CPC Leadership Discussion 2020-21

[lenaitch]

Different motivations. Short to mid term profit is the order of the day, when we’re talking about issues that are on generational timeframes. Governmental leadership and incentive is called for here. If we really wanted to have fun, we could look at governmental subsidies for fossil fuel extraction. Conversely, look at how many technologies emerged out of money sinks like the space program that could not, in that era, have been in a corporation's interest (or arguably ability) to fund themselves.

We're still learning tons about the properties and capabilities of various materials both natural and synthetic. Things like battery storage, solar cell power capture and the like have advanced considerably. Electric vehicles are now market-competitive. Are there long term implications for infrastructure like beefed up power grids? Hell yes there are, and government will need to be part of that conversation.

At the end of the day, all of our daily pursuits consume energy. For a long time we got that energy by lighting things on fire and releasing chemical potential. That absolutely has detrimental impacts on the environment. But for a hundred years or so now we've seen the spread of electricity as a way to generate energy in one place and fashion and use it in another. That's the trajectory society and technology are on; it can be fought or it can be embraced. Economies that are dependent on that are not facing overnight extinction, but they ARE facing an existential crisis on a generational level. It doesn't need to be catastrophic if a transition is properly anticipated and led. That will mean showing people that they needn't fear for the roof over their head, and that they can learn new skills and industries to support their livelihood. The more single mindedly we prop up the petroleum economy, the harder and more painful the crash will eventually be. Plan on a twenty year timeframe to transition those regional economies to different sectors. There will still be some need and use for oil, but let's not assume the market will indefinitely sustain the demand that got us to where we are today. It won't. We're probably on the last generation of personal vehicles that will broadly use internal combustion, and transportation is fully two thirds of America's oil use, and probably similar up here. The pivot has already started.

Good post.

One problem is there are hardline positions on both sides. There are those who take the position that oil and gas will be dead in ~10 years, ignoring the enormous list of products and materials that use them as feedstock. No doubt there will innovations to find other sources, but unless we are willing to go back to a time where we lived and died, and everything we consumed, came from within sight of the church steeple of the town we were born in, transition will be a very long road.

Innovations in battery technology in terms of energy density and cost is happening all the time, but I'm not convinced that we will see a curve similar to what happened with, say, computing memory. For sure, transportation will see a big change. I doubt I will own an EV but no doubt my kid will. But in many aspects of high demand commercial use, I have a hard time envisioning non-fossil use unless it can be grid tied. The drill rigs, necessary to explore for the very minerals needed to produce the batteries, operate for weeks and months in a clearing in the bush.

The proposed policy statement was just that. The 'how' would have come later. The natural corollary to not recognize climate is real is obvious.

 

[lenaitch]

What horseshit. If Rio Tinto wants to make money, it should bear the risk. What the actual fuck?

Although no doubt every industry has their hand out for government money, there are all sorts of things the state can do besides simply getting out of the way, such as low/no interest loans, access to capital, etc. Exploration and proving, normally done before the Rio Tintos of the world get involved, is a long and costly process, usually done by junior miners and not always with positive results. Like it or not, negotiating buy-in from First Nations is time-consuming and costly. Even at the development stage, simple access to the electrical grid can become an issue. This is currently an issue in some areas of N/W Ontario where the capacity of the grid is limiting development.

Obviously, mineral resources in any given country is a matter of geological chance, and while Canada is generally well-blessed, we don't corner the market. Most if not all governments support their industries in one way or the other. If we wish to be competitive, we will have to play the game.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What horseshit. If Rio Tinto wants to make money, it should bear the risk. What the actual fuck?

Could the same not be said for Bombardier, SNC, Irving, et al?

 

[daftandbarmy]

What horseshit. If Rio Tinto wants to make money, it should bear the risk. What the actual fuck?

As long as they don't have to pay any taxes then, that should work

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Could the same not be said for Bombardier, SNC, Irving, et al?

Of course.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Good post.

One problem is there are hardline positions on both sides. There are those who take the position that oil and gas will be dead in ~10 years, ignoring the enormous list of products and materials that use them as feedstock. No doubt there will innovations to find other sources, but unless we are willing to go back to a time where we lived and died, and everything we consumed, came from within sight of the church steeple of the town we were born in, transition will be a very long road.

