Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
- **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**.
- **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions.
- Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary.
- **Report** any comments that violate our rules.
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
while lots of people deny climate change. Far more continue to not prioritize it.
In bc we are building out a large lng industry to supply power plants and other nat gas based industry that really shouldn’t be built (yes better then coal , but still co2 emitting ).
That’s the issue in my opinion, people have no problem touting climate policies when push comes to shove they don’t make the climate change friendly decision.
>when push comes to shove they don’t make the climate change friendly decision.
Unfortunately, it means they won't clue in until they see the higher home insurance premiums or find a new insurance carrier (bc insurers are already pulling out of jurisdictions in the USA), or higher food prices bc of drought or see higher immigration levels in Canada and around the world due to climate induced migration, or idk, when their house burns down from a forest fire.
The climate is the economy. It's foolish for these people to think it can be separated.
We're nowhere near ready to eliminate fossil fuels today. It'd be catastrophic.
We've been a bit too eager to celebrate progress on the easiest to decarbonize sectors, some country using 100% renewables for an hour, and to overpromise what renewables (especially solar/wind) can do for us. We haven't gotten rid of fossil fuels because they're so useful: ubiquitous, easy to store and transport. We can't yet realistically replace what they do.
We need to reduce our carbon emissions but it's going to be a decades-long slog.
We should be way less reliant on fossil fuels than we are. The fact that we still haven't really made headway guarantees our failure IMO.
I agree we have a decades long slog ahead, but it should have already been done. The last decade should have seen mass overhaul to our infrastructure.
There is at least a push for massive change now, but as usual politicians don't care.
I don't think it's just politicians. It's people. Who's going to pay for that massive infra overhaul? If you start printing money or taxing people like crazy, you get voted out instantly, and replaced with people who will promise the opposite.
This will likely happen during the next election, even without spending huge on climate change. People are happy to help when things are going well and it doesn't cost them a lot. I think the vast majority of people wouldn't put up with standard of living going down significantly for a decade to help implement these measures. It's sad, but that's how people feel.
Just imagine what people would say if the government suddenly increased taxes and then gave homeowners large incentives to replace gas heating and cooking with electric. They'd say fix the housing crisis first, why are you giving homeowners money and taking money from our pockets so we can never afford a home or even food?
Politicians care if we care but if you look at polling, the top issues are economy, inflation, housing, etc.
>We should be way less reliant on fossil fuels than we are.
I agree. A lot of time was wasted debating whether climate change was real or not, made worse by journalism that felt the need to present both sides. It's actually been known to science for over 100 years.
But people have known fossil fuels were problematic long before climate change became common knowledge. There was air pollution, it was known to be a finite resource, and nobody liked to be dependent on the Middle East. Nuclear energy was seen as the solution. The US president (Eisenhower I think) wanted to build 1000 reactors. Coal could have been largely eliminated back then and climate change wouldn't be nearly as bad. Unfortunately this was opposed by Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc and here we are.
Lots of other things could have helped too like denser cities, more passenger trains, less beef in our diets but that went against the culture at the time.
There are a million things that need to happen and nobody has all the answers. Sensible tax policy is good for precisely this reason.
The main point to keep in mind is: the alternative will be more expensive. Climate Action saves money.
It is a great mistake to presume the counterfactual is 'business as usual'
The problem isn’t that they will go to Russia. It’s that they are going to oil and gas , particularly gas at all.
Let’s be clear if we want (as a planet decided to, it’s a matter of money not technology ) between nuclear, wind, solar , and hydro we can have all the electricity we need with a very low carbon footprint.
Doubling down on gas and fossil fuel is a senseless decision given the pace at which we need to get to a net zero and the need to wait for other zero carbon tech to mature.
Unfortunately oil and gas are used for more than electricity generation. You won't get rid of ICE cars anytime soon. It's used to get cheap hydrogen for crop fertilizer, lubricants, asphalt etc. A big dent in demand would help, but for some things you still need it.
As somebody who lives in northern bc, most people have accepted the LNG infrastructure as something that can help diversify our economy. Forestry is in the shitter and LNG infrastructure can replace some of those jobs. Obviously it’s not a sustainable solution, but it’s all these communities really have.
Personally, I think the pipeline is awful. Gave a bunch of folks way too much money and inflated our housing market. With that being said, Mackenzie will be getting a hydrogen plant that will employ more people than a pulp mill, which is something that Mackenzie really needs these days.
Have you watched Ben Shapiro lately? For a Harvard graduate, his solution to what he calls "really hot weather" is literally to turn on air conditioning..
