OT: Planet of the Humans

[BudBundy]

Fun story (parable?)... but every time I see a version of it on Facebook I wonder how does the use of petroleum feed stocks for petrochemical applications contrast/rebut Greta Thunberg's message of listening to scientists about climate change? It's precisely because of waning fuel demands that major crude oil refineries are shifting towards petrochemical functionality.

Why the future of oil is in chemicals, not fuels

Well, to be fair then, I have yet to hear scientists explain why the Earth has been both far hotter and far colder than it is today with absolutely zero industrial emissions from humans involved. I am absolutely certain that we are having an effect on the climate, but I have yet to see a credible figure on how much of climate change is perfectly natural and how much is man. Very few scientists are willing to discuss whether or not the money spent on fighting climate change would not be better spent elsewhere. Like on mosquito netting and new classes of antibiotics. Perhaps more importantly, I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why we should be ashamed of our emissions and heavily penalized when we live in one of the most sparsely populated, and coldest countries on Earth, but also have literally millions of square kilometres of boreal forest and millions of acres of farmland making us one of the largest exporters of food there is.
I do however see that any public figure or scientist who asks these somewhat reasonable and logical questions is punished severely and is labeled a denier. I see there is a huge amount of funding available for climate change studies which behooves researchers to become highly “invested” in perpetuating it. I want to have clean air. I want to drink from our rivers and lakes and not be nervous. But I also want to have a healthy economy and live a comfortable life. There has to be a middle ground, and too many of the green army have no time for nuance or compromise.

 

[Frank the Tank]

Well, to be fair then, I have yet to hear scientists explain why the Earth has been both far hotter and far colder than it is today with absolutely zero industrial emissions from humans involved. I am absolutely certain that we are having an effect on the climate, but I have yet to see a credible figure on how much of climate change is perfectly natural and how much is man. Very few scientists are willing to discuss whether or not the money spent on fighting climate change would not be better spent elsewhere. Like on mosquito netting and new classes of antibiotics. Perhaps more importantly, I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why we should be ashamed of our emissions and heavily penalized when we live in one of the most sparsely populated, and coldest countries on Earth, but also have literally millions of square kilometres of boreal forest and millions of acres of farmland making us one of the largest exporters of food there is.
I do however see that any public figure or scientist who asks these somewhat reasonable and logical questions is punished severely and is labeled a denier. I see there is a huge amount of funding available for climate change studies which behooves researchers to become highly “invested” in perpetuating it. I want to have clean air. I want to drink from our rivers and lakes and not be nervous. But I also want to have a healthy economy and live a comfortable life. There has to be a middle ground, and too many of the green army have no time for nuance or compromise.

Among the books I have read, Curt Stager's Deep Future explains what paleoclimatologists understand about the temperature record of Earth in a straightforward manner; although much like the Planet of the Human documentary take 5+ year old science with a grain of salt in the year 2020. Much more data has refined the conclusions over the years. Overall, look into the field of paleoclimatology to expand further into this topic.

As for anthropologenic impact, I'd recommend starting with the BEST study - what's interesting about that study is that is was funded by conservative donors to demonstrate that there existed an error in the measuring temperature records (i.e., city heat islands) and ended up confirming what had been reported previously.

I agree. Implement total cost pricing and make companies pay for polluting the air you breathe and the water you drink. Basically, don't let companies get away with using your tax dollars to subsidizing the public costs of burning fossil fuels and/or polluting the environment. Create an economic environment that encourages investing in new science & technology that minimizes our impact on the environment; this will maintain a healthy economy over the long-term.

I also agree with you wanting and deserving a comfortable life. Do you believe that the people living in the low-lying South Pacific Islands deserve the same?

Climate Change and Food Security in the Pacific Islands

Overall, I think many people are on the same page. We need to have tough discussions and examine what the science says to preserve or improve the quality of life for all parties.

Cheers

 

[AM]

Among the books I have read, Curt Stager's Deep Future explains what paleoclimatologists understand about the temperature record of Earth in a straightforward manner; although much like the Planet of the Human documentary take 5+ year old science with a grain of salt in the year 2020. Much more data has refined the conclusions over the years. Overall, look into the field of paleoclimatology to expand further into this topic.

