"Downstream" Pollution

[Drip_Torch]

Oh, so here I stand again, corrected by the people that don't seem to understand what "per barrel", or "per capita" means.

[twobits]

Oh, so here I stand again, corrected by the people that don't seem to understand what "per barrel", or "per capita" means.

And then there are those that deny that Canada is only 2% of global emissions and yet we must fall on our economic swords to save the planet from extinction.
Until there is a clear and affordable alternative to fossil fuel for the entire planet, punishing ourselves into energy poverty makes little sense especially when our current 2% contribution....even if you believe in the man made climate change story, is going to do squat.

[fluffy]

Oh, so here I stand again, corrected by the people that don't seem to understand what "per barrel", or "per capita" means.

Oops, missed that. Still, the comment on overall national emissions still stands.

[fluffy]

...Until there is a clear and affordable alternative to fossil fuel for the entire planet, punishing ourselves into energy poverty makes little sense...

That's the meat of it right there. As I've said a hundred times, our clearest course to transition away from the burning of fossil fuels in the near future is through effective exploitation of that resource in the here and now. Is there a replacement for the billions upon billions that the oil & gas sector pours into the Canadian economy every year?

[Drip_Torch]

Oh, so here I stand again, corrected by the people that don't seem to understand what "per barrel", or "per capita" means.

Oops, missed that. Still, the comment on overall national emissions still stands.

Yes, and a number of times this week I've posted my thoughts on that. We're not far off, but we are looking at it from a few degrees of separation. I have a pragmatic outlook on what's going to happen, who's going to pay the brunt of it, and what the net effect is going to be. For example, one day, almost as if by magic, the column that the emissions go into once ships leave a shore, gets shifted in the equation to the shore it leaves from.

Answer to the hop on a jet crowd - let's grab a few more bucks from the inelastic demand that exists. Answer to the I can't afford this crap crowd - I'm not going to upgrade or participate in a newer technology.

[fluffy]

Yeah, that's what's bugging me. The biggest potential for GHG production is in the burning of the fuel, not in the production. There's something not quite right about washing our hands of any responsibility for the end use of the product when we are, in effect, the enabler. How many people disagree with the idea that cigarette producers should help pay for the damage their product does?