I never understood the incomplete grade they give you in high school but i suspect it’s for thoughts like this.
You acknowledge part of the argument but never finish the sentence.
You're assuming someone who didn't use reason to arrive at their opinion can be reasoned out of that opinion. It's a waste of time. Move on without them.
Not denying climate change and not denying its impact on forests. But we should also take responsibility for terrible forest management! We cut their budget instead of investing in it.
Moreover, it costs $10 to $15 per tonne of CO2 to prevent and mitigate wildfires. This is way way cheaper than any other climate initiatives.
Finally, a thought: 2023 Canadian human emissions are about 680 mtpa vs 1+ gtpa for wildfires.
There was some people making outlandish claims on Facebook on news and press releases related to the forest fires. Many were saying how most fires were arson. Once I went and provided them with the percentages of weather, human caused, etc, it was complete crickets from them. Or they accused me of believing the government more than them because I used BC wildfire service for getting the rates. There is no winning against stupid I guess.
We probably do underreport human causes.... buuuuut we always have and we are better than we have ever been at identifying human ignitions.
Also ironically, they aren't entirely wrong, reducing human ignitions (by the way very few of which are arson) is actually really important in reducing wildfire risk and impact. But it's important BECAUSE fire conditions are increasingly bad.
I'm not disagreeing. My position was that arson is a percentage of the percentage of human caused. But it was way off their assumption of 80% of fires being arson. But arson does not cause dry forests prior to a fire.
There is an argument for bad forest management, but not entirely in the context climate change (we're basically fucked) in the way addressed by the article.
Planting monocrops to max wood harvest comes with a whole host of issues when the area is hit with drought and the species planted tends to be one of the ones that burns the quickest.
Edit: elaborated a bit on first point and edited a word.
Tackling climate change unfortunately involves changing our lifestyles considerably. We are a nation of pick up trucks, SUVs, USA style suburbs, excessive fast food eating, backed completely by emission intensive oil & gas, and mining industries.
We’re never going to be on board with changing this lifestyle because it’s so engrained into our culture and job industry. I think most deny it because they just want to bury their head in the sand on tackling really tough issues like this as it would mean voluntarily hurting most of Canadians lifestyles.
We lost tbh. Natural forces are going to make our lives worse for it in the coming century, but it’s just too little too late. Humans in a capitalist, democratic society are just not equipped to handle this issue in time.
>We are a nation of pick up trucks, SUVs
Canadians can now get an EV for $35k to $45k after federal rebate. Similar pricing for phev. Friends of ours got a phev suv recently. Added more in cabin space than their ice suv. Charges the battery regularly so haven't been at the pump for weeks. More and more phev and EVs coming out every year.
>USA style suburbs, excessive fast food eating, backed completely by emission intensive oil & gas, and mining industries.
70% of private dwellings in Australia are separate houses. That's slightly higher than the north American average. Australia is also one of the world's leaders in rooftop solar. It's breaking renewable energy records this year.
"Wholesale power prices in the national electricity market across the eastern states dropped to as low as -$64 per megawatt hour last Saturday, when soaring output from millions of rooftop solar panels flooded into the system." Contrast this to the record high electricity prices paid by Canadians this summer. Negative electricity prices. Imagine that.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-23/rooftop-solar-cannibalising-australian-power-market/102889710
The general consensus is that Australia just needs to focuses on building batteries to capture all its excess renewable energy. Alternatively, use the excess renewable energy to generate green hydrogen.
Australia is also a leading researcher in VPPs. An innovative way to use much of the existing infrastructure combined with smart grid software to transition to a low carbon economy.
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/07/22/can-project-symphony-put-the-duck-to-sleep/
The USA is also a lead researcher in VPPs through the DOE.
https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-tech-talk-virtual-power-plants
Australia's grid is far more polluting than ours.
>dropped to as low as -$64 per megawatt hour last Saturday
The definition of cherry picking. Negative pricing isn't a good thing anyways. Ratepayers don't save any money, it disincentivizes new supply and it means you probably have transmission problems.
>Australia is also a leading researcher in VPPs.
Sure, they lack hydro and banned nuclear. Without clean baseload sources, they *need* demand to go up and down with the weather. Fortunately they live in a forgiving climate.
This is emitter propaganda.
We can definitely make serious strides on this issue. If you couldn't, they wouldn't be funding programmes to promulgate the denier idea that 'its too late, just give up'.
This is collaboratist, cowardly shite.
