How would a liberal reply to the climate change rhetoric if this was said..

[stand@desk]

Our Minister of the Environment keeps saying the phrase: "Our generation is the first one to feel the effects of climate change and the last one to be able to act on it."

I was wondering if one responded to this tidy assumption: "We'll do you want us all to become minimalists then?"

Liberal Minister: No, we need a tax base and an economy, being a minimalist is not for everybody etc..blah blah..

I'd just like to see the reaction and backtracking from such a response to the liberal climate agenda since they don't believe in negative correlations.

[jacob]

What is a liberal climate change agenda?
What is a conservative climate change agenda?
What is your plan?

[J_]

A: go Ere
B: idem
C: reduce further energyuse, stuff and react to whats happening in nature.produce some food

[chenda]

"We'll do you want us all to become minimalists then?"

Yes.

[stand@desk]

The liberal climate change agenda in our country is full of competing objectives. A Big battle over a carbon tax from both major political parties. You can also see a major battle over a gas tax in France (off-topic). But the current party in control is establishing the tax which is hurting business and some of that business has already left the country (gone south of the border). The liberal agenda includes buying and tripling capacity of an existing oil pipeline and constructing a major natural gas export terminal. Then at the same time we get comments like the one mentioned from the same government. Basically putting one foot on the gas and one foot on the brake at the same time.

"Our generation is the first one to feel the effects of climate change and the last one to be able to act on it." So we intend to buy a pipeline and triple its capacity and then build a $40 Billion Natural Gas Export Terminal. (I made the last sentence up but that is what they are planning.)

Seems like competing objectives to me. Wanting to look like the moral/environmental authority for taking action by creating a carbon tax, but at the same time expanding oil and gas production for the economy. Our PM also went on record saying the carbon tax plan wouldn't really change the environment.

In summary, I just don't like being patronized with such a comment as the one quoted above. I think it's inappropriate with all of the other considerations of people, life and economics excluded from it.

What is my plan? I am pretty much a minimalist..but I believe oil is needed for modern life. Actually I know it is needed. I don't like to take it for granted and make generalizations about it because without it life would be unbelievably different from the standard of living we have enjoyed.

[stand@desk]

And one more thing, the quote is more about the politics than the climate change part. I don't like the quote of how it plays politics and doesn't help the climate any. And also passes on guilt verbally, but actions taken are in direct opposition to the quote. Anyway..just needed to rant and put it on the table for the forum to comment on.

[tonyedgecombe]

Anyway..just needed to rant

I thought that was what you were doing.

Framing the problem as liberal or conservative is part of the problem, it is unnecessarily divisive and gets us nowhere.

[7Wannabe5]

Well, it's not like Canada (or any other modern large nation-state) would likely hold together very well if messages and goods had to be sent from Toronto to Vancouver via Pony Express.

[stand@desk]

Feel like tripling down on this topic..

Just imagine if the quote was reversed to:

"We are the last generation to feel the effects of climate change, and the first to be able to act on it."

Could be at least partially true, as equally or moreso partially true as the inverse. If the actions being proposed are so great and X political party is so responsible to be taking action, I suppose they have it covered then right? And first to be able to act on it..sure, why not..they apparently say they were voted in to do something about it and now they are! And with all this new green technology they are now in position to act on this. Previous parties were not so showered with the riches of these great new green technological advances. Perfect!

Hopefully there will be no quadrupling down but I have only had one cup of coffee so far..

[jacob]

"Our generation is the first one to feel the effects of climate change and the last one to be able to act on it."

It's a common phrase. Let's unpack it:

The first half implies there's a lag time between past emissions and present effects. The climate change we're seeing now is caused by emissions/policies from 30-40 years year ago. This also means that our present emissions policies will determine the climate seen 30-40 years from now. This is basic physics. However, it's only in the recent-most decade that non-scientists have been able to "feel the effects" personally, perhaps noticing the weirdness in their backyard, the missing insects, or the increasing impact of wildfires, floodings, ... Hence "the first generation to feel" and not just know scientifically as has been the case for many generations now.

The second half implies that humans are still nominally in control of where the climate because we're still the dominant source of emissions. However, there are non-linear climatic tipping points which if reached would result in the climate system just taking off. One example would be methane beds. If it gets warm enough and they start emitting substantially more greenhouse gases than humans, then it doesn't really matter much anymore what humans do in terms of emissions. This is what is meant by "the last one able to act on it". We're the last generation because the tipping points lie somewhere around +2-3C and the emissions we're putting out now (in this generation) determines whether we lock this in (for the next generations).

If these tipping points are triggered, it is basically too late for mitigation. The climate system will proceed on its own accord and the next generation will only have the option to adapt. This is why climate scientists talk of 2C+ as dangerous. It's not because 2C+ is innately dangerous (even though it's pretty sucky) but that going past 2C means a high risk of losing control and going to 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ... and so on.

[7Wannabe5]

The Advice of the 7 Grandfathers (from legend of Native American tribe of my region)

1) To seek knowledge is to know wisdom.
2) To know love is to know peace.
3)To honor all creation is to have respect.
4) Bravery is to face the enemy with honor.
5) Humility to face a tough problem is to be brave.
6) Honesty is to know yourself as a part of creation.
7) Truth is to know all of these things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIXak7HH5ds

[Dream of Freedom]

There is a lot of hypocrisy with people and ones who talk about climate change are no exception. Al Gores with their SUVs are generally the rule not the exception. That said if you make regulations too onerous too quickly you risk slowing growth and pushing manufacturers to countries with fewer regulations. Encouraging the development and adoption of energy efficient technology has been the preferred method in the United States because it is relatively benign, but it is a slow process and isn't considered aggressive enough to some. At some point they are going to have to start discouraging use of fossil fuels.

[Dream of Freedom]

@Jacob The earth has been increasing in temperature since the last ice age. When would we reach your tripping points without human interference?

[jennypenny]

@DoF--Wouldn't things be plateauing or cooling off by now?

[Dream of Freedom]

Perhaps, I don't know, I am not a scientist. I am curious and asking a question.

[jennypenny]

I wasn't being argumentative. I was asking because I thought that's what I had read -- that we'd be very slowly drifting back towards glaciation. Sorry if it sounded rude.

[Dream of Freedom]

It's quite alright.

[jacob]

@DoF - It's complicated, so brace for impact ...

It appears that planet Earth's climate is bi-stable. Humans and in particular human civilizations evolved during a glacial (there are glaciers and icy poles on the planet) stage. There's another non-glacial stage as well. Bi-stable means that transitions are quick. Quick means short centuries, potentially a few decades, human lifespans.

Homo Sapiens evolved during a glacial stage. More important, human agriculture evolved during a particularly stable era of a glacial stage, and human civilization as we know it developed during the last 200 years. Even permaculture assumes a form of agriculture (as opposed to mammoths and seals on ice) as a foundation for human culture. When "some people" say that climate will and has always changed, they ignore that the range of Earth's climate change easily exceeds what makes agriculture impossible even even exceeds what makes the air too deficient of oxygen for mammals to breathe. Humans don't do well at 14%. This climate is a physical possibility because it happened in the past and may happen in the future. When politicians say that climates always change and that it's a natural cycle, keep in mind that the climate has literally been unbreathable to human mammals during some of the times that are lackadaisically referred to and that these climate changes would be "felt" like as a heavy case of end-stage COPD if experienced in person.

Geologically, climate change has mainly been driven by volcanic activity. Whenever climate has changed too fast, it has resulted in mass extinctions. The one time when climate didn't drive mass extinctions was the K-Pg extinction event (the 5th one, 65 mill years ago, the dinosaurs) which is believed to be caused by a meteorite impact. Everything else though ...

Current climate change happens MUCH faster than any of the previous 5 mass extinctions. Here we are, at the sixth one.

If humans weren't emitting CO2 the planet would indeed be cooling. This is driven by Milankovich cycles (planetary orbits and angles). The temperature would be moving down, slowly. Instead we're now at +1C with 0.5C+ more baked in. It's hard to model non-linear effects, but somewhere between 1 and 3C these tipping points will be triggered (this means it might already have happened if we're somewhat unlucky). Once triggered, the world might very well eventually turn into a hot house that will only be able to sustain some 500-1000 million humans. (It's not zero because humans are very resilient).

If humans hadn't invented fossil fuels or something equally destructive, we'd be subject to either an inexorable cooling leading to the next ice age and hunting whatever is left after agriculture dies ... (several thousands of years from now) ... or volcanic activity triggering the climate past the tipping points into something that looks like the Eocene .. again beyond agriculture and civilization as we know it.

[Dream of Freedom]

Fascinating. Thanks for indulging me.

[jennypenny]

@DoF--Some of this video is remedial stuff, but it explains Milankovich cycles and how they affect the climate.