Liberal Minority Government 2019 - ????

[Altair]

that sets up a strawman argument.

Petroleum literally powers modern civilization and makes it possible. It has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty. There are externalities associated with it, but the Green lobby assertion that petroleum usage is completely harmful and can be done away with tomorrow misrepresents how useful a substance it is both as an energy source and feed stock for manufacturing literally everything.

Tobacco, on the other had, is highly addictive substance that has no use beyond consumption of it for its own sake. If it disppeared tomorrow, civilization would not collapse.

To continually compare petroleum with tobacco is intellectual laziness.

Petroleum is very important, and should be developed and sold so long as there is demand for it, and there will be demand for it for a long time to come. As you said, feed stock for manufacturing isn't going away.

We should keep a eye on the future though, and start the process of moving away from oil being used in everything, as technology allows. Power generation and vehicles should start the transition to more green alternatives as the technology allows. That alone will cut down on emissions by a significant amount.

Hopefully the USA starts cracking down on bad global actors in terms of pollution because even if we do our part and cut emissions by a significant amount, our 2 percent isn't going to move the needle all that much. It really needs to be a collective effort.

But hey, even if we do it for ourselves, cleaner air, waters, cities and environment locally is not a bad thing.

 

[Remius]

that sets up a strawman argument.

Petroleum literally powers modern civilization and makes it possible. It has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty. There are externalities associated with it, but the Green lobby assertion that petroleum usage is completely harmful and can be done away with tomorrow misrepresents how useful a substance it is both as an energy source and feed stock for manufacturing literally everything.

Tobacco, on the other had, is highly addictive substance that has no use beyond consumption of it for its own sake. If it disppeared tomorrow, civilization would not collapse.

To continually compare petroleum with tobacco is intellectual laziness.

You missed the point. It’s the tactics involved to create doubt about the science that are the same. Big oil borrowed from the big tobacco playbook. To continually deny it is intellectual laziness.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You missed the point. It’s the tactics involved to create doubt about the science that are the same. Big oil borrowed from the big tobacco playbook. To continually deny it is intellectual laziness.

No.

Once again, it is the Green lobby’s intellectually and morally bankrupt insistance that petroleum is 100% evil and can be replaced by batteries and windpower tomorrow (I am being deliberately sarcastic) that is the problem.

Any tactic that the Petroleum industry uses to defend itself is declared illegitimate. Anybody who starts to ask questions on how, exactly, we intend on running a modern industrial civilization without the primary power source we have used for 250 years is labelled a denier. If we really, really were serious about moving off of oil in a large way, Canada would be investing large in new nuclear energy (like Thorium reactors). Since we are not, I can only conclude the decision makers in Ottawa know that much if this is for show.

I am not denying that Petroleum usage creates externalities. It also creates great benefit, which is often deliberately underplayed by the Green lobby. The Green lobby lost me 2 decades ago when they declared the science was settled. Science without questions is not science- it is dogma or religion.

So- if the question is honesty in science and tactics, are you telling me with a straight face that if a legitimate scientific institution was to, hypothetically, publish a paper tomorrow stating with good evidence that the rise in atmospherical levels of CO2 was not caused by humans and that really, it was nothing to worry about (or that they had discovered a really simple and inexpensive carbon capture and removal method) would that be calmly debated, or would the scientists be deplatformed and their institute beset with mobs of protestors? Be honest.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Petroleum is very important, and should be developed and sold so long as there is demand for it, and there will be demand for it for a long time to come. As you said, feed stock for manufacturing isn't going away.

We should keep a eye on the future though, and start the process of moving away from oil being used in everything, as technology allows. Power generation and vehicles should start the transition to more green alternatives as the technology allows. That alone will cut down on emissions by a significant amount.

Hopefully the USA starts cracking down on bad global actors in terms of pollution because even if we do our part and cut emissions by a significant amount, our 2 percent isn't going to move the needle all that much. It really needs to be a collective effort.

But hey, even if we do it for ourselves, cleaner air, waters, cities and environment locally is not a bad thing.

You and I do not agree on very much, but I agree with this post, completely.

