CCC's will likely win the argument but the dilemma facing both PO and climate change is human nature and the current ecomonic system.

It's not easy being green. And no eye-on-the-next-election consumer-driven democratic government is going to risk the short term wrath of its electorate to hit people in the pocket books.

Fort McMurray, a town of 70,000 + people and growing, now generates 8% of Canada's GDP.

Yes, Tar Sands, like BioFuels, are negative EROEI. But at $85 - $99 /barrel oil, who cares? There are a lot of jobs and paycheques reliant on this bonanza.

Polar bears don't vote. They don't buy. They don't sell to the Americans. Three strikes you're out in this strangely ordered world.

And now ConocoPhillips is looking to extract another million barrels / day from this boreal treasure trove.

If I was looking for arctic ice cubes, I would get them now while supplies last. 2013 as a meltdown deadline is a long long way to go.

Yes. If that were the only deadline.

But it's just one of many "problems" exacerbating
the positive feedback loop.

A loop that takes us further away from the Holocene.

It used to be tough being a Dirty Hippy.

Maybe I should think about getting a pin striped suit
now to stay in Contrarian mode.

8D

"Here we go again…. too little, too late and not paying attention enough to the fact that what we are “measuring” took decades to reveal itself.

“That feedback is the key to why the models predict that the Arctic warming is going to be faster,” Zwally said. “It’s getting even worse than the models predicted.”

http://survivalacres.com/wordpress/

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_ar...

Good to see the Catholic Church hasn't changed through the centuries.

From Wikipedia:

By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre.

I'm not one to defend the Pope, but I think that is a hatchet job by an anti-AGW paper. They are attempting to spin the pope as being a denier, although he has previously said acting on GW is a "moral obligation".

In fact, he may have been criticising deniers in his speech. This Pope is perhaps too circumspect and is easily misinterpreted, he had trouble before with "words taken out of context", and had to do a lot of smoothing over. He needs to get the hang of soundbites...

In all fairness to the pope, he's not saying anything that most of us haven't said ourselves: base findings on evidence, don't base evidence on 'a priori' conclusions.

"Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken."

Some people get their knickers in a knot whenever the pope says anything. Chill folks.

It is helpful at times to be reminded that within any discussion, agendas will be at work, hyperbole will be used to defend entrenced positions, charlatans and self-learned experts will add their two cents worth, and the picture that emerges may be distorted and incomplete. Intelligence means shifting beyond shrill rhetoric and ideological opinion to grasp, even if half-blindly, what makes sense.

In the discussion on climate change, five significant questions frame the debate:
1) how is the world's climate changing? (the question "if" is mute since climate is always changing)
2) should we be worried about these changes?
3) are human beings a factor in this present change?
4) how big is the human factor in the change? and,
5) can anything be done about it?

Where I hold out little hope is in the last question. I agree with an assessment made elsewhere, we humans rank right up there with yeast when it comes to making smart choices.

Sometimes problems don't have solutions. They simply have to be endured.

5) can anything be done about it?

Where I hold out little hope is in the last question.

is that a "can" or a "will" you have little hope for? if there is a will then there is something we can do about it.

Just wait to see when Fuckabee gets elected and joins the club..

Actions speak louder than words...

Vatican agrees to a carbon offset scheme
By Elisabeth Rosenthal Published: September 3, 2007

TISZAKESZI, Hungary: This summer the cardinals at the Vatican accepted an unusual donation from a Hungarian start-up called Klimafa: The company said it would plant trees to restore an ancient forest on a denuded island by the Tizsa River to offset the Vatican's carbon emissions.

The young trees, on a 15-hectare, or 37-acre, tract of land that will be renamed the "Vatican Climate Forest" will in theory absorb as much carbon dioxide as the Vatican makes through its various activities in 2007: driving cars, heating offices, lighting St. Peters Basilica at night.

In so doing, the Vatican announced, it would become the world's first carbon-neutral state.

"As the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, recently stated, the international community needs to respect and encourage a 'green culture,' " said Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, who took part in a ceremony marking the event at the Vatican. "The Book of Genesis tell us of a beginning in which God placed man as guardian over the earth to make it fruitful."
The Vatican, which has recently made an effort to go green on its own by installing solar panels, sought to set an example by offsetting its carbon emissions.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/03/business/carbon.php

Fort McMurray, a town of 70,000 + people and growing, now generates 8% of Canada's GDP.

Which would be impressive, if it weren't laughably wrong:

  • Canada's GDP is $1.5T. 8% of that is $120B.
  • All oil sands operations, of which Ft. McMurray is only a part, produce about 1Mbbl/d, or about 400Mbbl per year.
  • $120B / 400Mbbl = $300/bbl for syncrude and bitumen. In reality, those sell for a discount (large discount for bitumen) to WTI, giving an average price of under $60/bbl over the course of 2007.

Accordingly, all oil sands, from production to refining, represent 1.5% of Canada's GDP, meaning Ft. McMurray's share is likely under 1%.

So you're off by about an order of magnitude. Is it that hard to fact-check before making wild claims?

Yikes! I stand corrected.

Though I think my point remains valid. Canadian political leadership is not likely to let climate change interfere with the Alberta oil boom. Too much at stake with oil security and economic prosperity.

And polar bears still don't vote, don't buy, and don't sell anything to the Americans.

What would be interesting is to simply take these numbers and figure Per Capita GDP for those 70,000 inhabitants(or more in the future) based on projected oil-sands production. Versus the rest of the Canadian population.

I heard Robert Redford, Nicole Kidman, and Donald Trump are buying up luxury real-estate in the area. Could be the next Boca Raton.

I think oil-sands production is slated for 3.5 million barrels in ten or twenty years.

In the short run, I haven't seen much upside to my tar sands pure-play stock purchses.

However, there is also the massive expenditures to expand oil sands production. Construction is also GDP.

But I doubt the 8% figure as well. Today. Wait till 2015 :-)

Alan