13:27:33 From  Ted Manning  to  Everyone:
	Dear colleagues,
	
	You may be interested in this recent article by Tom Murphy et al. on the question of the planetary limits: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629621003327
	
	They cite the Club of Rome and "The Limits to Growth" extensively, and they propose to create a "PLAN," that is a group of scientists who work 	to implement global policies based on the knowledge of the ecosystem limits.
	
	You will notice how they are proposing more or less the same thing that the Club had been proposing for 50 years!  On the one hand, it confirms 	the validity of our approach. On the other hand, it shows how difficult it is to plan at the global level.  In any case, it is an interesting initiative. Maybe the presidents would like to contact them and involve the Club in some way?
	
	All the best, everyone.
	
	Ugo

13:47:29 From  Peter Mackinnon  to  Everyone:
	Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets are not in irreversible retreat.  I speak as a glaciologist and long time paleoclimate researcher based on ice cores and radioglaciology.

13:54:23 From  John Mcclintock  to  Everyone:
	In many countries, there is a strong and active fossil fuel lobby.  Somewhat understandably, they are reluctant to downsize their sector because they are doing themselves out of a livelihood.  In effect they are impeding the downsizing of the fossil fuel sector.  If they were guaranteed a livelihood outside fossil fuels, perhaps they would not resist its downsizing.  So, what would you think of compensating all the workers who are faced with the prospect of losing their job?  If they were well compensated, maybe they would not be so opposed to the downsizing of the sector?

14:02:44 From  Raymond Leury  to  Everyone:
	Note that oil & gas refers to the production of oil and gas, not the consumption.

14:05:12 From  John Mcclintock  to  Everyone:
	Would you support the establishment of 'global rules' such as every country should reduce its emissions by x, y or z % per year, according to its level of income per citizen?  The Kyoto Protocol was an attempt at global rules, but these were not accepted by the US and Canada repudiated the Kyoto Protocol after it had ratified it.  The US complaint was that so-called 'developing countries' got off scot free.  The US feared that this would give the developing countries an unfair competitive advantage.  However, the rules could be fairer--all countries (developed and developing) emitting more than the safe individual level (about 2 tonnes per person per year) could be obliged to lower their emissions.  If the rules were fair, perhaps the US and Canada would be prepared to accept and respect them.  Would you support global climate rules which are fair?

14:05:14 From  Brian Barge  to  Everyone:
	Minimizing fossil fuel consumption would certainly put a damper on production!

14:06:12 From  Raymond Leury  to  Everyone:
	Brian, you are correct.  If you think about that, transportation is almost 100% from fossil fuels, so reducing that would have a large impact on the production side.

14:11:23 From  David Pollock  to  Everyone:
	Cost of carbon capture equipment and plants like Iceland would be in the trillions of dollars to meet annual global requirements.

14:12:41 From  John Hollins  to  Everyone:
	Fundamental requirement: Canada and the world must stop burning fossil fuels if global heating is to be brought under control. Period. It’s that simple.

14:12:55 From  Raymond Leury  to  Everyone:
	Current costs are one thing--much too high to be practical, but we can expect the cost to decrease significantly over time if the industry is able to scale up.

14:13:24 From  Roy Culpeper  to  Everyone:
	There is a moral case for the rich countries compensating the poor countries and small island states for loss and damage due to climate devastation, since the rich countries are largely responsible for climate change and the poor countries suffer some of the worst consequences.  Talks have been going on for several years under the Warsaw International Mechanism initiated at COP19, but don’t seem to be moving the needle much on this issue. Comments?

14:14:04 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	Re: CCC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8  [This a "The Australien Government has made an ad about Carbon Capture and Storage, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative."  It is a comedic not-so-subtle critique of CCUS.  Ed.]

14:14:20 From  Raymond Leury  to  Everyone:
	Chrysler only has 3 models on the market, one of which used to be a Dodge, so Chrysler is not significant unfortunately.

14:21:08 From  John Meyer  to  Everyone:
	Question on Surprises.