Innovations in battery technology in terms of energy density and cost is happening all the time, but I'm not convinced that we will see a curve similar to what happened with, say, computing memory. For sure, transportation will see a big change. I doubt I will own an EV but no doubt my kid will. But in many aspects of high demand commercial use, I have a hard time envisioning non-fossil use unless it can be grid tied. The drill rigs, necessary to explore for the very minerals needed to produce the batteries, operate for weeks and months in a clearing in the bush.

The proposed policy statement was just that. The 'how' would have come later. The natural corollary to not recognize climate is real is obvious.

Ugh, yes. Two words for this; petrochemicals and asphalt. Get rid of all the ICEs you want, but the EV cars have massive amounts of plastics and petrochemicals, and no one wants to go drive on gravel roads (or pay for concrete ones).

EV cars will reduce direct emissions, but don't eliminate our reliance on oil.

Which is why is so monumentally stupid to keep pretending climate action is the enemy of oil production. Investing in new technologies may reduce gasoline use, but enables us to stay relevant in the high tech developments spinning off from green tech aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Maybe spreads the oil use over longer time periods, but means we won't be looking at going to war over things like arable land, water or territory that is above the rising sea level (which we have but would lose). The CPCs are clinging to some kind of idealized vision of the past here instead of looking down the line; how many floods and wildfires do they need before they try something different?

 

[FJAG]

Ugh, yes. Two words for this; petrochemicals and asphalt. Get rid of all the ICEs you want, but the EV cars have massive amounts of plastics and petrochemicals, and no one wants to go drive on gravel roads (or pay for concrete ones).

EV cars will reduce direct emissions, but don't eliminate our reliance on oil.

Which is why is so monumentally stupid to keep pretending climate action is the enemy of oil production. Investing in new technologies may reduce gasoline use, but enables us to stay relevant in the high tech developments spinning off from green tech aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Maybe spreads the oil use over longer time periods, but means we won't be looking at going to war over things like arable land, water or territory that is above the rising sea level (which we have but would lose). Some CPCs are clinging to some kind of idealized vision of the past here instead of looking down the line; how many floods and wildfires do they need before they try something different?

FTFY

O'Toole promises 'comprehensive' climate plan 'before an election'​

Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole joined Power & Politics Monday to discuss his party's position on climate change and his party's plan for economic recovery.

Despite the fact that his party's members voted down a resolution to acknowledge that climate change is real, Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole says he'll present a plan to address climate change before the next election.
Speaking to CBC News Network's Power & Politics today, O'Toole would not say when that plan will be released, although he did offer some hints about what it would contain.
"I think when you look, literally about a third of our emissions as a country come down to about six or seven hundred single emitters," O'Toole told host Vassy Kapelos. ...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/otoole-kapelos-climate-environment-1.5959662

And lets not forget that:

(9.9 percent of 2018 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

Who's giving up their steaks?

 

[FSTO]

The conundrum of agriculture is that the Great Plains/Prairies/Steppe etc are massive carbon sinks but the grass and their roots require grazing animals to properly do their jobs. Since there are no more bison to do that job, we have cattle.

 

[FJAG]

The conundrum of agriculture is that the Great Plains/Prairies/Steppe etc are massive carbon sinks but the grass and their roots require grazing animals to properly do their jobs. Since there are no more bison to do that job, we have cattle.

Bison output just as much methane as a cow - maybe more.

 

[Good2Golf]

FTFY

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/otoole-kapelos-climate-environment-1.5959662

Like the little Dutch boy plugging his finger in the dike, or trying to close the gate after the horse have bolted. Not a very astute move for the party membership to set themselves up of a battle due to a self-inflicted wound.

And lets not forget that:


Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

Who's giving up their steaks?

Whataboutism?

Are you saying the CPC should also have addressed reducing agriculture?

 

[Halifax Tar]

The climate change denial debacle is a monumental mistake by the Cons. Honestly I am not sure there is any coming back from this. It pretty well hands the Liberals another win.

I am not sure I can continue to support this party anymore. I don't see me throwing my hat in with anyone else either.