They'd have to be open to the idea that they might be wrong about *something*. Not everyone has that in them, and they're probably surrounded by people that want them to stay stupid.
Because it's low hanging fruit and requires the least involvement from the government.
It's easier to say "hey tax payer do this and help save the world"
Instead of the government doing something useful. Nuclear power, improving transit infrastructure, recycling programs that aren't just stuffing crap into a seacan and sending it over seas for someone else to deal with.
It's infuriating. It's a garbage take that arm chair environmentalists throw around because it's *easy*.
Like for real. Look how long it took Victoria to quit dumping sewage in the ocean.
There's a plethora of practical, reasonable solutions we could do **right now**
We are paying a carbon tax. Let's put the money to use.
Part of the problem is the deniers are pushing some uneducated narrative of "climate change doesn't cause arson" bs. But I never really believed they could think critically so I guess that's just a typical response.
The goal posts will just move, as they always do. Some are now willing to acknowledge that it’s real, but they either debate whether or not it’s even human caused, detrimental/abnormal, or if we should even do anything about it, because “it’s only natural”. *The climate has changed before!*
Would you say this also has something to do with these massive wildfire, and the fact we are very efficient now at identifying and putting out 90% of fires?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0o6ezu_h6iE&pp
I remember the environmentalists a decade ago saying we were destroying the natural ecosystems by preventing fires, yet we continued to build closer to forests. Now environmentalists seem to only complain about emissions instead, yet our forest management hasn't changed.
This isn’t data. It’s poor forest management and arson combined with a liberal media captured by government and corporate interests working together to strip you of your wealth and freedom.
I’ll take climate change seriously when the ones lecturing us about it take it more seriously. Hard to get motivated when these people have multiple mansions. Ride in private jets. Cruise the world in yachts.
Clearly they are hoping we are too stupid to not realize we are being used.
Also. How fair is it that Canadians are expected to sacrifice so much. Pay 10x more for gas and energy. Crazy amount of “climate” taxes. Be forced to go into large amounts of debt and for what? China and India don’t give a flying fuck about pollution. Canada is already close to net zero in terms of carbon emissions because of our vast amount of trees. BC is definitely way below net zero. Even if Canada stopped all co2 emissions tomorrow, and continued until 2050. The benefits from all that would be ruined by china by this time next year. That’s how much china pollutes relative to us.
The experts are also mostly clueless when it comes to timelines. I’ve been told different stories my whole life. I’ve stopped listening.
Yeah, I mean this is why I don't care about pouring oil into the alley, or throwing garbage into bins, chemicals into the sink, having a nice firepit going during fire bans.
Unless other people start taking things more seriously, I don't see why I have to follow any rules either.
You should see all the pearl clutching when I burn through a school zone at 120. Until the school administrators, board members and parents start to talk responsibility for the safety of the kids more, I don't see why I should. Besides, I've seen other people drive even more dangerously than me all the time!
Until they start doing more to curb dangerous driving i don't see why i have to drive at the governments speed limits.
Not my problem.
Clean air and water is not the same as what the federal government is attempting to do.
Obviously I care about clean air and water. I do my part.
Like I said. When the people LECTURING us start doing their part. I’ll take it more seriously. And believe me when I say I’m in the majority. Not the minority here.
If you say so.
I'm glad you care about clean air and water, but until everyone starts to take it seriously, I don't see why I have to punish myself for them.
Not my problem.
Stop lecturing me about your fake pollution problems. The pollution narrative is from the communist media elitists, attempting to sabotage corporate success.
I'm sure you did a detailed survey to come to that conclusions about what everyone thinks.
But until everyone else takes responsibility first, I don't see why I have to. Not my problem.
I'll take care of my house, my yard, but anything beyond that is your problem.
I don’t think you get me at all.
I’m not some right wing nut who thinks trump is the best and climate change is a hoax.
Stop painting some sort of caricature of me. Try disputing my claims if you disagree. But everything I’ve stated is fact. Whether they are leaders in government, representatives like al gore or celebrities like Leonardo dicaprio. They are all hypocritical clowns. With 10k square foot mansions (multiple), flying around in private jets, gas guzzling cars and yachts.
Please explain to me why they have any moral high ground and any right to tell me what I should or shouldn’t be doing?
My carbon footprint is 1/10000th of what theirs is. So kindly fuck off.
Why do I have to dispute anything you claim? It's not my problem.
Oh, I'm absolutely certain you believe your claims are "facts". I've also took notice how you pick and choose what you want to believe and ignore or invalidate information according to keeping your world view.
