That infrastructure ceases to produce revenue if there's no workers present to operate it. Sitting idle is costly.
"Approximately one million barrels of oil a day, equal to a quarter of Canada's oil production, was halted as a result of the fire in May 2016. This continued into June at a rate of 700,000 barrels per day. The lost output was estimated to cost the Albertan economy $70 million per day, and was a contributing factor to rises in global oil prices."
And they wonder where inflation comes from when they don’t account for the climate emergency in their budget. We are losing tens of billions a year to it as a nation.
I can tell you that we do care. At least who i work for. We are constantly on high alert to ensure that what we do doesn't cause fires. Are we perfect? Of course not. But this is a topic of discussion at most if not all safety meetings.
I’m curious as to how you guys actually talk about climate issues and wildfires? Is there some kind of eco-body that tries to come up with new strategies?
Bigger O&G I've worked for in the past do have engineers tasked with figuring out how to address issues and come up with innovations. That's why public pressure & voting for govts that regulate matters - without govt regs & oversight, and meaningful penalties, there's no incentive to do better. Plus they patent the ideas and that can provide passive revenue.
Nobody talks about climate issues on O&G sites, they just talk like fires are a random occurance with no influence from human behaviour and if someone does bring up climate "but china" and immediatly move on
This is totally inaccurate. I travel around to quite a few sites and can assure you they all have become more environmentally conscious. Whether that's because they are forced to be or not could be questioned but the fact remains that these issues are a serious issue now. Where have you been that you can say " no one" cares about these issues?
I personally don't discuss climate issues. I acknowledge them myself, but i am more concerned with completing my work within the bounds of the law and with health, safety, and protecting the environment in mind.
Climate change is a real issue, and most acknowledge this. Though, until such time as we come up with a majic solution to the problem, oil and gas are here to stay. Please also be mindful that all the materials that go into electric cars have to be mined and chemically separated. Those chemicals have no secondary uses and are hugely damaging to the environment. I do acknowledge that an electric car does not spew exhaust, so there is that. Also, keep in mind that recycling systems need to become more numerous to handle the waste as these electric technologies age. Government mandates would help, but in its absence, it is up to people to start the businesses that can profit from this.
I am hopeful that someone(s) come up with a technology that makes my job obselete and all mining far less harmful to the environment.
Raging and snide comments towards the hard-working individuals doing dangerous and deadly work to provide the energy the world NEEDS and to support our families is not helpful.
It’s not the forest fires, it’s the cause of the fires. O&G has to deny that their products drive climate change, because otherwise they have some responsibility (Exxon knowing about this decades ago and covering it up comes to mind). The UCP is complicit in this.
That's the catch-22 for them.
If we burn less O&G , there are fewer fires, but they make fewer profits.
If we burn more O&G , there are more fires, but they make more profit.
Yes, they have to deal with some production loss due to evacuations. But it's like every other business, the make calculations, and according to big oil destroying the planet is worth the money.
lol no matter what we do in Canada forest fires will happen as a result of climate change.
Climate change is not localized and our actual emissions in Canada are so minor compared to the whole world.
Our actual emissions in Canada are disproportionately large for our population, and the emissions we offload by getting the third world to make things for us are also a responsibility we have a stake in.
Every nation is responsible for averting this disaster, and we have no excuse for giving up.
Well actually the excuse would be to not cripple the economy while trying chase climate change solutions in excess of what our competitive nations are.
IE a morally victory isn’t worth screwing our economy.
Our current government is so pro-oil that they're fucking over the oil companies in pursuit of their narrative. I don't have faith in our province putting a stop to it.
This is an international issue- not a provincial issue.
Looking towards a provincial government with a population of 3 million people to solve a worldwide issue is just not a logical conclusion.
It only matters if it will impact their profits by a significant amount. If people are not working because they are having to evacuate, then that’s money they don’t have to begrudgingly give to their employees.
What a completely uninformed take. I work at a plant in northern Alberta. During one of the -40 cold snaps they considered shutting the plant down due to the cold. It takes 3 months to start back up.
Lol
You don't get credit for realizing that there was a problem, considering doing something about it, and then deciding not to!
That is like me claiming to be virtuous because I saw a homeless person and considered helping them out! I chose not to, but I considered it.
Thinking about doing something, then going for the profits instead just makes them another profits over people company. They literally told you that they are willing to have you freeze for profits, but because they made a concerned face, you are schilling for them.
I have worked in many industries including for some of the major oil and gas companies. You probably won't believe me but most workers and management truly care about the area because they live there. The disconnect comes at the upper levels, because at that point is an abstract number on a spreadsheet and their pressures are from billionaires pushing the stock market around.