Its the conundrum of being pro life, pro LGBTQ+ rights, pro gun, pro small gov and believing climate change...

 

[FJAG]

Like the little Dutch boy plugging his finger in the dike, or trying to close the gate after the horse have bolted. Not a very astute move for the party membership to set themselves up of a battle due to a self-inflicted wound.


Whataboutism?

Are you saying the CPC should also have addressed reducing agriculture?

Well, I was merely fixing the generality in Navy_Pete's broad statement about the CPC in general to the specific of a slight majority. What I'm saying is that sometimes crap happens and that some folks with axes to grind and who can't think two steps ahead will win out over almost the same number of people who can see more clearly - but that life goes on anyway.

As far as agriculture is concerned, no. It was just a snide comment to point out that global warming has numerous contributors.

BUT. The "climate change" provision was an amendment to an existing policy "53. Environmental Principles - Research and Development - Green technologies" that already specifies that the CPC understands that often environmental issues and development and industry are at odds and that all environment and energy initiatives should be reviewed, and that, amongst other things, tax incentives be used to promote environmental solutions. There are in fact nine policy statements about the environment in the CPC Policy Declaration (Policies 53 to 61). The motion to amend Policy 53, which rejected the phrasing that the CPC "recognizes that climate change is real", concurrently rejected a provision that said "businesses classified as highly polluting need to take more responsibility in implementing measures that will reduce their GHG emissions and need to be accountable for the results". Large sectors of the agriculture industry are in fact disproportionate contributors to GHG emissions and that needs to be clearly recognized and acted upon. So the answer to your question is that, yes the CPC should address reducing disproportionate GHG emissions from agriculture, that there are already some benign policy statements to do that and this could have been an even stronger policy statement in that direction.

Is it wrong to call out agriculture when it is part of the problem?

 

[Good2Golf]

Depends on what the issue is: deconstructing the components of greenhouse gas production and its effect on the climate; or assessing the impact of a policy element on the potential of the party to successfully challenge the current government.

 

[FJAG]

Depends on what the issue is: deconstructing the components of greenhouse gas production and its effect on the climate; or assessing the impact of a policy element on the potential of the party to successfully challenge the current government.

How about to assess the impact of a certain industry on the environment and then to create an appropriate, sustainable policy to mitigate harmful effects?

 

[Brad Sallows]

how many floods and wildfires do they need before they try something different?

What makes you believe reducing CO2 emissions is going to prevent floods and wildfires?

Apply a bit of scientific literacy and common political and journalistic sense and think through what climate alarmism is founded on. It's an inverted pyramid. At the bottom is a very small collection of scientists, working in a domain about which humanity has learned relatively little compared to the domain size, playing with very crude models full of their own assumptions to paper over the parts about which they don't really understand much, which is most of it. Cloud formation? Make a guess. Ocean effects? Make a guess. Effects of variation in solar radiation? Make a guess. They can't get to catastrophic temperature increases with CO2 alone (that requires massive increases in water vapour - wetter, not drier), so they build in made-up multipliers to produce wildly imprecise estimates of ranges of possible temperate change. (Do you consider yourself scientifically literate? Then ponder the relative paucity of positive feedbacks in the physical universe and the overwhelming common-ness of damping phenomena.)

Then they tout the most extreme scenarios and outcomes. Upon that, layer after increasingly large layer of people piles on echoing the same at-bottom unsubstantiated alarmism. Everything gets blamed on "climate change" (meaning, "alarming catastrophic average temperature changes", not "different tomorrow than it was today") if it falls outside a narrow range of recent experience. More rain/snow? Less rain/snow? Unseasonably hot? Unseasonably cold? "Climate change". A handful of 100-year weather events each year that are blasted all over the news, as if statistically we shouldn't expect several in a world with 1000s of possible locations for 100-year events? "Climate change".

Alarmism is politically convenient to extend the reach of power and authority, fiscally convenient to crack open the public trough, and socially fashionable. People picked a strange time to suddenly believe everything the politicians and journalists pass along.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What makes you believe reducing CO2 emissions is going to prevent floods and wildfires?