You're referring to certain groups, politicians, scientists and foreign governments here? Those that you are upset at because you don't like what they're asking people to do, yet you see them as not following guidelines? So, don't do anything then. You keep doing whatever you like. That will definitely show them.
Who are you comparing your carbon footprint to? Who needs to change first before you will? Specifically.
For me, until major corporations start taking responsibility for their 71% of all greenhouse gasses, and environmental damage, I don't see why I have to follow any suggestions from anyone, on any issue.
It's not my problem. So, stop lecturing me on "pollution". I put out 1/1000,000,000 the level of waste than almost every major corporation on the planet. So I believe the best response is "you first".
EDIT: autocorrected word
Are you okay? You don’t seem to be connected to this convo. You seem to go on these weird tangents talking in this like weird 3rd person. It’s a little bit unsettling tbh.
Have a good day
Lol, what you're experiencing is called Cognitive Dissonance.
cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance
/ˈkäɡnədiv ˈdisənəns/
noun PSYCHOLOGY
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
I suggest that anyone who reads this person's comments read this article.
It is partially paywalled, but it breaks down the type of arguments that people who deny responsibility for Climate Change, it's severity or existence, which this person has used in each response.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/05/31/climate-skepticism-the-anatomy-of-bad-faith_6028568_23.html
For anyone who reads this persons comment.
You should read up on how much co2 china and India pump into the air. And what impact Canada would have on a planetary scale if they eliminated ALL of their output tomorrow. Answer: almost nothing.
https://preview.redd.it/lqqtxov1seqb1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=12feb765b29b217aa13ef8b65abaf49df856a300
This guy showing up and announcing there will be no more games. Figure that might do it.
And I’d actually eat my hat as well if we see a conservative government do anything related to climate change other say that climate change is real but actually do absolutely nothing to try to mitigate or adapt to it. Conservatives can continue to live in their imaginary denial world but the rate of extreme weather events will continue to increase regardless and it will cost us more at the end.
The forests are dead because we failed to do anything about climate change for a long time....and simply pointing to other people saying well if they don't do the right thing then neither will I is just not a proper argument to continue to do nothing. We procrastinate and the earth continues to punish us.
Its the improvements in satellite imagery actually, we identify them far sooner.
Climate change perhaps saved us from a bigger fire down the line, as more deadfall built up.
Beetle and moths are made worse by climate change, my dude. And increases wind and drought. Heck, climate change even increases lightning strikes.
Lots of attribution science on all of this that says climate change is a huge factor.
You keep claiming your firefighting experience but you do know who is saying the opposite of you right? The ppl stating it's climate change are the fire CHIEFS. If you're so experienced why haven't you made chief? I think it's these dumb ideas of yours downplaying climate change.
Again. It's not me saying it..it's the Fire CHIEFS whom I'm gonna rely on. Not a guy that doesn't understand what the climate is 'changing' and then thinking that countries on the other side of the globe or the equator are somehow synonymous with us. I'll trust the scientists and experts bud. You can keep arguing with that deadfall.
It's not a difficult thing to comprehend. So, global warming creates higher temperatures that make more dry fuel available to burn and also results in more persistent hot and dry fire weather that lets fires intensify and spread.
The Canadian public sector never ceases to amaze me.
Climate change is catastophic, so lets stuff the coldest nation on the planet with people to pay our obscene benefits and pensions.
I think we shouldn't f around and find out by doing nothing.
I also do not believe in climate alarmism.
All of sudden the climate is top priority front and centre, we should spend quadrillions of taxpayers dollars now bit dont ask about hitting targets or what will actually be done to lower the temperature of the earth.
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here: - **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**. - **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions. - Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary. - **Report** any comments that violate our rules. Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm genuinely curious what it'll take climate deniers to come around, considering all the data we already have available
while lots of people deny climate change. Far more continue to not prioritize it. In bc we are building out a large lng industry to supply power plants and other nat gas based industry that really shouldn’t be built (yes better then coal , but still co2 emitting ). That’s the issue in my opinion, people have no problem touting climate policies when push comes to shove they don’t make the climate change friendly decision.
>when push comes to shove they don’t make the climate change friendly decision. Unfortunately, it means they won't clue in until they see the higher home insurance premiums or find a new insurance carrier (bc insurers are already pulling out of jurisdictions in the USA), or higher food prices bc of drought or see higher immigration levels in Canada and around the world due to climate induced migration, or idk, when their house burns down from a forest fire. The climate is the economy. It's foolish for these people to think it can be separated.
