Discussions

No need to wait for the 100mpg vehicle. we have electric. If what you say is true, and you would have a 100mpg vehicle if one existed then get an electric and charge it on hydro. no more reason to wait.

Global climate change is the least of my worries. there are many benefits what may come from a 2-3 degree average increase in temperature. Just to mention a few  
1. Increase in continental shelf size (excellent for marine creatures)  
2. more habitable land in the north both for humans and animals alike  
3. potential return of an west Africa monsoon season over the coastal sahara.  
My point is there are positives and negative effects. It wouldn't be doomsday, but there will be change. I know humans hate change and want to keep everything static. They grumble when they see a animal disappear from one location, and complain when they see the same animal pop up in other regions (shifting ranges, evasive species. ect)  
The earth warming by a couple degrees isn't the worst thing that can happen.  
 
However, I do worry about sustainability, pollution and outright disregard for our planet and the environment we live in. Why do we pollute our environment with pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals? Why do we have to expose the ducks, deer and raccoons to those chemicals? Why can't we find methods to efficiently grow our products organically?  
 
Is it because we have to to feed the world? of course not. We are feeding billions of animals every year. Why does our meat consumption be so high, that over 90% or Canadian plant products are grown for animals. We pollute and we don't care. education is low of what and where to recycle. where do I go with my spent batteries?  
 
Yes, I care about pollution. (plastic, air and water)  
Yes, I care about sustainability  
Yes, I care about the coming energy crisis  
But, I do not care if the world is 3 degrees warmer, because there will be just as many benefits as there will be consequences.

A couple of years ago I looked into the world annual production of lithium batteries. It was sufficient to power the vehicle fleet of Nova Scotia. It seems highly doubtful that production could be increased enough to supply any appreciable fraction of current motoring needs. Alsox it's questionable if there is enough lithium. There certainly isn't enough phosphorus.  
 
And, there is a significant energy footprint in the manufacturing of the batteries, and it seems a much more significant problem in the separation of the valuable elements for reuse.  
 
In the case of Britain, where average driving miles are roughly half of ours, it is estimated that the electric generation capacity would have to be tripled to power road traffic. We don't have that capacity, and in most areas that sort of capacity would have to come from coal.  
 
So electric vehicles will remain a sideshow or bespoke toy of the rich without some fundamental breakthrough in battery tech. And the periodic table has been well explored.  
 
The logical step to energy conservation is to aim to greatly reduce curb weights, and put onboard a small hybrid system to cover boost energy, and probably aim to run the system on natural gas.

Ok.  
 
I hope we are all familiar with plate tectonics, materials under the sea can be pushed up into mountains, and other times crustal material can be deeply subducted.  
 
Practically every petroleum bearing deposit has the characteristics of a subduction zone of ocean sediments, taken to a perfect depth for cooking, and then trapped by overlying deposits.  
 
I have read about curious isotopic levels in some gas deposits which hints that some portion may have come from inorganic sources.  
 
Regardless, the world has been drilled and sounded. The last megafield was found around 1968. The rate of consumption passed rate of discovery in about 1984. The rates can be plotted as a bell curve, and any way you slice it we are at peak or slightly past now.  
 
Sure, if we wait another 40 million years or so, there will be deposits similar to what we found 200 years ago. Sadly we burnt half of that in the last 30 years.  
 
I liken this to burning the woodpile to make it feel like summer for a couple of hours.  
Seems like a genius move while there's still a glow, but the aftermath will be a bitter time.

Let's extend that premise. When I look up at the sky, there's a lot of traffic, and undoubtedly much of it is leaders of business and functionaries on various business trips.  
 
Trudeau is nothing compared to the daily corporate traffic. And those dudes and ladies aren't a point of concern at all?  
 
As far as I can tell Trudeau is just another corporate schill, but doing a bit of a greenwashing job. No worries, he's as much a part of the corporatist agenda as all the rest, born with a platinum spoon in his mouth. But from time to time he has to imitate having a social conscience. He's as much a conservative as Scheer. Only very certain people get to have family vacations with the Aga Khan. Not the likes of us.

Wow. There's a fair bit to address here, but maybe rather than go through the many pitfalls, better to just get to some fundamental facts.  
 
The map is from a climate report that the liberals tried to keep secret. So much for the liberals being left wing granola munchers. Take the dates with a grain of salt, as the data was conservative. More likely 2040 / 2050.  
 
The bottom line is this is a precipitation projection for less than 3C. In this projection there will be little or no snow cover on the prairies. And more hot days and a longer warm season each year. That map shows the end of farming through the cultivated areas of the prairies, and likely worse south of the border in the west. In fact, with 40% or less precipitation and higher temps, rivers may stop reliable flow, which spells the end of many cities. Brandon is likely on the list.  
 
And here is some other corroboration.  
 
https://globalnews.ca/news/3765838/canada-climate-change-farmland/  
 
This dovetails with the above information. An area twice the size of France north of the prairies will be technically arable by 2040. Only a city person could write that as a good news story. An area twice the size of France will be lost to farming in the currently arable zone. And the boreal forest soils aren't fit for farming, nor will we be able to adapt quick enough, or afford the losses, and getting closer to the arctic ocean I would guess that while on average the climate may be adequate, it could be susceptible to damaging cold snaps.  
 
In summary, there are changes that we can't easily suck up, and the thresholds are nearer than most want to admit or can understand.

When did Al Gore ever state New York and Los Angeles would be inundated by 2020? That would imply at least 30ft sea level rise. Greenland is said to contain enough ice to do that.  
 
So far as I know nobody has made such a claim. So I'll categorize that as a ridiculous straw man argument.  
 
It also makes no sense that Al Gore would be promoting some secret corporate agenda, when corporations are the main force behind climate change denial, being promoters of endless growth and exponential resource use.