As for anthropologenic impact, I'd recommend starting with the BEST study - what's interesting about that study is that is was funded by conservative donors to demonstrate that there existed an error in the measuring temperature records (i.e., city heat islands) and ended up confirming what had been reported previously.

I agree. Implement total cost pricing and make companies pay for polluting the air you breathe and the water you drink. Basically, don't let companies get away with using your tax dollars to subsidizing the public costs of burning fossil fuels and/or polluting the environment. Create an economic environment that encourages investing in new science & technology that minimizes our impact on the environment; this will maintain a healthy economy over the long-term.

I also agree with you wanting and deserving a comfortable life. Do you believe that the people living in the low-lying South Pacific Islands deserve the same?

Climate Change and Food Security in the Pacific Islands

Overall, I think many people are on the same page. We need to have tough discussions and examine what the science says to preserve or improve the quality of life for all parties.

Cheers

One thing is for sure. Exporting your commodity production to make it look like you are clean is a bad idea.

 

[BudBundy]

Among the books I have read, Curt Stager's Deep Future explains what paleoclimatologists understand about the temperature record of Earth in a straightforward manner; although much like the Planet of the Human documentary take 5+ year old science with a grain of salt in the year 2020. Much more data has refined the conclusions over the years. Overall, look into the field of paleoclimatology to expand further into this topic.

As for anthropologenic impact, I'd recommend starting with the BEST study - what's interesting about that study is that is was funded by conservative donors to demonstrate that there existed an error in the measuring temperature records (i.e., city heat islands) and ended up confirming what had been reported previously.

I agree. Implement total cost pricing and make companies pay for polluting the air you breathe and the water you drink. Basically, don't let companies get away with using your tax dollars to subsidizing the public costs of burning fossil fuels and/or polluting the environment. Create an economic environment that encourages investing in new science & technology that minimizes our impact on the environment; this will maintain a healthy economy over the long-term.

I also agree with you wanting and deserving a comfortable life. Do you believe that the people living in the low-lying South Pacific Islands deserve the same?

Climate Change and Food Security in the Pacific Islands

Overall, I think many people are on the same page. We need to have tough discussions and examine what the science says to preserve or improve the quality of life for all parties.

Cheers

It’s very hard to have a reasonable conversation when you throw out a line like this: “I also agree with you wanting and deserving a comfortable life. Do you believe that the people living in the low-lying South Pacific Islands deserve the same?”

 

[AM]

It’s very hard to have a reasonable conversation when you throw out a line like this: “I also agree with you wanting and deserving a comfortable life. Do you believe that the people living in the low-lying South Pacific Islands deserve the same?”

Maybe his feet are submerged? Though I agree, the idea that a few square kilometres of island should affect t policy around the world is preposterous.

 

[Frank the Tank]

It’s very hard to have a reasonable conversation when you throw out a line like this: “I also agree with you wanting and deserving a comfortable life. Do you believe that the people living in the low-lying South Pacific Islands deserve the same?”

And I find it very hard to have a reasonable conversation when you throw out a line like this: "I see there is a huge amount of funding available for climate change studies which behooves researchers to become highly “invested” in perpetuating it." Yet rather than throw up my hands and move on I engaged in our conversation. If you want to single out lines that one finds personally unreasonable as a reason not to have a discussion, that's your choice.

 

[AM]

And I find it very hard to have a reasonable conversation when you throw out a line like this: "I see there is a huge amount of funding available for climate change studies which behooves researchers to become highly “invested” in perpetuating it." Yet rather than throw up my hands and move on I engaged in our conversation. If you want to single out lines that one finds personally unreasonable as a reason not to have a discussion, that's your choice.

You don’t think scientists do this?

 

[Frank the Tank]

Maybe his feet are submerged? Though I agree, the idea that a few square kilometres of island should affect t policy around the world is preposterous.

Yes, it remains one of numerous aspects that should be considered. If it was your home and way of life that was being sacrificed for the "greater good," I'm sure you would want people to consider the impact of their decisions on your life.

 

[AM]

Yes, it remains one of numerous aspects that should be considered. If it was your home and way of life that was being sacrificed for the "greater good," I'm sure you would want people to consider the impact of their decisions on your life.

You want to go there mr economist trade off?

 

[Frank the Tank]

You want to go there mr economist trade off?

Yes, as I stated, that one aspect should be considered, among the many. I kindly ask that you please refrain from using pejorative terms.