 

[Remius]

I have no issue with legitimate and independent scientific studies. The issue is that an overwhelming amount point to man made effects on climate change. Like anything there will be dissent or opposing views. Most of those though are or were commissioned by the energy industry. And deniers cling to to those studies. Climate change deniers started with the hoax argument then evolved to yeah its real but it isn’t man made etc etc.

like the anti-vaxers that cling to one study even though it was discredited, it evolved into “but” and trying to find the next thing that will confirm their own bias.

Same thing with climate change deniers.

As far as the benefits being underplayed I am in total agreement. Note: i have not once proposed we do away with fossil fuels and decimate the energy industry. It’s a process that needs gradual change. I believe in the human effect on climate and the environment. I certainly don’t think it’s as dire as the climate alarmists say but I do believe that theirs are effects. When I live in TO, I couldn’t see the sky. When we did away with a chunk of the coal industry in Ontario that changed.

But that doesn’t change the fact that deniers continually use the same arguments and tactics that were created decades ago to protect big industries and are questionable at best.

I have no issues with people that argue it isn’t as bad as it might seem or that gradual change is required so as to not destroy economies and people’s lives. But those that keep saying it’s all natural, nothing to see here have drunk the industry kool aid.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I have no issue with legitimate and independent scientific studies. The issue is that an overwhelming amount point to man made effects on climate change. Like anything there will be dissent or opposing views. Most of those though are or were commissioned by the energy industry. And deniers cling to to those studies. Climate change deniers started with the hoax argument then evolved to yeah its real but it isn’t man made etc etc.

like the anti-vaxers that cling to one study even though it was discredited, it evolved into “but” and trying to find the next thing that will confirm their own bias.

Same thing with climate change deniers.

Again, you have set up a false dichotomy in your argument. Re-read how you have structured it. Your premise is that anyone even researching anything contrary to the climate change orthodoxy is already half way to bat shit crazy. Your premise is that Green lobby science is unassailable, because their motives are pure, therefore the science is pure. Anything even with a whiff of petroleum industry money is evil, because, obviously!

My point is that nobody’s science should be getting a free ride.

 

[Remius]

You and I do not agree on very much, but I agree with this post, completely.

I have no issue with legitimate and independent scientific studies. The issue is that an overwhelming amount point to man made effects on climate change. Like anything there will be dissent or opposing views. Most of those though are or were commissioned by the energy industry. And deniers cling to to those studies. Climate change deniers started with the hoax argument then evolved to yeah its real but it isn’t man made etc etc.

like the anti-vaxers that cling to one study even though it was discredited, it evolved into “but” and trying to find the next thing that will confirm their own bias.

Same thing with climate change deniers.

Again, you have set up a false dichotomy in your argument. Re-read how you have structured it. Your premise is that anyone even researching anything contrary to the climate change orthodoxy is already half way to bat shit crazy. Your premise is that Green lobby science is unassailable, because their motives are pure, therefore the science is pure. Anything even with a whiff of petroleum industry money is evil, because, obviously!

My point is that nobody’s science should be getting a free ride.

I didn’t say anything of the sort.

 

[SupersonicMax]

So, because we can’t precisely model the environment, climate change can’t be real?

SKT: no reasonable person ever argued that we can do away with petroleum tomorrow but rather, that we must find ways to transition out of an oil-based economy to a green-based economy.

The parrallel with smoking is not about the impacts of both phenomena but rather, the stubbornness of their proponents and their means of rejecting change (generally for selfish reasons).

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I didn’t say anything of the sort.

I quoted what you said and then you went back and added a much more conciliatory second para.

You did not answer my question. Be honest.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So, because we can’t precisely model the environment, climate change can’t be real?

SKT: no reasonable person ever argued that we can do away with petroleum tomorrow but rather, that we must find ways to transition out of an oil-based economy to a green-based economy.

The parrallel with smoking is not about the impacts of both phenomena but rather, the stubbornness of their proponents and their means of rejecting change (generally for selfish reasons).

You do not live on the west coast of Canada, clearly. There is a significant portion of the voting public that believes exactly that.

 

[SupersonicMax]

You do not live on the west coast of Canada, clearly. There is a significant portion of the voting public that believes exactly that.

I did say “reasonable.”

