r/ClimateCrisisCanada

Pretty much the title. I see these so often on Reddit (and elsewhere) despite being debunked over and over (it's not like shills are paid to change their mind).

It would be nice to have an easy reference to counter these claims so we don't have to make a unique explanation of why every time. I think it would also be good to have more in depth responses for them (for the others reading the reply) instead of the usual shorter responses I and others typically have the energy/time for.

For example, why China producing a bunch of emissions doesn't mean no one else has to try until they're net-zero or whatever.

A wiki would be nice but I feel like a sticky thread might be better so we can do the work and not overload the mods with constantly updating the wiki so it doesn't become stale and not having to go through all the effort of the initial population of it.

“After a whole year of both levels of government saying we were going to hold out for a private proponent of the pipeline, we have another almost 100-per-cent-funded-by-taxpayer pipeline,” he said. “So, except for that 10 per cent that Pembina Pipeline would take on, this is a taxpayer-owned pipeline.”
-Chris Severson-Baker, executive director of the Pembina Institute, a non-partisan clean energy think tank.

Under the cover of a Canada Day holiday: June 30-Carney abandons Canadian emissions targets, breaking the promise he made to Elizabeth May to secure her support for his budget.
July 1-Ottawa, including Carney’s riding, is inundated with a climate change energized deluge if 12cm of rain, flooding parts of the city, damaging homes and infrastructure. Carney’s flight is delayed by the mayhem.
July 2-Carney breaks his promise to the nation that new pipelines must be totally private sector funded, backed up by carbon capture, supported by First Nations. This one is 90% funded jointly by Alberta and Trans Mountain Corporation - the company set up to run Trudeau’s $7.4B pipeline that actually cost Canadians $34.2B to build and doesn’t pay back enough to pay down the debt Canadians are holding.

The tone deafness is blinding.

The red-skin washing is no doubt just around the corner.

The carbon capture target was slashed by the industry from 68M tons to 16M tons just after the last MOU signing, and still has no credibility.

And even after this, Daniel Smith says this is only a step on the way from 4.5M bpd to 8M bpd.

What ever happened to “we don’t want to leave debts for our grand children”? Personally I’m staggered by how these people are so enthusiastic in leaving monstrous debts and a crushing environment for their own grandchildren.

Gordon G. Chang on X:

Unfortunately, the only way to open the Strait of Hormuz for more than a few days is to end Iran’s regime.

So, where's the conspiracy you ask?

Pickens spent all of his fortune, with all the effort he could muster in the last days of his life, trying to save us from the grifters on Wall Street and the warmongers in financial media, who all buried his practical and insightful message.

Hi folks, recently I came across a phenomenal study called "Quantifying the regional to global climate impacts of individual fossil fuel projects to inform decision-making." The authors found a way to estimate the amount of global warming that any individual fossil fuel projects will cause, and then they used this estimate to calculate various impacts. They describe the study for a general audience in an article published at The Conversation.

As someone who is staunchly opposed to expanding the LNG sector in Canada, as soon as I read the study, I knew that I wanted to quantify the impacts of proposed Canadian LNG projects. While I haven't seen emissions estimates for the new Trans Mountain pipeline, I am also hoping to run this analysis on the pipeline if estimates are released. Anyway, using the MATLAB code from the original study, I believe that I have quantified the impacts of Canadian LNG terminals in a way that is true to the original study. First, I estimated the total emissions of five LNG terminals, using the data from the CleanBC review, by adding up the annual upstream and downstream emissions from each terminal, and then multiplying by the lifespan of the project. Then, I ran the code using the total emissions estimates.

The results are astounding. I've provided central estimates in the table below, but I am happy to provide high and low estimates, too, if folks are interested. Perhaps the most shocking figure is the number of people who are living in places that will be pushed beyond the hot edge of the human climate niche, which is defined as an annual mean temperature exceeding 29°C. LNG Canada Phase 2 will push 979,560 people out of the human climate niche. Due to a lack of data availability, the study was only able to quantify additional heat deaths in Europe, but even the smallest LNG project, Tilbury, will cause 115 additional deaths in Europe by the end of the century, and presumably many others around the world. The study even found a way to quantify the number of additional coral reefs that will be lost in each bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef. For Ksi Lisims, this number is an astonishing 24.6 million.

Of these projects, only one has yet to pass its environmental assessment, and that is Tilbury, which the BC government is accepting public comments on until July 27th (Stand.earth has put together a helpful toolkit if anyone wants to make a comment).

Our politicians are failing us on the climate, and this emphasizes that the consequences will be severe.

LNG Canada Phase 2	Ksi Lisims	Woodfibre LNG	Cedar LNG	Tilbury LNG Phase 2
Annual Emissions (in millions tonnes of CO2e)	41.5	33.5	6	9.1
Lifespan (Years)	40	40	40	25
Total Emissions (Mt CO2e)	1660	1340	240	227.5
Contribution to Global Warming	0.000747°C	0.000603°C	0.000108°C	0.000102°C
People Exposed to a Mean Annual Temperature Exceeding 29°C	979,560	790,730	141,620	134,250
Additional Heat Deaths in Europe by 2100	917	741	133	126
Additional GBR Coral Colonies Lost (in millions)	30.5	24.6	4.4	4.2

BC Hydros plan is 50% growth by 2050. The Federal government is 100%. Why the discrepancy?

“Without the right growth trajectory, B.C. risks having to make difficult choices between industrial electrification and the electrification of homes and transportation that will help save British Columbians money at a time when gas prices and costs of living are high. EVs save typical drivers about $23,000 to $32,000 over 10 years of ownership, while heat pumps are the cheapest form of heating and cooling in most of the province. “