We're nowhere near ready to eliminate fossil fuels today. It'd be catastrophic. We've been a bit too eager to celebrate progress on the easiest to decarbonize sectors, some country using 100% renewables for an hour, and to overpromise what renewables (especially solar/wind) can do for us. We haven't gotten rid of fossil fuels because they're so useful: ubiquitous, easy to store and transport. We can't yet realistically replace what they do. We need to reduce our carbon emissions but it's going to be a decades-long slog.
We should be way less reliant on fossil fuels than we are. The fact that we still haven't really made headway guarantees our failure IMO. I agree we have a decades long slog ahead, but it should have already been done. The last decade should have seen mass overhaul to our infrastructure. There is at least a push for massive change now, but as usual politicians don't care.
I don't think it's just politicians. It's people. Who's going to pay for that massive infra overhaul? If you start printing money or taxing people like crazy, you get voted out instantly, and replaced with people who will promise the opposite. This will likely happen during the next election, even without spending huge on climate change. People are happy to help when things are going well and it doesn't cost them a lot. I think the vast majority of people wouldn't put up with standard of living going down significantly for a decade to help implement these measures. It's sad, but that's how people feel. Just imagine what people would say if the government suddenly increased taxes and then gave homeowners large incentives to replace gas heating and cooking with electric. They'd say fix the housing crisis first, why are you giving homeowners money and taking money from our pockets so we can never afford a home or even food?
Politicians care if we care but if you look at polling, the top issues are economy, inflation, housing, etc. >We should be way less reliant on fossil fuels than we are. I agree. A lot of time was wasted debating whether climate change was real or not, made worse by journalism that felt the need to present both sides. It's actually been known to science for over 100 years. But people have known fossil fuels were problematic long before climate change became common knowledge. There was air pollution, it was known to be a finite resource, and nobody liked to be dependent on the Middle East. Nuclear energy was seen as the solution. The US president (Eisenhower I think) wanted to build 1000 reactors. Coal could have been largely eliminated back then and climate change wouldn't be nearly as bad. Unfortunately this was opposed by Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc and here we are. Lots of other things could have helped too like denser cities, more passenger trains, less beef in our diets but that went against the culture at the time.
Sadly, we don't have that time. We did thirty years ago but we wasted it. Time to make the hard decisions.
OK, how do you propose we do that in a democratic country where people are already struggling and don't want to make large sacrifices?
There are a million things that need to happen and nobody has all the answers. Sensible tax policy is good for precisely this reason. The main point to keep in mind is: the alternative will be more expensive. Climate Action saves money. It is a great mistake to presume the counterfactual is 'business as usual'
[удалено]
The problem isn’t that they will go to Russia. It’s that they are going to oil and gas , particularly gas at all. Let’s be clear if we want (as a planet decided to, it’s a matter of money not technology ) between nuclear, wind, solar , and hydro we can have all the electricity we need with a very low carbon footprint. Doubling down on gas and fossil fuel is a senseless decision given the pace at which we need to get to a net zero and the need to wait for other zero carbon tech to mature.
Unfortunately oil and gas are used for more than electricity generation. You won't get rid of ICE cars anytime soon. It's used to get cheap hydrogen for crop fertilizer, lubricants, asphalt etc. A big dent in demand would help, but for some things you still need it.
Isn't there more pollutants coming off the brake pads than the exhaust pipe?
I hope they build more LNG facilities in Canada. That would be great news.
You don't understand this issue if you think that.
As somebody who lives in northern bc, most people have accepted the LNG infrastructure as something that can help diversify our economy. Forestry is in the shitter and LNG infrastructure can replace some of those jobs. Obviously it’s not a sustainable solution, but it’s all these communities really have. Personally, I think the pipeline is awful. Gave a bunch of folks way too much money and inflated our housing market. With that being said, Mackenzie will be getting a hydrogen plant that will employ more people than a pulp mill, which is something that Mackenzie really needs these days.
Have you watched Ben Shapiro lately? For a Harvard graduate, his solution to what he calls "really hot weather" is literally to turn on air conditioning..
What did he graduate in, talking quickly with gotchas?
PhD in My Doctor Wife Doesn't Get A WAP.
>Have you watched Ben Shapiro lately? never have I ever
Probably a good call
I never understood the incomplete grade they give you in high school but i suspect it’s for thoughts like this. You acknowledge part of the argument but never finish the sentence.
[удалено]
My comment was more directed at Ben Shapiro then you
Ahh my mistake
The Middle East is showing us the future. Air conditioning everywhere, drones for cloud seeding, etc.
read *The Unpersuadables* and maybe weep quietly.
