Hundreds of wildfires burning in Canada’s Northwest Territories have prompted emergency declarations and the evacuation of the capital city of Yellowknife by road and air.
Because to fix it, what they have to change is everything. The way things are powered, produced, financed and probably also governed. Nobody will vote for that. They’ll keep trying to patch things up until it really starts to falls apart and people take the pieces to put them together differently.
Effective prevention of climate change is and has been politically impossible, like you said.
Maybe I’m just depressed about it all but I’ve moved on to the unfortunate “resilience” (or acceptance) phase. It’s coming and it’s not slowing down. So what are we going to do about? The answers differ depending on where you live. Some places just aren’t going to survive. The ones that do are going to have strained resources to withstand extreme climate effects while simultaneously having a refugee problem.
Yes, some will fail but like evolution in living creatures, better adapted regions and ideas will survive and flourish. It’s the usual way in history. I figure it’s our job to start adaption where possible.
…because the way things are powered in the entire world influences temperature in the entire world? If everyone around me is shitting on the floor and I’m not, the smell is still going to be awful.
Yes, some provinces are almost completely green (if we only consider electricity, disregarding primary energy for transportation and heating), but apparently Canada more than makes up for this with other provinces, emitting so much that overall it still comes out as a top polluter for it’s weight.
But Canada is doing it’s part - they claim credit for all those forests as part of the climate change goal! (disclaimer: only when the trees are growing, not when they’re burning)
The problem is that the typical Republican does not believe this is related to climate change. When I suggested that my father-in-law laughed at me saying “yeah, everything is related to climate change huh?”
I have to admit I’m kind of with the conservatives on this. I mean, of course it’s an issues and humanitarian crisis and yet one more example why climate change is so important but ……
There’s already too much hyperbole here that makes me immediately want to discount this. Yeah, 20,000 is a lot of people to be affected but when you’re phrasing this as “entire cities” and “the capital city of the territory”, but the entire territory has fewer people than my “small suburb” ….
Edit to add: my university had a larger population than this “entire cities”. Can’t we talk about this serious issue without counter-productive hyperbole?
And as we enter the “Entire cities burning down” part of climate change the world will do… Absolutely nothing.
Because to fix it, what they have to change is everything. The way things are powered, produced, financed and probably also governed. Nobody will vote for that. They’ll keep trying to patch things up until it really starts to falls apart and people take the pieces to put them together differently.
Effective prevention of climate change is and has been politically impossible, like you said.
Maybe I’m just depressed about it all but I’ve moved on to the unfortunate “resilience” (or acceptance) phase. It’s coming and it’s not slowing down. So what are we going to do about? The answers differ depending on where you live. Some places just aren’t going to survive. The ones that do are going to have strained resources to withstand extreme climate effects while simultaneously having a refugee problem.
Yes, some will fail but like evolution in living creatures, better adapted regions and ideas will survive and flourish. It’s the usual way in history. I figure it’s our job to start adaption where possible.
Are you an idiot? Answer: Yes.
Canada is already 80%+ green. Far higher than any other country its size.
Uhh… I don’t think the atmosphere is capable of saying “oh, this country polluted less, let’s throw the wildfires at a different one”
They claimed a direct relation to how things are powered to the wildfires.
…because the way things are powered in the entire world influences temperature in the entire world? If everyone around me is shitting on the floor and I’m not, the smell is still going to be awful.
And has still one of the highest emissions per capita worldwide, if we ignore insignificant countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Yes, some provinces are almost completely green (if we only consider electricity, disregarding primary energy for transportation and heating), but apparently Canada more than makes up for this with other provinces, emitting so much that overall it still comes out as a top polluter for it’s weight.
Disingenuous source. Maybe take the time to read it next time.
Are you joking? Pick any source you want, the numbers don’t change much.
Both https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=CA and https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/canada#per-capita-how-much-co2-does-the-average-person-emit see Canada at around 16 tons/year/capita, in line with Wikipedia.
The Canadian government itself puts an even higher number on it:
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
If you want to argue with this, can you support your opinion with any source?
But Canada is doing it’s part - they claim credit for all those forests as part of the climate change goal! (disclaimer: only when the trees are growing, not when they’re burning)
Man that’s pretty disheartening. Guess I’ll just go to bed now.
The problem is that the typical Republican does not believe this is related to climate change. When I suggested that my father-in-law laughed at me saying “yeah, everything is related to climate change huh?”
I have to admit I’m kind of with the conservatives on this. I mean, of course it’s an issues and humanitarian crisis and yet one more example why climate change is so important but ……
There’s already too much hyperbole here that makes me immediately want to discount this. Yeah, 20,000 is a lot of people to be affected but when you’re phrasing this as “entire cities” and “the capital city of the territory”, but the entire territory has fewer people than my “small suburb” ….
Edit to add: my university had a larger population than this “entire cities”. Can’t we talk about this serious issue without counter-productive hyperbole?