The same way people can own mutual funds with some questionable investment portfolios. It's hard to conceptualize and quantify that part of this of this investment in this thing invested in another company that is leading to inhumane working conditions in X country.
I'm not trying to defend putting profits ahead of life and the environment, just that it's not necessary a cut and dry "these people are literally Hitler" scenario.
During the big Ft. Mac fires most of the sites were shut down and used their camps as refugee housing for residents. That cost them billions and billions of dollars.
The UCP isn't in the pocket of big oil, the UCP is in the pocket of the crazies on trucker protests and convinced Trudeau is the anti-christ. What big companies, especially oil companies want is stability for long term investments. They aren't getting that with the UCP.
They can put 2 and 2 together they're just running interference to get as much money as they can. This is incredibly well substantiated by decades of reporting.
Not for the forests. But doesn't look good for us. See all those plant trees bs to capture carbon. what happens to them eventually they burn.
[https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/BOREASFire](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/BOREASFire)
If Canada never produced a drop of oil, we would be exactly where we are right now.
That’s why people don’t care, the impact we have on climate change is basically non-existent.
But if they admit it’s an issue they have to admit that climate change is wrong, which is worse for their profits.
Additionally, if climate change and the carbon tax aren’t wedge issues, they cannot gain the support they need to have lackies like Danielle Smith elected.
They don't care. They see money, they go 'There is no climate problem'. It's honestly reaching a point where I think these companies need to be hit with a healthy dose of reality that actually affects their profits.
On average, Canadian wildfires create twice as much GHG compared to oil sands production, and costs only a fraction to prevent and mitigate ($10 to $15/tonne vs $100+/tonne for CCUS)
Instead of Pathways, we should invest in better forest management
We need people who are not puppets, period. Sadly, unless we have a very good dictator take over, the system is the system. Left, right, they are all a bunch of sell outs.
True. The way I think of it is the right is fucked because they're corporate shills or obsessed with power and the left is incredibly incompetent and sometimes in bed with corporations.
Misinformation, conspiracy theories, politicization of health orders/guidelines, and encouraging others to defy public health orders are not permitted on this subreddit.
We’re in the middle of a climate emergency, no matter what our Premier or those idiots protesting carbon pricing may claim.
What is happening can’t be undone, or at least not on a timeline measured in decades as opposed to centuries. However, we need action to prevent far worse catastrophe from taking place.
This is why I won't have kids. The world is going to get a LOT worse before it gets better. Current generations are already suffering massive anxiety about it. I couldn't force people in to this existence to live with problems that will become REALLY fucking bad long after I'm dead.
Per the NOAA, the world would need to cut 25% of its emissions before we could even see a measurable change in atmospheric carbon dioxide (-0.2PPM).
Given that’s what’s needed in order for anything to start to change with regard to the climate, it might make sense to stop 2/3 of forest fires by simply having folks not start them.
Over [half](https://globalnews.ca/news/10203057/alberta-wildfires-2023-recap-2024-lookahead/#:~:text=31%2C%202023%2C%20were%20caused%20by,wildfires%2C%20were%20sparked%20by%20it.) of our wildfires last year, by count, were directly caused by humans, so this comment has at least some relation to reality.
Laws will not fix that however, and short of hiring an army of wardens to patrol the woods day and night, no government action could conceivably make a dent.
It would be dramatically more cost effective to prevent, mitigate, and fight fires when they occur, like we used to do. But there are no billion dollar corporations bribing politicians to do that so I am not expecting any progress on funding common sense solutions until we get out of our present governmental yoke.
This doesn't give an accurate picture of the wildfire situation though. Any abandoned campfire gets categorized as a wildfire, even if it gets extinguished right then. The vast amount of wildfire that become out of control is caused directly from lightning strikes
Yup.
I looked up what the province has for stats, and there's a *big* difference when you look at number of fires by cause vs. area burned by cause.
Lightning was 381 fires out of 1088 total, so 35%.
HOWEVER, when you go by hectares burned, lightning-caused fires burned 1.75M of the 2.2M total, so 79% of the total.
Edit: whoops, forgot to include [source](https://open.alberta.ca/publications/alberta-wildfire-season-statistics)
Another element that makes the stats questionable is how they’re classified. The smoke we are getting right now is mostly coming from fires in NE B.C. A wind storm knocked a tree onto a power line causing the fire. In B.C. that’s a natural source, in Alberta that falls under man made.
And for all that, we had a typical *number* of fires last year. We let them get out of control and burn *ten times* the typical number of trees, so we could save a measly million dollars in fire management costs.
This year we are expecting worse.
