Jump to content

Climate Change Thread


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, gwarrior said:

What annoys the ever living sxxt out of me, is when I'm driving home from work, is a tesla driver just riding my ass. I'm like dude back the hell off, you aren't saving the planet, so stop driving like a jackass.

All those Tesla owners are padding Musk’s wallet. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for some climate change adaptation in BC.

All the areas that flood away? Don't build them back, make the river wider by building purpose flood plains for them to flood into. They can be used as farms, parks, wildlife areas and can be custom fit into each community so that it matches their needs.

All the towns that are at risk of burning? Build fire breaks around them. They can be parks (irrigated), golf courses, multi use pathways, pickle ball courts lol, ring roads, or just cleared gravel paths for the people that don't have the money and are trying to decide what to build. Have special zoning next to those breaks so that the housing is built to modern fire smart standards with fire proof and fire resistant materials. Invite first nations to revised the practice of doing prescribed burns in the spring at the edge of said fire breaks. Do forestry management and clear lower limbs and such as part of these programs.

Would it cost a lot? Billions. But it will save tens of billions in money not having to evacuate, pay insurance, rebuild, pay for fire fighters from around the world, etc.

But besides the safety and cost effectiveness, the engagement of first nations, it end results in community amenities. If done right options for reconcillaction are obvious.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, gwarrior said:

What annoys the ever living sxxt out of me, is when I'm driving home from work, is a tesla driver just riding my ass. I'm like dude back the hell off, you aren't saving the planet, so stop driving like a jackass.

They are driving super expensive blow dryers that are likely going be in a land fill within 7-10 years.......       definately not saving the planet.   Just more urban trash. 

  • Haha 1
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans Have Exceeded Six of the Nine Boundaries Keeping Earth Habitable

Scientists find we are “well outside the safe operating space for humanity” in a new study meant to assess the health of our planet


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Are we voting with our wallets to overheat the planet?

Polls show we want to save the world from climate change but maybe not if it costs us

Don Pittis · CBC News · Posted: Sep 27, 2023 1:00 AM PDT | Last Updated: 43 minutes ago
FILE PHOTO: Tundra trucks and Sequoia SUV's exit the assembly line as finished products at Toyota's truck plant in San Antonio, Texas, U.S. April 17, 2023.  REUTERS/Jordan Vonderhaar/File Photo
Tundra trucks and Sequoia SUVs roll off the assembly line at the Toyota plant in San Antonio, Texas, earlier this year. Even as they fear the effects of climate change, Canadians keep buying large vehicles and the gas to fuel them. (Jordan Vonderhaa/Reuters)


A "glass half full" report from the International Energy Agency out Tuesday does its best to be encouraging about the world's attempts to keep the planet from burning up.


But while saying it "remains possible" to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 C — considered a crucial limit to prevent the floods and droughts and fires from getting worse — the report is making waves in the oil and gas sector by declaring that the only way to reach that target is to cut fossil fuel output by 30 per cent in the next seven years.


Aly Hyder Ali, the oil and gas program manager with the advocacy group Environmental Defence, celebrates what he calls the first report to say that fossil fuel production would peak and decline this decade. But he says Canada and other rich countries are not doing enough.


"Current emissions reduction pledges from countries around the world are not ambitious enough to prevent further climate catastrophes," he said. 

Impediment to prosperity

The trouble with battling climate change is that it is expensive. While optimists insist everything will turn out right in the end, there are signs that in the short term, governments, lobbied by the enormously profitable fossil fuel industry, may be unwilling to pay that price.


The IEA report — an update to its Net Zero Roadmap — flies in the face of statements just a week ago in Calgary where Saudi Arabia's Energy Minister Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud insisted increases in oil prices must be modest. And therefore, so should any output cuts. 


The world must ensure that "energy is still affordable, and does not act as an impediment to economic prosperity and growth," he told the World Petroleum Congress.


Excess gas flaming from a stack
A flare stack burns off excess gas at a processing facility near Crossfield, Alta., on June 13. Advocates say Canada and other rich countries are not doing enough to curb emissions. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)


But according to the IEA, an independent agency funded by governments through the OECD, inexpensive oil may not be what the future holds if governments fail to spend trillions of dollars more on clean energy technology.


"Prolonged high [oil and gas] prices would result if the decline in fossil fuel investment in this scenario were to precede the expansion of clean energy and the action to cut overall energy demand," said the report.

In other words, climate investment must come first or gas prices will spike. 


The IEA's argument is a simple economic one. When governments invest in alternatives to fossil fuels, the demand for fossil energy will fall. And as demand falls, existing oil production will be sufficient to keep prices stable.

