:mad: Trudeau: "a stunning hypocrite" !

[Deleted]

So, Trudeau is actually NOT an idiot? He knows how his bread is actually buttered.

"Climate Change" - in regards to how the media/hysterical alt-left portrays it - is overblown bullshit.

The same people that believe in "Climate Change" being the number one problem are the same people that said there was NO WAY Trump would ever be elected. I believe NOTHING that comes out their mouths as it is all agenda driven.

Trudeau knows how this world works - OIL. And that is how it is going to continue to work until every last drop of it is squeezed out. And there is NOTHING that the liberal/progressive/climate believers can change about it.

The Keystone Pipeline is not going to be stopped by a bunch of disenfranchised derelicts of society illegally camping out (and leaving tons of garbage behind, doing MORE environmental damage to that area then the KP ever has or probably ever will.)

Pus, JT is going to legalize weed for sale in 2018.

Give JT some credit - he knows how to make a Loonie!

[Forogil]

So, Trudeau is actually NOT an idiot? He knows how his bread is actually buttered.

"Climate Change" - in regards to how the media/hysterical alt-left portrays it - is overblown bullshit.

The same people that believe in "Climate Change" being the number one problem are the same people that said there was NO WAY Trump would ever be elected. I believe NOTHING that comes out their mouths as it is all agenda driven.

Trudeau knows how this world works - OIL. And that is how it is going to continue to work until every last drop of it is squeezed out. And there is NOTHING that the liberal/progressive/climate believers can change about it.

It might be that Trudeau thinks that, but reality is not that simple.

The world uses a lot of carbon-based fuels found in the ground; oil is one of them - but it is only about a third of the total.

The last years the rate of CO2 emissions from burning them have been steady - even if the world economy has grown - https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/20...nomy-grew.html - partially because people are switching from coal to natural gas. (Coal is worse than oil in terms of CO2 per energy; natural gas is better than oil.)

Canada has a lot of coal and tar sand (the environmental impact of tar sand is unclear, some indicate it is even worse than coal - but on the other hand you get natural gas as well). That doesn't seem like the best alternatives globally - but on the other hand Canada is a working democracy in contrast to many other producers of carbon-based fuels.

And partially there is less CO2 because alternative energies and nuclear are actually better alternatives for many uses nowadays - not yet all; but it is getting closer. As some say 'the stone age didn't end because of lack of stones'.

[Mangusei]

He is the beta male cuck the West needs.

[Masark]

I've also wondered why we can't "cap" the smokestacks on power plants, capturing the offensive particles before they're released to the air.

The techniques for doing so are massively expensive and largely still in development. My province has dumped over a billion into the project and that's in a province with a population of just over 1 million people.

And the little problem of "WTF do we do with it once we've captured it so it doesn't end up in the atmosphere anyway?".

[Deleted]

As some say 'the stone age didn't end because of lack of stones'.

I would like nothing better than to see our world run on alternative energy sources to fossil fuels.

The reason I said what I did is this: big oil will not allow it, not until they "squeeze the last drop"- or someone discovers a financially viable replacement, one that will be as profitable as fossil fuels.

There is one other thing to consider as well - the oil industry infrastructure. From the oil wells, to the refining, to the delivery of the consumer product, you are talking about millions and millions of jobs, all over the world. And in some instances, like the Middle East, the only thing that keeps them solvent is the oil industry. How quickly would Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. become insignificant regarding the global economy? Pretty much immediately. They have nothing that can replace and sustain their country's economy.

I am hoping for an energy breakthrough that is so significant that it cannot be ignored, that it will have to be utilized. That discovery and adoption, however, will change this world even more drastically than the recent global re-settling has.

[Berengil]

The left makes themselves look stupid when they pretend we don't need oil.

Indeed. If the hard Left truly cares about environmentalism, they would be throwing everything they have at developing cold fusion and hydrogen fuel cells (for vehicles). People will not suffer their energy demands to go unmet.

[AwkwardSquirtle]

just based on the blurb you put here

He is a hypocrit for having different stances on different issues despite the fact they are different

I iz dda confuzled

The blurb is wrong. The piece claims he's a hypocrite because he says he wants to cut emissions and invest in clean fuels, while at the same time selling a ton of oil and profiting from that.

[GennGreymane]

The blurb is wrong. The piece claims he's a hypocrite because he says he wants to cut emissions and invest in clean fuels, while at the same time selling a ton of oil and profiting from that.

Its not possible to do both?

[Jotaux]

The oil is going to be sold anyways, a pipeline is probably the safest and most climate friendly way to transport it. You can oppose it all you want in the name of climate change but be ready to live with the damage its alternatives will cause.

[AwkwardSquirtle]

Its not possible to do both?

It's absolutely possible. There's also an element of hypocrisy. Personally I think it's a logical decision. The money made can be invested in cleaner sources, and we'll get to a carbon free future eventually. Currently there's no way for Canada to be sustained on clean fuel alone afaik.

[falagar112]

All countries are hypocrites when it comes to global warming, really.
You know what country has spend the most of its capita per population on going green?
You would never guess - China. They seem to be the ONLY country that at least started building to cope with the changes coming in the next few decades.

Now about climate change itself. I don't think you can deny it. Hell I don't even think Trump really believes it's not there (he will just argue it's nature caused and not man made problem) - but lets look at this through the eyes of actual climate science.