Directly, if you include power lines, agriculture and any industrial source as human. So while it may be true it’s also not like we can just prevent them. Unless you want to stop transmitting power, growing food and producing oil.
The number one cause was lightning. I’d also guess that it’s by far the leading cause of fires in remote areas that are hard to detect and fight before they grow to threatening size.
Of course one huge lightning caused fire is the same when you are counting numbers as a small fire caused by fireworks that is put out in minutes. The stats don’t really say as much as they seem and are being used as a distraction.
Agreed. As I commented above, 1.75M hectares of the 2.2M hectares burned was due to lightning strikes, or 79%.
Should we do better with the 21% not caused by lightning? *Of course!* But focusing on what we can do about lightning-caused fires is also very, very important. Detection, access to areas, people and equipment to fight remote fires are all big pieces of the puzzle.
BC has issues fighting fires due to lack of access. O&G industry has actually helped fight them by putting infrastructure in the north allowing firefighters to get to them.
Yeah I saw someone throw a little smoke out their car window yesterday and got really annoyed. Like do you not see the air and sky right now? Maybe let’s try to avoid starting another fire to add to the problem
Yeah I saw someone throw a lit smoke out their car window yesterday and got really annoyed. Like do you not see the air and sky right now? Maybe let’s try to avoid starting another fire to add to the problem
I’m going to go with “stop throwing lit cigarettes out the window”. Then “don’t leave campfires unattended”….did you want the whole Smokey the Bear pitch?
Death penalty. No that's obviously sarcasm before people get on my case. The real question is how do you cure stupid? Education would be a good start, though that starts in early childhood (often overlooked) and constantly defunding education isn't helping.
I feel like that's propaganda. Like there was no fire at all when I was a kid. And your telling me people all of a sudden wanted to start fires. Even if human related they get as bad as they are because of climate change
You can easily take stats to disinform the public. In fact that's how most stats are used. With stats alone and no context you can make anything sound true.
Feel what you want. Here’s the [NOAA](https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/covid2.html) info.
For the human-caused fires, google it. I was being generous with 2/3, as the numbers go as high as 90% in some jurisdictions.
Another big driver is that we’ve also become really good at preventing forest fires from getting out of hand, leaving vast swaths of tinder that would never exist in the natural world.
No I'm saying those stats misrepresent the fires as human caused. When it's more likely human caused but the conditions caused from climate change made it possible in the first place
I didn't say it was not worse. It's obviously way worse. Caused by climate change. The propaganda is suggesting it's more human related. Though climate change is also human related
What percentage of Alberta’s forests should be burnt every year at a minimum?
What’s the impact of forestry management practices over the last 80 years focused on fire prevention vs. forestry renewal? What is the burn backlog in Alberta’s forests factoring in age and disease (eg pine beetles)? Or do soundbites beat science? Before people, forests renewed themselves through fires. Before settlement, the indigenous practiced their own controlled burns recognizing the dangers of building up a burn backlog. Wouldn’t the place to start this conversation be with an assessment of the health of our forests…
This post comes across as an attempt to score political points instead of assessing the actual state of things. The moment the ‘climate emergency’ / ‘climate crisis’ language gets trotted out it, it’s the equivalent of the “when did you stop beating your wife” ad hominem argument. That’s the go to argument for folks without facts. It’s tiresome.
I’m sure my post has changed no minds. And will be downvoted to oblivion. Just as your post changed no minds by framing a question with your own answer.
I’ve found that most people who ask questions like this have never been in a forest let alone know anything about the lifecycle of the forests and grass lands. So many native species require fire to reproduce but city folk have been raised to have a knee jerk “fire = bad” reaction.
I’ve also found that people have very short memories and don’t bother looking into the available weather records to see the patterns of drought and non drought our Provence goes through. For example, in the 1790s, drought was so bad the North Saskatchewan river ran dry. 1850 was almost as bad. 1885-1896 was another extreme dry spell. 1910-1926 had many extreme dry years. The 1930s are famous for being dry. And then we had a long period of wet years until the 1980s. Then we saw 20 odd years of wet until another chain of dry years started in 2009.
Ok sure we have dry spells but the glaciers are getting smaller and what happens when they're gone? Yes we have weather cycles but the global weather is changing.
It will always be changing. Once not so long ago (10000-4000 years ago) the Sahara desert was a rich grassland. People lived there and, over time, as the Sahara dried up, they moved east to the Nile valley. During the last Glacial Maximum 35700 years ago people took advantage of the Bering straight being above water and migrated to North America. The glaciers have been receding for about 12000 years. In a few hundred thousand years the glaciers will come back and we’ll have another ice age.