 

[AM]

Yes, as I stated, that one aspect should be considered, among the many. I kindly ask that you please refrain from using pejorative terms.

Being called an economist is pejorative? Well that reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote, So sorry about that. That said, a quick inspection of a globe will show a lot of great real estate covered by white, which could possible be a lot greener in the future.

 

[BudBundy]

And I find it very hard to have a reasonable conversation when you throw out a line like this: "I see there is a huge amount of funding available for climate change studies which behooves researchers to become highly “invested” in perpetuating it." Yet rather than throw up my hands and move on I engaged in our conversation. If you want to single out lines that one finds personally unreasonable as a reason not to have a discussion, that's your choice.

I believe bias is a real thing. Most acknowledge it exists. We get gems from the environmental movement like David Suzuki claiming a second nuclear emergency at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant would require the evacuation of the North American West Coast. Is pointing that out more or less reasonable than you guilting me that some people living on a sliver in the ocean 2 meters above sea level may be in peril? The palace Cleopatra built in Alexandria is 40’ under the Mediterranean Sea right now and has been for a millennia. How much should the quality of life of every Canadian be curtailed for our involvement in that?
I believe that we should be going ahead with more nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams, and electrify the passenger car fleet over the next 50 years. Building an electrical grid that can do that will take that long, despite what Liz May might claim, but it’s a reasonable goal that will have benefits. Oil and gas are essential and will continue to be so long after my kids are dead. Killing the oil and natural gas industry like our current leadership is doing is beyond idiotic, but that’s what green dogma insists on. It’s all a matter of whether or not you are a pragmatist, or a green fanatic. Which are you? Since you almost “threw up your hands” already, I have a suspicion.

 

[Nostradumbass]

I believe bias is a real thing. Most acknowledge it exists. We get gems from the environmental movement like David Suzuki claiming a second nuclear emergency at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant would require the evacuation of the North American West Coast. Is pointing that out more or less reasonable than you guilting me that some people living on a sliver in the ocean 2 meters above sea level may be in peril? The palace Cleopatra built in Alexandria is 40’ under the Mediterranean Sea right now and has been for a millennia. How much should the quality of life of every Canadian be curtailed for our involvement in that?
I believe that we should be going ahead with more nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams, and electrify the passenger car fleet over the next 50 years. Building an electrical grid that can do that will take that long, despite what Liz May might claim, but it’s a reasonable goal that will have benefits. Oil and gas are essential and will continue to be so long after my kids are dead. Killing the oil and natural gas industry like our current leadership is doing is beyond idiotic, but that’s what green dogma insists on. It’s all a matter of whether or not you are a pragmatist, or a green fanatic. Which are you? Since you almost “threw up your hands” already, I have a suspicion.

He doesn't have to be explicitly with you or against you. He can agree with you on some things and disagree with you on others, it's not a purely black and white discussion.

 

[BudBundy]

He doesn't have to be explicitly with you or against you. He can agree with you on some things and disagree with you on others, it's not a purely black and white discussion.

I totally agree and that’s partly the point I’d like to get across. If greens wish to be pragmatic and let things evolve gradually and sensibly, things are fine. The environmental lobby, including Greta (which is where this back and forth began) see things completely in black and white. According to her, oil is bad and should be done away with, we face extinction in 50 years if we don’t, along with all the other green jobs fallacies and hyperbole.

 

[Drivesaitl]

Yes, it remains one of numerous aspects that should be considered. If it was your home and way of life that was being sacrificed for the "greater good," I'm sure you would want people to consider the impact of their decisions on your life.

You're stating this to the people of Alberta in an Edmonton based thread during a recession in which most of the world, and even one province is maligning "dirty oil"

Sorry, but you're getting a reaction largely because you haven't thought this through to how Albertans are impacted.

Alberta has been very accommodating. We've reversed a lot of coal use and mining. We've continued to work on limiting emissions. We continue to be one of the most responsive energy producers. We continue to work with partners to address concerns. We continue to be obfuscated. We continue in recession, at a latitude where the burning of fossil fuels is not a luxury, its a requirement of living here.

 

[SupremeTeam16]

@BudBundy you are making a lot of great points in this thread and I really agree with your thoughts on this topic.

 

[BudBundy]

@BudBundy you are making a lot of great points in this thread and I really agree with your thoughts on this topic.