14:22:14 From  Peter Mackinnon  to  Everyone:
	I hand the opportunity to speak with the heard of the IEA just before the onset of the pandemic at a seminar at uOttawa.  He reported to me wi th respect to my question that the Agency is looking into converting fossil fuel pipelines for transporting water, in support of Geoff's notional use of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

14:23:22 From  Dave Dougherty  to  Everyone:
	Might fertilizing fields with crushed basalt, allowing formation of carbonate through weathering and increasing phosphorus in the soil, draw down enough carbon to prevent a runaway greenhouse effect?

14:24:25 From  Mike Nickerson  to  Everyone:
	Can you see a role for a cultural shift in reducing carbon emissions?
	
	If people spend more time enjoying what life offers-—relationships, learning, sport, creativity. appreciation, helping out and the like-—rather than consuming industrial products, their CO2 contributions would be reduced.
	
	It is something that anyone can do, without waiting for government or industry.  It could reduce human emissions to within the range that renewable energy can provide.
	
	Could "More Fun, Less Stuff" be added to the belt-tightening and massive industrial build-out in our efforts to address climate change?

14:26:40 From  Brian Barge  to  Everyone:
	A direct attack on consumption.  More fun less stuff!

14:27:16 From  Ralph Martin  to  Everyone:
	Pierre Dansereau talked of 'happy frugality.'  [I suspect the Dansereau in question is discussed here: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/pierre-dansereau  AND here  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Dansereau  Ed.]  

14:28:35 From  Peter Mackinnon  to  Everyone:
	Clathrates in ocean sediment and permafrost are a major source of methane.

14:32:59 From  Gordon Kubanek  to  Everyone:
	At what point do we give up on the system and just prepare for the inevitable?

14:33:04 From  Ted Manning  to  Everyone:
	We may have fooled ourselves.  We tried to limit production where consumption is the real issue.    If humans worship consumption, someone will satisfy it, and history shows us that they will ignore all else in doing that.

14:34:27 From  Tom Webb  to  Everyone:
	Consumption is driven by advertising paid for by the billionaires who want increasing consumption.

14:36:25 From  Raymond Leury  to  Everyone:
	When talking about the electrification of the transportation system we always talk about direct emissions.  Should we not also talk about the reduction in production emissions and methane leakage?

14:37:51 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	Can you imagine a scenario in which Canadians would reduce consumption/emissions by 50% by 2030 voluntarily?  (N.B.: we have no short-term viable substitutes for fossil fuels so this would probably crash the economy.)

14:38:43 From  John Hollins  to  Everyone:
	Geoff asked what can we do to reach the public?  Roy Culpepper (G78) has had a letter in the Globe, CACOR is thinking about advocacy.

14:38:50 From  Tom Webb  to  Everyone:
	In a quasi-democracy large corporations and our billionaires run government.

14:39:27 From  Beate Weber  to  Everyone:
	What do you think about much better protecting natural sinks like estuaries with their highly efficient potential marshes, seagrass, and crustaceans?

14:42:12 From  Madeleine Aubrey  to  Everyone:
	There is  a Just Transition Act which is going to try and do just that.

14:42:18 From  Raymond Leury  to  Everyone:
	There is around $1B allocated for that [just transition], but I don't know the specifics.

14:44:22 From  paulhenrybeckwith@gmail.com  to  Everyone:
	Ocean Pasture Restoration is a promising idea.

14:46:20 From  Raymond Leury  to  Everyone:
	Ted, I 100% agree that the problem is on the demand side.  As you said, it's like drugs that without demand there would be no supply.

14:48:01 From  zack jacobson  to  Everyone:
	Do you think governments can lead by withdrawing permissions for fossil fuel extraction?

14:48:10 From  Raymond Leury  to  Everyone:
	William [Rees], the price of wind and solar has dropped significantly in the last 10 years.  Alberta is deploying large amounts of solar and wind because of that.

14:51:29 From  Tom Webb  to  Everyone:
	Visit schools every month and talk to the students.

14:53:13 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	Not true re: costs.  Only manufacturing costs (panels and turbines) have fallen, not the cost of integration into the grid.  Absent subsidies and credits, it wouldn't be happening.  Moreover,because of supply problems, even manufacturing cost have increased 20% in the past year.

