@ink_slinger @mpjgregoire but beyond just Canada's direct emissions we also have the 3rd largest proven oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela), the 17th largest proven natural gas reserves, and 15th largest coal reserves.
Whether it's burned in Canada or not (and mostly its not) if the world has any hope of meeting the Paris Accord goals most of those reserves will have to stay in the ground.
More than half of global GHG emissions come from countries contributing <5%. Each of them, individually, is irrelevant to combating climate change and if all of them decided to act that way then we have no hope of meeting the Paris Accord goals.
@ink_slinger and, since the system they are aiming to change is very complicated, it will be difficult to discern cause and effect over anything but long time frames.
So we may create for ourselves a big giant feelgood exercise and not realize we have done so for years and when it comes to climate change time is something we no longer have.
@ink_slinger I think the bigger problem, beyond simply repealing everything, is that climate policies will get complicated and have lots of policy knobs to turn. This will, at first glance, look like a good thing because it gives options and allows politicians to twiddle with those knobs to get buy in from various stakeholders.
However this also means that one can create an entirely useless policy that does nothing, climate wise, in a way that is totally obscure.
@ink_slinger one big difference, though, is that we generally know, in advance, that our interventions will work. We know vaccines work, we knew the Y2K bug was real and could simulate the effect of it, etc.
In a certain sense we don't know whether or not a given climate policy will work. Which is really important, I think.
@ink_slinger this kind of problem arises in a lot places. Public health being an obvious one, for the first generation of anti-vaxers there really was no negative consequence and the benefits of herd immunity are largely invisible.
This also comes up time and again with safety. People become lax about safety procedures because we cannot see all the accidents that didn't happen and so they are unreal to us.
@ink_slinger I mean in the parallel universe where the carbon levy was not repealed, there would be no point in the future where we would suddenly realize "ha! that was a great idea! vindication!"
Even if we were to recognize the climate change avoided, attributing the portion of that avoidance to Alberta's particular policy given the large and complex system of global governance would be essentially impossible.
@ink_slinger I think this is a major weakness of the more wonky and complicated climate change policies. All of these will have immediate negatives and any positive outcomes will largely be in the future, harder to measure, and not immediately obvious. So political pressure will always be on either repealing or just tweaking them to reduce the immediate costs, which unfortunately renders them useless.
@ink_slinger it's hard to fault people who just don't want to think about it. We all do this all the time with the plights of suffering peoples around the world, so why is it any worse to ignore the plight of people that have yet to be?
But that doesn't seem to be a universalizable choice, leading as it would to the worst outcome 🤔
Atmospheric #Methane Levels Are Going Up—And No One Knows Why
Methane are rising faster than #climate #experts #anticipated, triggering intense debate about why it's happening.
“And then, boom, look at how it changes here,” Dlugokencky says, pointing at a graph on his computer screen. “This is really an abrupt #change in the global methane budget, starting around 2007.”
Hmmm ... now we will experience in real time what a #TippingPoint is.
@JordiGH I carry around one of those super small ones (packs down smaller than a travel mug) on days when it is forecast to rain but more light showers than full on rainstorm.
I don't really want to be in wet clothes all day, but I also often don't want to wear or carry around a jacket (especially if it's hot/humid).
@JordiGH I think this is one of those things that is an arbitrary social norm. Everybody just does it that way and nobody really thinks about why.
There's nothing intrinsic about Edmonton (or Montreal for that matter) that preclude umbrellas. We just never developed an umbrella culture (for whatever reason) and so we make due with jackets.
When pressed for a reason people will make up a reason but they are generally flimsy because they aren't the real reason.
@JordiGH around here people mostly mention the wind. It is windy enough that often one can't use an umbrella.
As for inconvenience, I'm not convinced. There are far more densely populated places than Edmonton where umbrellas are the norm and everything works out fine.
I had no issues on a recent trip to Tokyo, for example, walking in huge crowds of umbrella toting people.
It's not so rare that when I pop my umbrella people point and shout Interloper! but umbrellas are a distant minority.
On my walk through downtown right now more people braved the rain in a jean-jacket than an umbrella.
I always find it weird that Edmontonians don't really use umbrellas. When it rains most people put on a rain jacket and a sizable minority just resign themselves to getting wet.