Counting the cost

The trouble is, repeated evidence shows spending on the kind of technology the world needs to keep fuel prices affordable is failing to keep pace with IEA targets.


In its latest net-zero outlook, the agency says a boom in clean energy tech would decrease the need for fossil fuels by 25 per cent by 2030 and 80 per cent by by 2050. But that transition will require the current global spending of $1.8 trillion US a year to rise to $4.5 trillion US. 


U.S. oil giant Exxon has expressed doubts that will happen, saying world temperature gains will cross the 2 C barrier and that emissions will only decline 25 per cent by 2050. 


"The underlying problem is that most mainstream politicians have embraced a convenient half-truth about climate change," writes Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times, warning that growing populist backlash could block the green transition.


Essentially, writes Rachman, green-friendly politicians have been ignoring the true costs of making the transition both in budgetary spending and in rising consumer anger, notably over gasoline prices. As governments face other budget demands and worry about short-term economic declines, their resolve is weakening.


Evidence includes U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's move last week to delay British climate goals, including a five-year delay in the ban on gas-burning cars and a nine-year delay in the phasing out of natural gas heaters. And there are fears that this kind of rollback could spread. Canada's Pierre Poilievre has promised to cut the carbon tax if elected. Former U.S. president and Republican front-runner Donald Trump offered rave reviews for Sunak's action.


WATCH | Emissions cap delayed by Canada says it's still coming:

Canadian climate commitments scrutinized at UN climate summit

7 days ago
As countries call for more urgent action on fossil fuel emissions, Canada was called out for expansion of fossil fuel production in the last year. Canada defended its record, pointing to the coming emissions cap of the country's oil and gas sector.



"I always knew Sunak was smart, that he wasn't going to destroy and bankrupt his nation for fake climate alarmists that don't have a clue," Trump wrote on social media.


Hyder Ali points to the Liberal government's repeated delays in capping emissions by the Canadian oil and gas industry, which he attributes at least partly to massive lobbying by the lucrative industry.


And it's not just climate-skeptical politicians who are voting with their wallets. Canadians with the cash to do so continue to jet around the world and cough up for trucks and large SUVs. They don't like expensive gas.

Signs of backsliding

Despite signs of backsliding, Rachel Doran, director of policy and strategy at Clean Energy Canada, a think-tank based at Simon Fraser University, remains optimistic that people will look past the short-term costs of stopping climate change.


"Our continued expansion of fossil fuels threatens to undermine our ability to achieve our climate target," said Doran. "As we've witnessed this past year, Canada's big oil companies are already walking back their climate commitments."


But Doran remains convinced that Canadian consumers will lead the way, partly because repeated polls show they care about the climate, but also because it will save them money. 


LISTEN | Mind the gap between the fossil industry and climate protests:
Cost of Living9:15Mind the gap


In a report out this morning Clean Energy Canada calculates that the owner of a detached home in Toronto can save $800 a month on energy bills mostly by going green. 


Doran calls the idea that people must choose between the climate and affordability "a false dichotomy."


"These are choices for everyone and they are just better, they're more efficient and they're more affordable," said Doran and the same applies to investment by business focused governments. 


"The export opportunities of tomorrow for Canada are going to be in clean energy industries," she said. "These are the industries that are growing globally whether or not Canada enacts its own climate policies."


Note: This is Don's last article as a business columnist for CBC as he retires and anticipates his next adventure.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

FIFA slammed over “insane” 2026 World Cup climate approach after Gary Lineker plea


FIFA has been accused of “shirking responsibility” by taking an “insane” approach towards the hosting of the 2026 World Cup.


The next World Cup will be hosted across Canada, the USA and Mexico in June and July 2026 after the united bid was chosen by FIFA members ahead of Morocco in June 2018. The tournament will see an increase from 32 to 48 teams and from 64 to 104 matches, and will be played in 16 cities across North America.


The expansion means more money – the bid promised to turn $14billion (£10.3bn) in revenue, thereby delivering an $11bn profit for FIFA – but lands organisers with many problems. One of the major ones concerns the environment, with the tournament taking place at the height of summer in countries which have been ravaged by wildfires recently.


Meanwhile, a huge carbon footprint is inevitable, with flying unavoidable due to the distances between host cities. For example, there are nearly 3,000 miles between the most northern venue, Edmonton, and the most southern, Mexico City. FIFA is yet to release its sustainability plan for the next World Cup, but has committed to reducing its carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and to reaching net zero by 2040, in accordance with the Paris Agreement.