Apply a bit of scientific literacy and common political and journalistic sense and think through what climate alarmism is founded on. It's an inverted pyramid. At the bottom is a very small collection of scientists, working in a domain about which humanity has learned relatively little compared to the domain size, playing with very crude models full of their own assumptions to paper over the parts about which they don't really understand much, which is most of it. Cloud formation? Make a guess. Ocean effects? Make a guess. Effects of variation in solar radiation? Make a guess. They can't get to catastrophic temperature increases with CO2 alone (that requires massive increases in water vapour - wetter, not drier), so they build in made-up multipliers to produce wildly imprecise estimates of ranges of possible temperate change. (Do you consider yourself scientifically literate? Then ponder the relative paucity of positive feedbacks in the physical universe and the overwhelming common-ness of damping phenomena.)

Then they tout the most extreme scenarios and outcomes. Upon that, layer after increasingly large layer of people piles on echoing the same at-bottom unsubstantiated alarmism. Everything gets blamed on "climate change" (meaning, "alarming catastrophic average temperature changes", not "different tomorrow than it was today") if it falls outside a narrow range of recent experience. More rain/snow? Less rain/snow? Unseasonably hot? Unseasonably cold? "Climate change". A handful of 100-year weather events each year that are blasted all over the news, as if statistically we shouldn't expect several in a world with 1000s of possible locations for 100-year events? "Climate change".

Alarmism is politically convenient to extend the reach of power and authority, fiscally convenient to crack open the public trough, and socially fashionable. People picked a strange time to suddenly believe everything the politicians and journalists pass along.

No, no, Brad.

You have things all wrong:

Liberals are incapable of lying. They believe everything scientists say and everything that they do is motivated by the urge to make the world a better place.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are lying, science denying Neanderthals, who would sell their parents to make a quick buck.

Or something like that.

 

[Weinie]

What makes you believe reducing CO2 emissions is going to prevent floods and wildfires?

Apply a bit of scientific literacy and common political and journalistic sense and think through what climate alarmism is founded on. It's an inverted pyramid. At the bottom is a very small collection of scientists, working in a domain about which humanity has learned relatively little compared to the domain size, playing with very crude models full of their own assumptions to paper over the parts about which they don't really understand much, which is most of it. Cloud formation? Make a guess. Ocean effects? Make a guess. Effects of variation in solar radiation? Make a guess. They can't get to catastrophic temperature increases with CO2 alone (that requires massive increases in water vapour - wetter, not drier), so they build in made-up multipliers to produce wildly imprecise estimates of ranges of possible temperate change. (Do you consider yourself scientifically literate? Then ponder the relative paucity of positive feedbacks in the physical universe and the overwhelming common-ness of damping phenomena.)

Then they tout the most extreme scenarios and outcomes. Upon that, layer after increasingly large layer of people piles on echoing the same at-bottom unsubstantiated alarmism. Everything gets blamed on "climate change" (meaning, "alarming catastrophic average temperature changes", not "different tomorrow than it was today") if it falls outside a narrow range of recent experience. More rain/snow? Less rain/snow? Unseasonably hot? Unseasonably cold? "Climate change". A handful of 100-year weather events each year that are blasted all over the news, as if statistically we shouldn't expect several in a world with 1000s of possible locations for 100-year events? "Climate change".

Alarmism is politically convenient to extend the reach of power and authority, fiscally convenient to crack open the public trough, and socially fashionable. People picked a strange time to suddenly believe everything the politicians and journalists pass along.

And when things level out, which they will invariably will, climate alarmists will find another windmill to tilt at.

 

[ModlrMike]

The real problem with climate science, is that the scientists don't control the narrative.

 

[daftandbarmy]

No, no, Brad.

You have things all wrong:

Liberals are incapable of lying. They believe everything scientists say and everything that they do is motivated by the urge to make the world a better place.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are lying, science denying Neanderthals, who would sell their parents to make a quick buck.

Or something like that.

And that's exactly why the Conservatives need a new leader.

The current incumbent can't do much about changing that brand in the eyes of the consumer....

 

[Haggis]

And that's exactly why the Conservatives need a new leader.

The most popular personalities decided to take a pass on the party leadership this time around. Reasons and speculation abound as to why, but none of that matters now. We have who we have now and that's who we need to work with.