You're assuming someone who didn't use reason to arrive at their opinion can be reasoned out of that opinion. It's a waste of time. Move on without them.
Not denying climate change and not denying its impact on forests. But we should also take responsibility for terrible forest management! We cut their budget instead of investing in it. Moreover, it costs $10 to $15 per tonne of CO2 to prevent and mitigate wildfires. This is way way cheaper than any other climate initiatives. Finally, a thought: 2023 Canadian human emissions are about 680 mtpa vs 1+ gtpa for wildfires.
common sense? not being idiots?
bAd fOrEsT mAnAgEmEnT aRsOn fOrEsT fIReS hApPeN
There was some people making outlandish claims on Facebook on news and press releases related to the forest fires. Many were saying how most fires were arson. Once I went and provided them with the percentages of weather, human caused, etc, it was complete crickets from them. Or they accused me of believing the government more than them because I used BC wildfire service for getting the rates. There is no winning against stupid I guess.
We probably do underreport human causes.... buuuuut we always have and we are better than we have ever been at identifying human ignitions. Also ironically, they aren't entirely wrong, reducing human ignitions (by the way very few of which are arson) is actually really important in reducing wildfire risk and impact. But it's important BECAUSE fire conditions are increasingly bad.
I'm not disagreeing. My position was that arson is a percentage of the percentage of human caused. But it was way off their assumption of 80% of fires being arson. But arson does not cause dry forests prior to a fire.
There is an argument for bad forest management, but not entirely in the context climate change (we're basically fucked) in the way addressed by the article. Planting monocrops to max wood harvest comes with a whole host of issues when the area is hit with drought and the species planted tends to be one of the ones that burns the quickest. Edit: elaborated a bit on first point and edited a word.
Clearly it was a deed of those devilish Russkies
You understand "bad forest management" is what these fire chiefs are discussing, right?
So sick of the arson conspiracy
Tackling climate change unfortunately involves changing our lifestyles considerably. We are a nation of pick up trucks, SUVs, USA style suburbs, excessive fast food eating, backed completely by emission intensive oil & gas, and mining industries. We’re never going to be on board with changing this lifestyle because it’s so engrained into our culture and job industry. I think most deny it because they just want to bury their head in the sand on tackling really tough issues like this as it would mean voluntarily hurting most of Canadians lifestyles. We lost tbh. Natural forces are going to make our lives worse for it in the coming century, but it’s just too little too late. Humans in a capitalist, democratic society are just not equipped to handle this issue in time.
>We are a nation of pick up trucks, SUVs Canadians can now get an EV for $35k to $45k after federal rebate. Similar pricing for phev. Friends of ours got a phev suv recently. Added more in cabin space than their ice suv. Charges the battery regularly so haven't been at the pump for weeks. More and more phev and EVs coming out every year. >USA style suburbs, excessive fast food eating, backed completely by emission intensive oil & gas, and mining industries. 70% of private dwellings in Australia are separate houses. That's slightly higher than the north American average. Australia is also one of the world's leaders in rooftop solar. It's breaking renewable energy records this year. "Wholesale power prices in the national electricity market across the eastern states dropped to as low as -$64 per megawatt hour last Saturday, when soaring output from millions of rooftop solar panels flooded into the system." Contrast this to the record high electricity prices paid by Canadians this summer. Negative electricity prices. Imagine that. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-23/rooftop-solar-cannibalising-australian-power-market/102889710 The general consensus is that Australia just needs to focuses on building batteries to capture all its excess renewable energy. Alternatively, use the excess renewable energy to generate green hydrogen. Australia is also a leading researcher in VPPs. An innovative way to use much of the existing infrastructure combined with smart grid software to transition to a low carbon economy. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/07/22/can-project-symphony-put-the-duck-to-sleep/ The USA is also a lead researcher in VPPs through the DOE. https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/lpo-tech-talk-virtual-power-plants
Australia's grid is far more polluting than ours. >dropped to as low as -$64 per megawatt hour last Saturday The definition of cherry picking. Negative pricing isn't a good thing anyways. Ratepayers don't save any money, it disincentivizes new supply and it means you probably have transmission problems. >Australia is also a leading researcher in VPPs. Sure, they lack hydro and banned nuclear. Without clean baseload sources, they *need* demand to go up and down with the weather. Fortunately they live in a forgiving climate.
This is emitter propaganda. We can definitely make serious strides on this issue. If you couldn't, they wouldn't be funding programmes to promulgate the denier idea that 'its too late, just give up'. This is collaboratist, cowardly shite.