 

[Good2Golf]

...waiting for the nuclear power and hydrogen fuel tipping points to occur...

At some point, energy density demand will force the issue and we’ll see SMRs and other nuclear technology resurge, where enduring high power density is required. Hydrogen as a mobile energy source for transportation as well, but very much limited due to infrastructure for the time being. Petro will likely transition to plastics/products majority only once transportation-related power technologies become feasible in the mainstream - probably late-2030s/early-2040s. EVs are the edge of the iceberg for now, but only short-range point to point low density transport. Petroleum isn’t going anywhere away for the next 15-20 years at least.

 

[daftandbarmy]

...waiting for the nuclear power and hydrogen fuel tipping points to occur...

At some point, energy density demand will force the issue and we’ll see SMRs and other nuclear technology resurge, where enduring high power density is required. Hydrogen as a mobile energy source for transportation as well, but very much limited due to infrastructure for the time being. Petro will likely transition to plastics/products majority only once transportation-related power technologies become feasible in the mainstream - probably late-2030s/early-2040s. EVs are the edge of the iceberg for now, but only short-range point to point low density transport. Petroleum isn’t going anywhere away for the next 15-20 years at least.

Small Nuclear Reactors are the way ahead!

Small nuclear power reactors - World Nuclear Association

There is revival of interest in small and simpler units for generating electricity from nuclear power, and for process heat. This interest in small nuclear power reactors is driven both by a desire to reduce capital costs and to provide power away from large grid systems.

www.world-nuclear.org

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I did say “reasonable.”

Again, you clearly do not or have not lived on the west coast of Canada...

 

[Good2Golf]

“Presumptively Entitled” would be a better adjective than “reasonable” in SKT’s environs.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We can't move off of oil, even if everyone was driving electric cars. Oil is intrinsically woven into almost every aspect of our lives. All the different plastics we use. The clothes we wear. The carpets we walk on and the furniture where we sit. The way we build our houses and what we eat. Industrial chemicals and solvents. Most things we use contain something derived from oil. Oil isn't just gasoline and diesel.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

We can't move off of oil, even if everyone was driving electric cars. Oil is intrinsically woven into almost every aspect of our lives. All the different plastics we use. The clothes we wear. The carpets we walk on and the furniture where we sit. The way we build our houses and what we eat. Industrial chemicals and solvents. Most things we use contain something derived from oil. Oil isn't just gasoline and diesel.

Nobody likes to talk about the fact that modern agriculture industry use of fertilizer is essentially built on the back of natural gas.

Remove that and which two billion people are you prepared to watch starve to death?

 

[daftandbarmy]

We can't move off of oil, even if everyone was driving electric cars. Oil is intrinsically woven into almost every aspect of our lives. All the different plastics we use. The clothes we wear. The carpets we walk on and the furniture where we sit. The way we build our houses and what we eat. Industrial chemicals and solvents. Most things we use contain something derived from oil. Oil isn't just gasoline and diesel.

Meanwhile, in Woke-land:

 

[Altair]

Meanwhile, in Woke-land:

The problem is people thinking that these are mutually exclusive.

There are green folk, heck, the green party,who want oil to be dead.

And there is another side that believes that nothing at all should be done in regards to emissions.

Meanwhile, ask the average reasonable person and they can realize that there will always be a future for petroleum and petroleum byproducts, but there doesn't need to a an overabundance.

If personal vehicles and power production don't need to burn fossil fuels, then don't, move to technology that doesn't require fossil fuels.

There will always be a need for oil, and that's fine, the planet can deal with excess carbon. Just not at the levels we are currently subjecting it to.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The problem is people thinking that these are mutually exclusive.

There are green folk, heck, the green party,who want oil to be dead.

And there is another side that believes that nothing at all should be done in regards to emissions.

Meanwhile, ask the average reasonable person and they can realize that there will always be a future for petroleum and petroleum byproducts, but there doesn't need to a an overabundance.

If personal vehicles and power production don't need to burn fossil fuels, then don't, move to technology that doesn't require fossil fuels.

There will always be a need for oil, and that's fine, the planet can deal with excess carbon. Just not at the levels we are currently subjecting it to.

Again, I can get onboard with that.