Those aims are undermined by the decisions taken around its most important tournament, according to David Wheeler, the sustainability champion at the Professional Footballers' Association. “In a climate crisis it is quite clearly insane to have a World Cup across that size of area and with that amount of people,” he told Mirror Football. “Expanding it to 48 teams is a blinkered and narrow-minded approach.”


More at:




  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



The 2023 wildfire season is officially the most expensive and most destructive on record.

According to the B.C. Wildfire Service (BCWS), a total of 2,217 fires have been detected this year, burning almost 25,000 square kilometres of trees, bush and grassland. That makes it B.C.'s worst season by land burned, easily surpassing the previous record of 13,540 square kilometres in 2018.

The cost of fighting those fires is also significantly up, to approximately $770 million so far this year, more than the $649 million spent in 2017.

On Thursday, the B.C. government said higher-than-projected costs to fight wildfires had contributed an additional $2.5 billion to the province's projected deficit for this fiscal year.

The government is projecting the total spend for the 2023/24 fiscal year to be $966 million.

The majority of this year's fires — approximately 71 per cent — have been sparked by lightning, while 23 per cent are human-caused, the fire service says.

Underlying conditions of drought made B.C. particularly susceptible to wildfires this year, as tinder-dry conditions made it easier for flames to spread.

Many fires are still burning, though the service says cooler temperatures are helping ease pressure on crews.

Bans and evacuations lifting

Across most of B.C., the fire danger rating has dropped to low or very low as cool, damp fall weather arrives.

The BCWS says there have been no new fires in the last 24 hours, and of the 384 active fires burning in B.C., roughly three-quarters are ranked as under control or "being held," meaning they are not likely to spread.

Six wildfires of note — highly visible or potentially threatening blazes — are still listed, with four of them either in or straddling the Prince George Fire Centre spanning B.C.'s northeast quarter.


The two others are the 174-square-kilometre Kookipi Creek fire just north of Boston Bar in the Fraser Canyon, and the 168-square-kilometre Hell Raving Creek fire in the west Cariboo.

Cooler conditions mean all open fire prohibitions, including a ban on campfires, lifted on Wednesday in the Coastal Fire Centre and Cassiar, Skeena and Bulkley zones of the Northwest Fire Centre, while the Kamloops Fire Centre is set to remove its campfire ban on Thursday.

Bans remain in place in parts of the Prince George Fire Centre.

Evacuation orders lifted in West Kelowna

Evacuation orders and alerts have also been lifted for all but one property in West Kelowna, B.C., about five weeks after thousands were forced out of their homes by the fast-moving McDougall Creek wildfire.

Central Okanagan Emergency Operations says BCWS crews are now patrolling the fire's edge, working to extinguish any remaining hot spots, but it warns that nearby communities can expect to see smoke within the perimeter in the coming weeks.

The 139-square-kilometre McDougall Creek fire swept down on West Kelowna on the evening of Aug. 17, engulfing residential streets that were evacuated with little time to spare.

A provincewide state of emergency was declared the next day, as the same winds that fuelled that blaze fanned fires in the Shuswap region.

About half of the 400 structures or homes destroyed in B.C.'s record-breaking fire season have been lost in the Kelowna area.

The Central Okanagan centre also announced it is rescinding evacuation alerts and downgrading evacuation orders for the 11-square-kilometre Glen Lake wildfire west of Peachland.

The Thompson-Nicola Regional District Emergency Operations Centre announced it has rescinded all 124 remaining evacuation alerts in the vicinity of the 456-square-kilometre Bush Creek East wildfire, which destroyed almost 200 structures in the Shuswap.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York in a state of emergency


Governor Kathy Hochul has declared a state of emergency for New York City, the Hudson Valley, and Long Island due to the severe rainfall and flooding affecting these regions.

The emergency declaration is in response to the dangerous weather conditions that are expected to persist for the next 20 hours.



  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2023 at 12:50 AM, Gurn said:


Let's not forget the most important thing!  The smoke from the Canada wildfires stung my frickin' eyes off and on during the summer here in Buffalo!  Frickin' Canadian B*stards!!!!  😠😠😂

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sabrefan1 said:


Let's not forget the most important thing!  The smoke from the Canada wildfires stung my frickin' eyes off and on during the summer here in Buffalo!  Frickin' Canadian B*stards!!!!  😠😠😂

But I thought hot air rises, so how did Canada's smoke get down to Buffalo way? 

Must be some sort of market for smuggled smoke?

you just needed one of those Buffalo snow storms to clean up the air.-I still remember the pic you posted of that amazing storm coming over the lake.


  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...