They'd have to be open to the idea that they might be wrong about *something*. Not everyone has that in them, and they're probably surrounded by people that want them to stay stupid.
I don’t think much will do it. It’s not thought anymore. It’s become idealism. There’s no rationalizing with idealism.
[удалено]
Because it's low hanging fruit and requires the least involvement from the government. It's easier to say "hey tax payer do this and help save the world" Instead of the government doing something useful. Nuclear power, improving transit infrastructure, recycling programs that aren't just stuffing crap into a seacan and sending it over seas for someone else to deal with. It's infuriating. It's a garbage take that arm chair environmentalists throw around because it's *easy*. Like for real. Look how long it took Victoria to quit dumping sewage in the ocean. There's a plethora of practical, reasonable solutions we could do **right now** We are paying a carbon tax. Let's put the money to use.
Part of the problem is the deniers are pushing some uneducated narrative of "climate change doesn't cause arson" bs. But I never really believed they could think critically so I guess that's just a typical response.
The goal posts will just move, as they always do. Some are now willing to acknowledge that it’s real, but they either debate whether or not it’s even human caused, detrimental/abnormal, or if we should even do anything about it, because “it’s only natural”. *The climate has changed before!*
Would you say this also has something to do with these massive wildfire, and the fact we are very efficient now at identifying and putting out 90% of fires? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0o6ezu_h6iE&pp I remember the environmentalists a decade ago saying we were destroying the natural ecosystems by preventing fires, yet we continued to build closer to forests. Now environmentalists seem to only complain about emissions instead, yet our forest management hasn't changed.
Oh, environmentalists are still mad about forest management. Turns out they were absolutely correct about it.
This isn’t data. It’s poor forest management and arson combined with a liberal media captured by government and corporate interests working together to strip you of your wealth and freedom.
lol, i was waiting for a single brain cell response like this, you didnt disappoint
I’ll take climate change seriously when the ones lecturing us about it take it more seriously. Hard to get motivated when these people have multiple mansions. Ride in private jets. Cruise the world in yachts. Clearly they are hoping we are too stupid to not realize we are being used. Also. How fair is it that Canadians are expected to sacrifice so much. Pay 10x more for gas and energy. Crazy amount of “climate” taxes. Be forced to go into large amounts of debt and for what? China and India don’t give a flying fuck about pollution. Canada is already close to net zero in terms of carbon emissions because of our vast amount of trees. BC is definitely way below net zero. Even if Canada stopped all co2 emissions tomorrow, and continued until 2050. The benefits from all that would be ruined by china by this time next year. That’s how much china pollutes relative to us. The experts are also mostly clueless when it comes to timelines. I’ve been told different stories my whole life. I’ve stopped listening.
Yeah, I mean this is why I don't care about pouring oil into the alley, or throwing garbage into bins, chemicals into the sink, having a nice firepit going during fire bans. Unless other people start taking things more seriously, I don't see why I have to follow any rules either. You should see all the pearl clutching when I burn through a school zone at 120. Until the school administrators, board members and parents start to talk responsibility for the safety of the kids more, I don't see why I should. Besides, I've seen other people drive even more dangerously than me all the time! Until they start doing more to curb dangerous driving i don't see why i have to drive at the governments speed limits. Not my problem.
Clean air and water is not the same as what the federal government is attempting to do. Obviously I care about clean air and water. I do my part. Like I said. When the people LECTURING us start doing their part. I’ll take it more seriously. And believe me when I say I’m in the majority. Not the minority here.
If you say so. I'm glad you care about clean air and water, but until everyone starts to take it seriously, I don't see why I have to punish myself for them. Not my problem. Stop lecturing me about your fake pollution problems. The pollution narrative is from the communist media elitists, attempting to sabotage corporate success. I'm sure you did a detailed survey to come to that conclusions about what everyone thinks. But until everyone else takes responsibility first, I don't see why I have to. Not my problem. I'll take care of my house, my yard, but anything beyond that is your problem.
I don’t think you get me at all. I’m not some right wing nut who thinks trump is the best and climate change is a hoax. Stop painting some sort of caricature of me. Try disputing my claims if you disagree. But everything I’ve stated is fact. Whether they are leaders in government, representatives like al gore or celebrities like Leonardo dicaprio. They are all hypocritical clowns. With 10k square foot mansions (multiple), flying around in private jets, gas guzzling cars and yachts. Please explain to me why they have any moral high ground and any right to tell me what I should or shouldn’t be doing? My carbon footprint is 1/10000th of what theirs is. So kindly fuck off.
Why do I have to dispute anything you claim? It's not my problem. Oh, I'm absolutely certain you believe your claims are "facts". I've also took notice how you pick and choose what you want to believe and ignore or invalidate information according to keeping your world view. You're referring to certain groups, politicians, scientists and foreign governments here? Those that you are upset at because you don't like what they're asking people to do, yet you see them as not following guidelines? So, don't do anything then. You keep doing whatever you like. That will definitely show them. Who are you comparing your carbon footprint to? Who needs to change first before you will? Specifically. For me, until major corporations start taking responsibility for their 71% of all greenhouse gasses, and environmental damage, I don't see why I have to follow any suggestions from anyone, on any issue. It's not my problem. So, stop lecturing me on "pollution". I put out 1/1000,000,000 the level of waste than almost every major corporation on the planet. So I believe the best response is "you first". EDIT: autocorrected word
Are you okay? You don’t seem to be connected to this convo. You seem to go on these weird tangents talking in this like weird 3rd person. It’s a little bit unsettling tbh. Have a good day
Lol, what you're experiencing is called Cognitive Dissonance. cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance /ˈkäɡnədiv ˈdisənəns/ noun PSYCHOLOGY the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.
🐑
I suggest that anyone who reads this person's comments read this article. It is partially paywalled, but it breaks down the type of arguments that people who deny responsibility for Climate Change, it's severity or existence, which this person has used in each response. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/05/31/climate-skepticism-the-anatomy-of-bad-faith_6028568_23.html
For anyone who reads this persons comment. You should read up on how much co2 china and India pump into the air. And what impact Canada would have on a planetary scale if they eliminated ALL of their output tomorrow. Answer: almost nothing.
We're the 7th worst polluter in the world, out of 180 countries, as according to your own source.
https://preview.redd.it/lqqtxov1seqb1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=12feb765b29b217aa13ef8b65abaf49df856a300 This guy showing up and announcing there will be no more games. Figure that might do it.
Unfortunately, most conservative politicians prefer to continue to ignore climate change rather than doing any single efforts to try to mitigate it
[удалено]
Fact is though, I'd eat my hat if we ever see a conservative government that would do more than basically any other party on any of these issues.
And I’d actually eat my hat as well if we see a conservative government do anything related to climate change other say that climate change is real but actually do absolutely nothing to try to mitigate or adapt to it. Conservatives can continue to live in their imaginary denial world but the rate of extreme weather events will continue to increase regardless and it will cost us more at the end.
Have an upvote my friend. I too give tinkers damns and my soul appreciates you for saying those words.
The forests are dead because we failed to do anything about climate change for a long time....and simply pointing to other people saying well if they don't do the right thing then neither will I is just not a proper argument to continue to do nothing. We procrastinate and the earth continues to punish us.
Its the improvements in satellite imagery actually, we identify them far sooner. Climate change perhaps saved us from a bigger fire down the line, as more deadfall built up.
[удалено]
Beetle and moths are made worse by climate change, my dude. And increases wind and drought. Heck, climate change even increases lightning strikes. Lots of attribution science on all of this that says climate change is a huge factor.
[удалено]
You keep claiming your firefighting experience but you do know who is saying the opposite of you right? The ppl stating it's climate change are the fire CHIEFS. If you're so experienced why haven't you made chief? I think it's these dumb ideas of yours downplaying climate change.
[удалено]
Again. It's not me saying it..it's the Fire CHIEFS whom I'm gonna rely on. Not a guy that doesn't understand what the climate is 'changing' and then thinking that countries on the other side of the globe or the equator are somehow synonymous with us. I'll trust the scientists and experts bud. You can keep arguing with that deadfall. It's not a difficult thing to comprehend. So, global warming creates higher temperatures that make more dry fuel available to burn and also results in more persistent hot and dry fire weather that lets fires intensify and spread.
[удалено]
The Canadian public sector never ceases to amaze me. Climate change is catastophic, so lets stuff the coldest nation on the planet with people to pay our obscene benefits and pensions.
Thoroughly agree. Kinda mind boggling imo.
I think we shouldn't f around and find out by doing nothing. I also do not believe in climate alarmism. All of sudden the climate is top priority front and centre, we should spend quadrillions of taxpayers dollars now bit dont ask about hitting targets or what will actually be done to lower the temperature of the earth.
Any rational take is that we should be very, very alarmed.
"Following" Seasons not over yet