Guess what? It is to late to prevent.

One must understand that when co2 hits over 400ppm in our atmosphere, the greenhouse effect keeps itself going. Latest count already puts us well over the 400ppm - in other words we are to late preventing global warming, we could stop everything, go 100% green power tomorrow, stop using cars, close all factories - and it wouldn't make a difference.

We need to invest money in adapting to climate changes, not preventing - to late for that.

To those that argue it's not the most pressing issue we have right now - might I remind you that 65% of the worlds population lives at or near the coast?
You think this migrant crisis is so bad? just wait until WE are the migrants... you really have no idea

Why do you think China is building all these empty cities away from the sea where nobody is living?
So they can handle the problem that will be there later on. We always hate on China (and in many cases that is justified, don't get me wrong) but if they can acknowledge the problem and start adapting to it, why can't we?

So yes, we are all hypocrites. Carbon tax, lol. Just another way to make people happily pay more taxes and meanwhile nothing changes. Once their neighborhood floods, ask them again how good carbon tax was. You can ask the people in new orleans... /sigh

[Forogil]

I would like nothing better than to see our world run on alternative energy sources to fossil fuels.

The reason I said what I did is this: big oil will not allow it, not until they "squeeze the last drop"- or someone discovers a financially viable replacement, one that will be as profitable as fossil fuels.

The point is that replacement are already financially viable - or close to it - both nuclear and sun/wind etc - and the alternative energies have gotten cheaper and cheaper every year. And for the Canadian coal and tar sand one replacement is natural gas; which is cleaner.

It doesn't mean that everything will switch to other alternatives right now, just that some are beginning to switch - and that's why the global economy could grow without producing more CO2 per year.

- - - Updated - - -

Guess what? It is to late to prevent.

One must understand that when co2 hits over 400ppm in our atmosphere, the greenhouse effect keeps itself going. Latest count already puts us well over the 400ppm - in other words we are to late preventing global warming, we could stop everything, go 100% green power tomorrow, stop using cars, close all factories - and it wouldn't make a difference.

The people at IPCC does not agree with this analysis. Yes, there are some minor feedback effects - but it will not go on forever on its own.

To those that argue it's not the most pressing issue we have right now - might I remind you that 65% of the worlds population lives at or near the coast?
You think this migrant crisis is so bad? just wait until WE are the migrants... you really have no idea

During this century projections are not above 2.5m (and it might be as low as 0.3m) and even a 9m increase would only flood the homes of 700M or so; a lot - but not 65% of the population.

9m is about what will happen if Greenland melts - and the likely projection is that it is centuries away. Antartica could add ten times that - but there are no indications yet that Antartica will melt at all.

[falagar112]

The point is that replacement are already financially viable - or close to it - both nuclear and sun/wind etc - and the alternative energies have gotten cheaper and cheaper every year. And for the Canadian coal and tar sand one replacement is natural gas; which is cleaner.

It doesn't mean that everything will switch to other alternatives right now, just that some are beginning to switch - and that's why the global economy could grow without producing more CO2 per year.

- - - Updated - - -


The people at IPCC does not agree with this analysis. Yes, there are some minor feedback effects - but it will not go on forever on its own.


During this century projections are not above 2.5m (and it might be as low as 0.3m) and even a 9m increase would only flood the homes of 700M or so; a lot - but not 65% of the population.

9m is about what will happen if Greenland melts - and the likely projection is that it is centuries away. Antartica could add ten times that - but there are no indications yet that Antartica will melt at all.

You are absolutely correct that the self propogating of co2 in the atmosphere won't last forever - nature has ways of dealing with this, but these are long term. In the decades it will take to "cool off", we still have this problem.

I'm also very much aware of sea level rise predictions - but I think you forget how much 700 million actually is? that is still roughly 10% of all people in the world, that would still be the largest catastrophe we have ever had to deal with as humanity.

[antelope591]

First legal weed now this...if he keeps this up I might vote for him again!

[Forogil]

You are absolutely correct that the self propogating of co2 in the atmosphere won't last forever - nature has ways of dealing with this, but these are long term. In the decades it will take to "cool off", we still have this problem.

The existing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming for about a century - but it will not continue to heat up due to that . The planet doesn't need decades to cool off. I haven't checked the actual time-scale, but about a month seems reasonable - since seasons have about a month of lag compared to the incoming solar radiation.

I'm also very much aware of sea level rise predictions - but I think you forget how much 700 million actually is? that is still roughly 10% of all people in the world, that would still be the largest catastrophe we have ever had to deal with as humanity.

No, I am aware of that.

But something requiring that 10% of the population will have to move by the year 2500 (according to reasonable predictions) doesn't seem as an immediate threat. Yes, it is a lot of people - but no-where near the 65% you previously stated.

Those inflated numbers are a problem, because instead of presenting the facts and letting people make good decision it just becomes hyperbole and a matter of who shouts the loudest. Similarly plastic pollution of the ocean is a problem - but the "Great Pacific garbage patch" isn't an actual patch - just increased levels of plastic at 5mg/m^2 (i.e. your local forest likely may have more plastic garbage).

In addition that causes another problem: when there are reports about famine this year people assume that it is nothing new - even if there had been several years without any famine in the world; so by overhyping all problems people stop caring about them.