14:53:21 From  Roy Culpeper  to  Everyone:
	Terrific presentation Geoff, well done.  Your optimism is based on sound reasoning, not wishful thinking.

14:54:26 From  Beate Weber  to  Everyone:
	Don’t forget about melting glaciers and the loss of supply of water for billions of people.

14:58:15 From  Phil Reilly  to  Everyone:
	Our Federal Government is not just the current government!  How do we get alternate visions which are appropriate to our topic?

14:58:26 From  Goetz Schuerholz  to  Everyone:
	There is a lot of talk these days in Europe, pushed by France, to declare nuclear power an emission-free sustainable energy source.  A highly dangerous move, I say.  Nobody knows yet how to deal with nuclear waste and industry should not be channelled in the wrong direction within this climate change discussion.

15:05:15 From  Peter Mackinnon  to  Everyone:
	No mention of nuclear power.

15:05:49 From  Ted Manning  to  Everyone:
	So should the Government start its own Go-Fund-Me to save the planet?    What next??

15:07:00 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	Let's keep in mind that business-as-usual-by-alternative-means (wind, solar, etc.) is still unsustainable and solves nothing.  Climate change is just a symptom of OVERSHOOT, which is the real meta-problem.

15:15:54 From  Rick Carpenter  to  Everyone:
	Excellent presentation for which thank you Jeff.  If it is true that children report feeling anxious about the future because of climate change, this is a storehouse of energy which could influence government to take appropriate mitigation and adaption measures if harnessed effectively through education.

15:15:58 From  Ted Manning  to  Everyone:
	Note the CACOR publication "Plan to Survive."

15:16:58 From  Bill Tyson  to  Everyone:
	Climate change is only one manifestation of the real problem: overpopulation.  There are too many people on this planet, and our problems will not 
be solved until we get back to a sustainable number.

15:18:17 From  Ted Manning  to  Everyone:
	The CACOR document is aimed at adaptation and It is on the CACOR website and at 
https://canadiancor.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Plan-to-Survive-First-Edition-July-12-2019.pdf

15:23:44 From  Phil Reilly  to  Everyone:
	We need to be on the streets, not in our homes/offices!

15:24:20 From  Ted Manning  to  Everyone:
	I like Mike Nickerson's take.  Can any government lead to a point where people understand what is their fair share?  How big a footprint do you get and is it controllable?

15:28:38 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	More on cost/price: the highest domestic electricity costs in the world are in jurisdictions that have invested most heavily in modern 'renewable' energy.

15:30:06 From  Roy Culpeper  to  Everyone:
	"Too many people" is often code for "we need to reduce population."  The point usually not made is that people in the rich countries have a huge carbon footprint from their egregious consumption levels compared to people in the "overpopulated" developing countries.  It would be a far more effective emission-reduction strategy to reduce the population in the rich countries.  [My view is that the overpopulation problem is in the developed countries because of their intensive resource use.  Ed.]

15:30:16 From  Raymond Leury  to  Everyone:
	William [Rees], yes, but the reason is that renewables were more cost effective where prices were higher.  It's not the opposite (i.e., renewables did not cause the higher prices).

15:32:25 From  William Rees  to  Everyone:
	Except the increases in prices dates from the introduction of large scale subsidies and commitment to wind and solar (i.e., the increase in costs/prices is indeed associated with the increasing dependence on renewable energy.

15:32:55 From  Raymond Leury  to  Everyone:
	Should CACOR play a larger role in future climate protests?  I'd love to see us more involved in the weekly climate strikes...once covid subsides.

15:34:49 From  Beate Weber  to  Everyone:
	There is no either-or anymore.  Activities must reach from the local to the international level, from Citizens to  the UN.  We need a push-and-pull strategy: a strict building-code as well as a precise plan to retrofit existing buildings; promote e-vehicles as well support public transport and spatial planning to reduce needs for mobility; and so on.

15:34:49 From  Geoff Strong  to  Everyone:
	Check out your carbon footprint at https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx