written from the formal curriculum. If that is true, it would mean it’s formal curriculum in Alberta to teach that capitalism sucks and the oilsands are destroying the lungs of the earth. Let that sink in. If it’s an assignment drafted by the individual teacher, then who is responsible for holding them to account? The principal? The principal is in the ATA bargaining unit, they aren’t really a manager so much as a first among equals, so I doubt they would do anything about it. Contact your trustee? They aren’t really to meddle in operational matters at individual schools. Contact the education minister? She was asked about it in question period on Wednesday, but no doubt she’ll be told she isn’t supposed to meddle in the affairs of individual classrooms either.

This is the perfect mire of a faceless bureaucracy. No one is to blame. No one takes responsibility. There is no way to correct it. And so it continues.

I was going to start this column by suggesting that the Calgary Board of Education save the 300 teacher jobs on the chopping block by reducing a similar number of administrative staff. After this week, I’ve changed my mind. Let’s start by getting rid of the ones who are administering tests like this.

Danielle Smith is a radio host with 770CHQR. She can be reached at danielle@daniellesmith.ca.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...ooms-must-stop

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

It's almost like every other major jurisdiction takes carbon emissions seriously and has a plan to reduce them. Weird.

Or that the other jurisdictions do not have Alberta's oil and gas reserves.

Without the ability to transplant or duplicate those reserves into BC, Ontario and Quebec, we don't know if they're willing to leave them in the ground or develop them like Alberta does. It's easy to say you would never support oil and gas when you have little to no oil and gas resources like ON/QC, it's a completely different question if you suddenly had 50 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

And how much of the decline in CO2 emissions in ON/QC from 2005 have to do with taking CO2 emissions seriously, versus the decline of energy-intensive manufacturing in those two provinces?

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Also a pretty clear trend with the "Big 3" of Ont, Que, and BC.

The fidelity in that graph is pretty low, but when I go to the table behind the numbers, for BC the GHG emissions on 2005 were 63.1 Mt and for 2017 they were 64.5 MT. So why is that BC is so negligent in meeting it's targets and actually increased it's GHG emissions??

The currently active Climate Change Accountability Act states that BC has a goal of "33% decrease by 2020" against 2007 numbers (which were the same as the 2005 numbers) meaning that next year, BC's GHG emission target is roughly 40 MT.

Given that there will be massive increases in GHG emissions in coming years due to LNG, it seems like BC is the worst of creatures out there - a place that says great things but fails to deliver on them, and yet chastises others for doing the exact same thing.

Perhaps you and the rest of BC (myself included) should take your advice first before preaching to others.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by zahav

I am not sure what thread to post this, since the Provincial Economies, Climate Change, and Western Alienation overlap so much lol. But this is kind of a scary article in the way it is written. Not in it's defence of oil necessarily, but in it's weird political boogeyman comments. And this was posted in the Calgary Herald, so it was taken seriously. You can see how the divides are really becoming scary:

Smith: Indoctrination in Alberta's classrooms must stop
DANIELLE SMITH Updated: November 29, 2019

Some Alberta students are being taught that capitalism and oilsands development are evil, says columnist Danielle Smith.

The efforts to convince Canadians that the Alberta energy sector is the best in class and deserves to be supported are being undermined right here at home. Rather than focus on the detractors outside Alberta’s borders, we need to focus on the detractors within our own publicly funded school system.

I’ve known since I was a teenager that some public school social studies teachers seem to lean toward Marxism. I came home one day from Grade 8 social studies class telling my parents that my teacher thought the Soviet Union was just terrific. My dad had a different view. He didn’t think much of the fact that Joseph Stalin had starved 10 million people, mostly Ukrainians, and he went to the school to let my teacher know. This story has a happy ending — it firmly cemented for me that authoritarian regimes are the most evil ideologies ever invented by humanity. If you want to give me the old yarn that communism just hasn’t been implemented right yet, I give you the China Papers released this week. Even the Chinese, for all their tolerance of wealth creation and billionaires, have no problem setting up detention camps to surveil, capture, detain and re-educate their Uighur population.

So I shouldn’t have really been surprised when a parent sent me her Grade 10 son’s social studies unit test this week, chock-a-block full of Marxist themes and anti-oilsands rhetoric.

Some of the assertions in the test were things like, “Free trade is behind many of the ills of the modern world. It makes people poorer and deprives them of power by putting the economy in the hands of transnational corporations. It should be stopped.” And an exercise where a student is supposed to identify irony, showing an editorial cartoon of a T-shirt shop with anti-trade and anti-capitalist slogans on it. Get it? It’s ironic that the shopkeeper makes a profit selling “Capitalism Sucks” T-shirts. The takeaway for the 14-year-old student probably isn’t the nuance of adult hypocrisy. The takeaway is that capitalism sucks.

Question 15 is another gem. It begins with the statement: “The proposed (oil)sands development will tear a hole in Canada’s lungs — our vital boreal ecosystem … It is essential that an integrated land management plan be in place that recognizes and protects the integrity of this critical ecosystem.” Then students are asked to choose what the author of the quote probably thinks. Are oilsands the best thing that ever happened to northern Alberta or should they be more strictly regulated? Well, duh.

The student is never asked to ponder whether the statement is true. Is Canada’s boreal forest the “lungs” of the earth? Is continued development going to “tear a hole” in those lungs? With most future development of oilsands to take place with such innovations as steam-assisted gravity drainage, or SAGD, instead of mining, it seems unlikely.

So what is the point of this? This is not education. It’s indoctrination. And it’s got to stop.

The problem is how to stop it? I was informed when I spoke about this on the air that the test was probably taken from a “test pool” that was written from the formal curriculum. If that is true, it would mean it’s formal curriculum in Alberta to teach that capitalism sucks and the oilsands are destroying the lungs of the earth. Let that sink in. If it’s an assignment drafted by the individual teacher, then who is responsible for holding them to account? The principal? The principal is in the ATA bargaining unit, they aren’t really a manager so much as a first among equals, so I doubt they would do anything about it. Contact your trustee? They aren’t really to meddle in operational matters at individual schools. Contact the education minister? She was asked about it in question period on Wednesday, but no doubt she’ll be told she isn’t supposed to meddle in the affairs of individual classrooms either.

This is the perfect mire of a faceless bureaucracy. No one is to blame. No one takes responsibility. There is no way to correct it. And so it continues.

I was going to start this column by suggesting that the Calgary Board of Education save the 300 teacher jobs on the chopping block by reducing a similar number of administrative staff. After this week, I’ve changed my mind. Let’s start by getting rid of the ones who are administering tests like this.

Danielle Smith is a radio host with 770CHQR. She can be reached at danielle@daniellesmith.ca.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...ooms-must-stop

No surprise. Danielle Smith isn't some random columnist. It's been a few years since I took content from any Post Media rag seriously. Cancelled my Edmonton Journal subscription three years ago after a 20+ run with them, and haven't looked back.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Given that there will be massive increases in GHG emissions in coming years due to LNG, it seems like BC is the worst of creatures out there - a place that says great things but fails to deliver on them, and yet chastises others for doing the exact same thing.

Perhaps you and the rest of BC (myself included) should take your advice first before preaching to others.

Who's preaching? I'm just posting facts that show why Canada as a whole is missing our Copenhagen targets, which were actually achievable if we wanted them to be.

I live an extremely low carbon lifestyle given my standard of living, and the climate factors into every decision I make (to some degree). So in fact, I am walking the talk.

I didn't "advise" anyone to do anything.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Or that the other jurisdictions do not have Alberta's oil and gas reserves.

Without the ability to transplant or duplicate those reserves into BC, Ontario and Quebec, we don't know if they're willing to leave them in the ground or develop them like Alberta does. It's easy to say you would never support oil and gas when you have little to no oil and gas resources like ON/QC, it's a completely different question if you suddenly had 50 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

And how much of the decline in CO2 emissions in ON/QC from 2005 have to do with taking CO2 emissions seriously, versus the decline of energy-intensive manufacturing in those two provinces?

Has manufacturing really declined since 2005? I'm pretty sure most of that was long before, in the 90s era fallout from NAFTA.

Way to distract from the obvious elephant on the chart though.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Who's preaching?
...
I didn't "advise" anyone to do anything.

In the post I quote, YOU DID EXACTLY THAT! You "preached" that BC, along with Ont and Que, were doing the heavy lifting and you "advised" AB to get on board. Here again are YOUR words ...

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Also a pretty clear trend with the "Big 3" of Ont, Que, and BC. If Alberta wants to join the club...

Wow!

And good for you doing the "right thing". You get 3 Internet gold stars for that

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by shreddog

In the post I quote, YOU DID EXACTLY THAT! You "preached" that BC, along with Ont and Que, were doing the heavy lifting and you "advised" AB to get on board. Here again are YOUR words ...
Wow!

And good for you doing the "right thing". You get 3 Internet gold stars for that

That's not preaching, it's just posting the facts. Some provinces are taking steps to lower emissions, others are doing the opposite. But it's clear where the majority lies. You're really reading a lot into a statement of fact.

You also brought up my personal contributions, in fact you told me I should be doing more, so I'll take your gold stars.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12;8765881... I'm just posting facts that show [B

why Canada as a whole is missing our Copenhagen targets[/B], which were actually achievable if we wanted them to be.

Actually, AB and SK are not solely responsible - everyone in Canada is.

In 2005, Canada's GHG emissions WITHOUT AB and SK were 428 MT.** Meaning our 2020 Copenhagen target would be roughly 300 MT. IN 2017, Canada's GHG emissions WITHOUT AB and SK were roughly 367 MT, so roughly 22% over the Copenhagen target.

So rather than trying to blame it all on AB and SK, maybe we should all accept the responsibility!



**
2005
Canada - 730
AB -233
SK - 70
2017
Canada - 716
AB -274
SK - 75

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's not preaching, it's just posting the facts. Some provinces are taking steps to lower emissions, others are doing the opposite.

So why did you include BC in your post when the emissions have actually gone up since 2005??

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by shreddog

So why did you include BC in your post when the emissions have actually gone up since 2005??

Both of your posts make zero logical sense. Can't help you, sorry.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Also a pretty clear trend with the "Big 3" of Ont, Que, and BC. If Alberta wants to join the club...

Since when is there a "big 3" provinces? What a laughable notion. There is either a "big 2" (ON and QC of course) or a "big 4", there could be no other concept on that matter. Not only are Alberta and BC within 600 000 people of each other, Alberta's GDP is significantly larger than BCs despite the smaller population, thereby obviously including AB in any "big jurisdiction" bullshit claim that BC would be party to.

What a completely ridiculous statement. I don't even have to read the rest of the conversation to know that your side of it is bullshit after making such an idiotic and misinformed claim

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

What a completely ridiculous statement. I don't even have to read the rest of the conversation to know that your side of it is bullshit after making such an idiotic and misinformed claim

Wow, I put it in quotes to be light hearted. You guys have some thin skins over there. Relax.

[lio45]

Actually, one way to justify talking about "Big 3" provinces would be to consider the provinces which have a big city in them as the "big" provinces. Canada has three big cities - Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver. These cities happen to be in three different provinces (the three largest ones, too).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

There is either a "big 2" (ON and QC of course) or a "big 4", there could be no other concept on that matter.

Actually, I'd argue that under a certain view, there could also be a "Big 1" (the "Center of the Universe" plus its hinterlands). I agree with you that "Big 2" (a.k.a. "Central Canada") does make the most sense, of course.

[milomilo]

Well that would lead to another arbitrary criteria of what a 'big' city is.

[lio45]

Also, if we look at emissions, there's a "Big 1" province...

Or, for a slightly different metric, emissions per capita - resulting in "Big 2" provinces (AB and SK).

[milomilo]

If we look at worker productivity, there's a big 1 province too... (and some territories).