Canadian Politics Today

It still has a long ways to go, but is immensely better than what I grew up with and already far better than many other rivers and lakes I have been around.

You need to dispense with the notion that "getting rid of the source" is a viable option when it comes to CO2. The choices are 1) waste money on pointless gestures that make no difference or 2) spend money on things that actually do make a difference such as better flood control measures.

It is certainly more rational than your blind faith that CO2 mitigation will accomplish something useful.

Remember that I am not claiming to know that adaption will work. I am only claiming that the chances that adaption will accomplish something useful are many times greater than the chances that CO2 mitigation will accomplish something useful.

Lets take flood control: we know how to build dams and dikes. We can pay to move people from high risk areas. More importantly, every dollar spent on dams or dikes or relocation will incrementally help some people.

OTOH, we can spend the same amount of money subsidizing wind and/solar or electric vehicles and reduce CO2 emission by some fraction of a percentage. All that money helps no one because the effect will be too small to matter.

To make matters worse, when we finally realize that adaption is the only option we will have made the cost of adaption higher by making it more expensive to run the heavy equipment and produce the concrete needed for dams and dikes. IOW, CO2 mitigation policies will harm more people in long run because they hinder our ability to adapt.

I understand the instinct to try and fix the problem at the source but in this case your instincts are simply wrong. The better strategy is to deal with the consequences as best as we can.

Again with the faulty analogies. No one needs to drink to live so the obvious solution is to stop drinking. Emitting CO2 is a necessary byproduct of modern society akin to the sewage that is produced by all our cities and farms. According to your logic humans should stop producing sewage because of the harms this sewage causes to the environment and building sewage treatment plants is an action only supported by the "deniers". I don't find such an argument to be rational.

Sure start the process by researching tech, adding carbon taxes or other measures that can be shown to be cost effective. But is also necessary to be realistic about what is likely to be accomplished over the next 30-50 years given the tech that we currently have available. The short answer is not much. If the alarmists are to believed and we can't wait 50 years then we are screwed and adaptation is the only option. If the alarmists are wrong then there is no rush and we can adapt as required while we hunt for alternatives to CO2 emitting energy.

There is simply no scenario where adaption can be ignored as strategy. There is no scenario where doing stupid ineffective things to pretend to reduce CO2 makes sense.

One thing to keep in mind: the people screaming the most about the "climate crisis" tend to be the people most opposed to nuclear power. This tells me that these people are being dishonest and don't really think it is a crisis. If they did they would not quibble about the risks of nuclear power - they would insist that every zero-emission power source be used.

Again with the irrelevant analogies. Emitting CO2 is like producing sewage. It is an unavoidable consequence of human society. The only difference from sewage is some yet be be discovered future tech might reduce the need or, more likely, allow us to build the equivalent of CO2 sewage plants economically. Until we find that tech we need to live with consequences and hope that doom mongers are completely wrong just like every doom monger that has appeared in the past.

What you are saying Tim is that it is impossible for the human race to do itself and much of the rest of the planet in. The earth has never had to contend with over 7 billion humans polluting it before. You are relying on faith alone.

Why do think that pissing away money on futile gestures to pretend to reduce CO2 emissions is anything other than blind faith?