Novocastrian

I hope by that you mean "I accept that the science demonstrating that man-made climate change is happening is solid?"

Rather than "I believe in causing man-made climate change".

Just checking.

Almost Canadian

They're angry because Alberta has suffered floods? Weird.

Did you swim from New Zealand to Canada?

rwin

What I mean is that I don't see a lot of people getting out of their cars in Vancouver to do something about climate change. It's easy to blame Alberta for it. It's a lot harder to change lifestyle to do something about it.

Being part of the solution doesn't involve blaming someone else for the problem. If you really want to do something, don't create a market. And remember that Alberta isn't the only place oil comes from - removing the market goes beyond not approving a pipeline.

gryphea

You are right! The first!!

gryphea

Sure, but this flood is caused by climate; that its caused by climate change is a leap too far. So its a natural hazard, same as earthquakes. Can't really see what BCers are angry about. How can you get angry that another province has flooded. That's just plain weird

Like the others I think BCers are hypocritical. Our Vancouver office hardly recycles anything; in Calgary we even compost the coffee grounds. Whenever I go to BC I see giant ferries, float planes, and loads of motor boats; so a lot of demand for oil. I also see huge open pit mines; including fossil fuels and fracking too. Plus I see loads of cars stuck in endless traffic because they have to commute so far.

Steve_P

You didn't mention the huge areas of forest that have been clear cut.

Although it likely doesn't directly contribute to climate change it sure isn't environmentally friendly. Then again that's huge a area that is no longer going to absorb any carbon dioxide.

Novocastrian

I think between the two of you, the issues are being conflated. I think Kiwi was on about the pipeline through BC, not suggesting the the left coasters were angry about Calgary being inundated.

Novocastrian

Oh, but it does. Just for the reason you mentioned. Lower CO2 absorption.

Steve_P

If I understand correctly the pipeline itself is not "the" major issue. It's shipping the heavy stuff out by tanker that seems to be the big issue with a large number of B.C. residents, not all I know but a lot.

Otherwise why would they seem to be OK with a refinery on the coast and shipping lighter product overseas?

Steve_P

Sorta why I said "Then again".

Novocastrian

I think you're right. It was/is both the pipeline and what happens after the stuff reaches the ocean.

Edit: No-one in their right mind would link the CO2 emissions from the tar sands directly with the flood, and no-one in their right mind would link any single catastrophic event in a direct causal way with climate change.

It's the difference between weather (how it it this week) and climate (how it's been for the last 30 years) that counts.

gryphea

Oh, OK then. I think I have missed something, did it get approved? I thought the hearing wrapped up but no report or judgement?

Novocastrian

That's my understanding too.

Steve_

And I'm sure if the oilsands were in BC they would be left completely untouched.

It's the same country after all.

Half my neighbours seem to be from BC so clearly a lot of the BCers who aren't hugging trees voted with their feet.

Steve_P

Or any other province for that matter.