[FatherOfTwo]

It matters simply because our entire western economic system is based on growth, and to get unconventional oil costs so much more there is nothing left over to grow the economy. We need not just any energy to run our system, we need cheap energy. Oil at $110/bbl was enough to stall growth, and it was only possible because those were the marginal barrels, most barrels cost far less because they were conventional.

That trope has been repeated on this site for over a decade now and it is as unsubstantiated now as it was over a decade ago. Oil is but one component of our energy sources and I have never seen compelling data which proves, let alone even data that looks compelling, that costly oil is the death knell of growth. It's unfortunate the argument is still trotted out because so much credibility is lost when it is used.

That said, there is loads of compelling data which shows we DO need to move away from carbon sourced energy due to the serious risks to the climate. It is also obvious that we need to move away from the drive for never ending growth but that problem will be much more difficult to tackle.

[FatherOfTwo]

Father - Is Canada really a "tiny" producer of AGW? I suppose that depends on how you measure it. Perhaps in absolute volumes of GHG. But is that fair: a smaller population might produce less in aggregate. But does the average Canadian produce less then the average Chinese? IOW do Canadians have the "right" to produce more GHG per person then the Chinese: Canadian GHG per capita is more then twice that of China. In fact Canadians produce about as much GHG per person as the US and Australia.

Our per capita usage is very high, that is for sure. We could do more with less but there are inescapable facts like weather and geography which account for a good percentage of our needs. It was -25C a day ago!

[Keith_McClary]

FF producing places have high per-capita emissions. In Alberta we're 15X China.
Large image

But Wyoming is the winner:

[ennui2]

You should also know that Canada's contribution to AGW is tiny compared to the major powers of the world. That is not an excuse but to blame Canada is pretty flippant.

And yet Canada did quite a flip-flop at the policy level in regards to AGW. They used to be a very liberal and rational country and they tilted right and anti-science once they got drunk on oil money. I think Canada deserves to be handled in a flippant way to have been suckered by short-term greed.

[Subjectivist]

It matters simply because our entire western economic system is based on growth, and to get unconventional oil costs so much more there is nothing left over to grow the economy. We need not just any energy to run our system, we need cheap energy. Oil at $110/bbl was enough to stall growth, and it was only possible because those were the marginal barrels, most barrels cost far less because they were conventional.

That trope has been repeated on this site for over a decade now and it is as unsubstantiated now as it was over a decade ago. Oil is but one component of our energy sources and I have never seen compelling data which proves, let alone even data that looks compelling, that costly oil is the death knell of growth. It's unfortunate the argument is still trotted out because so much credibility is lost when it is used.

Obviously I disagree. You may consider it a trope, however when prices were at a sustained high here in Toledo the economy never recovered. Despite what official statistics might say there are a great many people who were working in 2008 during the run up who are either working part time or unemployed today, but still in the working age portion of the population.

That said, there is loads of compelling data which shows we DO need to move away from carbon sourced energy due to the serious risks to the climate. It is also obvious that we need to move away from the drive for never ending growth but that problem will be much more difficult to tackle.

This part I fully agree with, unfortunately fracked natural gas and coal remain abundant and cheap on a national basis, and conventional gas and coal are the cheapest fuels internationally.

[Pops]

Despite what official statistics might say

LOL, yeah, can't trust those when we have perfectly good opinions that tell us differently.

Ascribing everything to high oil price is just as faulty as pretending it doesn't matter.

There are big structural change taking place that have nothing to do with PO.

[Keith_McClary]

And yet Canada did quite a flip-flop at the policy level in regards to AGW. They used to be a very liberal and rational country and they tilted right and anti-science once they got drunk on oil money. I think Canada deserves to be handled in a flippant way to have been suckered by short-term greed.

We tossed out the bible thumping racist greedy oil money drunks.

[ennui2]

And yet Canada did quite a flip-flop at the policy level in regards to AGW. They used to be a very liberal and rational country and they tilted right and anti-science once they got drunk on oil money. I think Canada deserves to be handled in a flippant way to have been suckered by short-term greed.

We tossed out the bible thumping racist greedy oil money drunks.

Since when?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... in-english

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/cameron-fe ... 05748.html

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/c ... ate-change

Those are just the most recent ones after a 2 second google search.

Going back in time.

http://friendsofginandtonic.org/files/b ... 2-215.html

http://friendsofginandtonic.org/files/e ... e-443.html

[Keith_McClary]

Since when?

In an election since those articles were written.