5 ms·

I've been thinking about this quote a lot recently - "Canada, the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wa

I've been thinking about this quote a lot recently - "Canada, the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wake. Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money." It's attributed to a canadian Aboriginal but could apply to any industrialized or semi industrialized country. Hopefully we save ourselves before it's too late

claydavisss 8y ago
Canada has a terrible environmental record that completely undermines its progressive reputation. The tar sands project may be the single most egregious resources undertaking in history. But other so-called progressive industrialized nations aren't much better. Norway is also wealthy primarily due to the extraction of fossil fuels.
- myth_drannon 8y ago
  Hopefully with the oil prices so low and keep getting lower, the tar sands is a dead project
  - jcelerier 8y ago
    > with the oil prices so low and keep getting lower cries in french
  - gnosis89 8y ago
    Low prices means higher consumption, which will do the opposite of kill off that project.
- myth_drannon 8y ago
  260$ billion to clean up Alberta's oilpatch https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/11/01/what-would-it-cost-to-clean-up-albertas-oilpatch-260-billion-a-top-official-warns.html https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/11/01/what-...
- farrisbris 8y ago
  Sheeeet.. Norway is in the middle of trying to figure this out. Or we are where we have always been: Pretending to do everything we can to protect the climate while actually doing almost nothing that would impact our standard of living. Its hard to tell if we are actually moving the discussion forward or not. We are happy to spend billions funding rainforrests around the world, but we won't make any hard choices that affect us at home. Stopping the national subsidies for oil exploration is something that would probably stop it dead in its tracks. But we are not doing that. We are instead in the process of opening new areas for explorative drilling. There might be some truth to the "clean oil technology" talk, but it doesn't change the fact that oil == carbon. The only reason we havn't started drilling in "Lofoton"( our famous fishing grounds and home of a lot of magnificent scenery constantly posted on reddit ) is that a few small swing parties are putting their foot down. All the larger parties want to drill. As they always have. Its depressing. We do have the fairly new(in terms of actually being voted for) "Green" party which is basically a single-issue party. I'm hoping they can steer the conversation to a point where will be able to make hard choices. Not to derail too much, but this also applies to everything else we do or dont do. Like not cutting arm sales to the saudies etc. Its money talks all the way. Edit: and don't get me starte on wolves. Even while the majority of norwegians seemingly wants wolves in our forests, we seem to be dead set on limiting their numbers to a population which is not going to sustain itself genetically. Rip wolves.
  - biglenny 8y ago
    What? I'm in the industry and believe me, Norway is making transitions. Statoil -> Equinor. Your SWF no longer will invest in fossil fuels. Wayyy more mandates regarding emissions/pollution during extraction. They shouldn't just stop drilling. It is a moneymaker for the country and gives the government lots of money to spend on policies which reduce the country's emissions. Norway produces lots of oil relative to the country's size so if they took it off the market, it would just come from somewhere with less standards and less commitment to the environment. They should make calculated moves which don't risk the country's economic future. Taking the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world's money out of FF stocks is a good way to start, and doesn't jeopardize much, if anything. Green's only purpose should be to change the dialogue, not to be given any legislative power whatsoever. They will make drastic moves which will yield economic consequences felt by the public. Reality is, people have to be in good economic circumstances to care about altruistic goals like curtailing climate change. Take those good economic circumstances away from them - and suddenly the environment is no longer much of a priority.

claydavisss 8y ago

Canada has a terrible environmental record that completely undermines its progressive reputation. The tar sands project may be the single most egregious resources undertaking in history. But other so-called progressive industrialized nations aren't much better. Norway is also wealthy primarily due to the extraction of fossil fuels.

myth_drannon 8y ago
Hopefully with the oil prices so low and keep getting lower, the tar sands is a dead project
- jcelerier 8y ago
  > with the oil prices so low and keep getting lower cries in french
- gnosis89 8y ago
  Low prices means higher consumption, which will do the opposite of kill off that project.
myth_drannon 8y ago
260$ billion to clean up Alberta's oilpatch https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/11/01/what-would-it-cost-to-clean-up-albertas-oilpatch-260-billion-a-top-official-warns.html https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/11/01/what-...
farrisbris 8y ago
Sheeeet.. Norway is in the middle of trying to figure this out. Or we are where we have always been: Pretending to do everything we can to protect the climate while actually doing almost nothing that would impact our standard of living. Its hard to tell if we are actually moving the discussion forward or not. We are happy to spend billions funding rainforrests around the world, but we won't make any hard choices that affect us at home. Stopping the national subsidies for oil exploration is something that would probably stop it dead in its tracks. But we are not doing that. We are instead in the process of opening new areas for explorative drilling. There might be some truth to the "clean oil technology" talk, but it doesn't change the fact that oil == carbon. The only reason we havn't started drilling in "Lofoton"( our famous fishing grounds and home of a lot of magnificent scenery constantly posted on reddit ) is that a few small swing parties are putting their foot down. All the larger parties want to drill. As they always have. Its depressing. We do have the fairly new(in terms of actually being voted for) "Green" party which is basically a single-issue party. I'm hoping they can steer the conversation to a point where will be able to make hard choices. Not to derail too much, but this also applies to everything else we do or dont do. Like not cutting arm sales to the saudies etc. Its money talks all the way. Edit: and don't get me starte on wolves. Even while the majority of norwegians seemingly wants wolves in our forests, we seem to be dead set on limiting their numbers to a population which is not going to sustain itself genetically. Rip wolves.
- biglenny 8y ago
  What? I'm in the industry and believe me, Norway is making transitions. Statoil -> Equinor. Your SWF no longer will invest in fossil fuels. Wayyy more mandates regarding emissions/pollution during extraction. They shouldn't just stop drilling. It is a moneymaker for the country and gives the government lots of money to spend on policies which reduce the country's emissions. Norway produces lots of oil relative to the country's size so if they took it off the market, it would just come from somewhere with less standards and less commitment to the environment. They should make calculated moves which don't risk the country's economic future. Taking the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world's money out of FF stocks is a good way to start, and doesn't jeopardize much, if anything. Green's only purpose should be to change the dialogue, not to be given any legislative power whatsoever. They will make drastic moves which will yield economic consequences felt by the public. Reality is, people have to be in good economic circumstances to care about altruistic goals like curtailing climate change. Take those good economic circumstances away from them - and suddenly the environment is no longer much of a priority.