Thank you very much, sir.

 

[MoontoScott]

Alberta never gets much credit for the changes we have made.

Within the last week---a new multi billion dollar pipeline that runs from the industrial heartland to Hardisty takes Co2 that is removed from the industrial processes and transports it to the Hardisty area where the Co2 is injected into the oil reservoirs ---as a form of "tertiary" recovery.

Thus, harmful Co2 is taken out of the system and used to break down the interfacial tension between the oil and water droplets in older reservoirs--in order to get the oil flowing again in pools where production was essentially suspended.

Thus, Co2 is removed and new production is created without having to shoot seismic, use cut lines or drilling/completion fluids which would be associated with new well production.

Everybody wins in this scenario and accordingly this story was featured in the Calgary Sun the other day---but why do I get the feeling that very few people in the Eastern or International press read it and said "great environmental move, Alberta and wow you spent a lot of cash to do this."

 

[doulos]

Where can I find some more specifically on this.

 

[joestevens29]

Alberta never gets much credit for the changes we have made.

Within the last week---a new multi billion dollar pipeline that runs from the industrial heartland to Hardisty takes Co2 that is removed from the industrial processes and transports it to the Hardisty area where the Co2 is injected into the oil reservoirs ---as a form of "tertiary" recovery.

Thus, harmful Co2 is taken out of the system and used to break down the interfacial tension between the oil and water droplets in older reservoirs--in order to get the oil flowing again in pools where production was essentially suspended.

Thus, Co2 is removed and new production is created without having to shoot seismic, use cut lines or drilling/completion fluids which would be associated with new well production.

Everybody wins in this scenario and accordingly this story was featured in the Calgary Sun the other day---but why do I get the feeling that very few people in the Eastern or International press read it and said "great environmental move, Alberta and wow you spent a lot of cash to do this."

There are far too many people out there that you will never change their minds on Oil. You can make Oil cheaper, cleaner than anything out there and people still wouldn't change their minds. They've spent far too long opposed that they just couldn't change their opinion now.

 

[BudBundy]

There are far too many people out there that you will never change their minds on Oil. You can make Oil cheaper, cleaner than anything out there and people still wouldn't change their minds. They've spent far too long opposed that they just couldn't change their opinion now.

Absolutely. There is a really good column by Rex Murphy in the National Post today. The president of Memorial University in Newfoundland, Dr. Vianne Timmons, spoke up for the oil industry saying that it was important to Newfoundland, important to her university, and pointed out that many of their engineers, faculty and students had benefited from the industry. Newfoundland is in big, big trouble. Several offshore oil projects have been shelved, unemployment is high, the population is aging, Covid has hit tourism. And fewer Newfoundlanders are working in Alberta these days. So what she said shouldn’t have been controversial. What do we get instead?? There was “nearly instantly, criticism from more than 340 staff and students at MUN that the president’s comments went against the university’s pledge to fight climate change.” Newfoundland is in a dangerous decline and there is open speculation the province may go bankrupt. It should be a time for people to put things into perspective. For the greens, that just doesn’t happen.

 

[Nostradumbass]

Where can I find some more specifically on this.

It's the carbon trunk line, I'm sure there are a ton of articles on it with a quick google.

 

[MoontoScott]

Where can I find some more specifically on this.

$1.2 billion CO2 pipeline from Industrial Heartland to depleted oilfields in central Alberta comes online

Here is the article from the Sun a few days ago.

If you google "miscible flooding and Co2 injections" you'll find out more about this process. I believe this process is also being used in Saskatchewan's Weyburn oil field.

 

[AM]

There are far too many people out there that you will never change their minds on Oil. You can make Oil cheaper, cleaner than anything out there and people still wouldn't change their minds. They've spent far too long opposed that they just couldn't change their opinion now.

Yup, a lot of dinosaurs out there.

 

[Nostradumbass]

$1.2 billion CO2 pipeline from Industrial Heartland to depleted oilfields in central Alberta comes online

Here is the article from the Sun a few days ago.

If you google "miscible flooding and Co2 injections" you'll find out more about this process. I believe this process is also being used in Saskatchewan's Weyburn oil field.

Cenovus had a plant in Weyburn and I think Apache had one out in Midale. Not sure if they're still the current owners, it's been a while.