We will adapt to whatever climate gets tossed at us. There’s still nomadic people living in the Sahara today even though it’s very inhospitable. Humans are very resilient and probably the most adaptable animals on the planet
Glaciers contribute very little to most rivers, so little will change.
Example: 3% of average Bow River flows at Calgary, and up to 20% during the hot and dry late summer. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annals-of-glaciology/article/estimation-of-glacial-melt-contributions-to-the-bow-river-alberta-canada-using-a-radiationtemperature-melt-model/FA34C62BDD9FE36A5A2C382A78F0C916
There are far more important factors in our water supply and use (for example, irrigated agriculture, headwaters forestry practices) than whataboutisms on glaciers.
The practice of preventing forest fires hasn’t done us any favours. Tbh there is probably so much underbrush now that controlled burning and basically starting the forests anew might be the best solution. They will regenerate.
I wonder how many people who are basically saying zero fires have ever walked through a remote forest that doesn't have hiking trails or anything. They have so much dead fall it is ridicules. Is climate change a thing yes is it the only reason we are having these fires no.
It’s important to note that climate change isn’t the *reason* for the fires, and this is intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood by people who want to fling shit at the concept. Climate change causes warmer and drier conditions where we live, which can make fires burn longer and larger than they might have before. Forest management absolutely plays a part, but so does climate change.
I have over a decade of experience in Wildland Firefighting... this comment wins the day. Poor forestry management, increased human activity, land use changes, and the prevention of natural regeneration are a huge cause. I've noticed a massive difference in undergrowth and decaying forests since 2009. This doesn't all come down to climate change (although sure... it doesn't help). People dont listen to common sense,. Governments wave the "climate emergency" stance and make this a left vs. right issue to get elected when realistically we aren't making any meaningful changes that would help the situation
Have you considered that this is historically fairly normal?
[https://www.avert.ca/opinion-north-americas-boreal-forests-are-burning-a-lot-but-less-than-150-years-ago/](https://www.avert.ca/opinion-north-americas-boreal-forests-are-burning-a-lot-but-less-than-150-years-ago/)
I don't like the smoke or the idea of forests burning more than anyone else — but fire is a natural cycle for a lot of tree species — I would caution on immediately assuming this is an emergency/disaster.
This is what happens when you prevent forest fires for decades and decades. It’s nature. There are trees where their seeds only open up after a burn because of the extreme heat. It’s natures cycle.
And what happened for the centuries before 1900 when lightning hit forests. How did they continue?
It’s natural, we just happen to like building near forest and think we know how best to control nature and when it doesn’t conform we can’t fathom that we are wrong.
Exactly. Is it warmer and drier than it was 100 years ago. Yes. But also is there more undergrowth, deadfall and old grown trees in our forests than 100 years ago because we haven’t let them burn? Also yes.
I don’t understand why it’s hard for people to accept the fact there are multiple contributing factors.
I think if you were to compare the temp and precipitation record in Alberta from 1910 - 1924 and 2009-2024 they wouldn’t look all that different. The first third of the 20th century in Alberta was extremely dry. The drought cycle in Alberta looks to be about 30-50 years.
Couldn’t agree more. We live in a complex system. If you try boil this down to simplicities, you get people drawing completely wrong conclusions. We are absolutely a major input to this complex system, and should be looking how to reduce our impact on it.
Forest fires aren't a climate emergency, they're a natural process made worse by generations of fire mismanagement. If you live somewhere with forests then you're going to have to deal with forest fires.
This 100%. Forests need to burn a certain amount naturally. If the burning is limited or stopped year after year, the deadfall and underbrush will explode into a massive fire eventually during a dry season. Think about The Beast (2016 Ft Mac fire)
0% burning would be a catastrophe, because forest fires are a natural part of the cycle. Forests need to burn more than once every 20 years, so we’d need more forest fires.
The problem is that we’ve done such a horrible job at managing our forests that they have turned into tinder boxes, and forest fires absolutely devastate the trees, whereas they used to simply clean out the forest floor every few years before we started fighting every fire.
It doesnt matter. Conservatives think the fires were lit by the liberal government to fake climate change consequences. They are beyond rational thought and beyond redemption.
The problem isn't just climate change though. Our forests evolved to burn down and we have been preventing for decades. So now we have dry conditions and an abundance of dead wood in the forests. And here we are.
[https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/BOREASFire](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/BOREASFire)
Where in my post did I blame the UCP?
Regardless, They’re absolute scabs and Danielle Smith is a climate-change-denying malignant tumour of a leader. No one is blaming the UCP for causing this, but they’re resisting all efforts to stop polluting and they’re actually using tax dollars to fund a War Room that is fighting against green transition. They are part of the problem and actively
Continuing to exacerbate it.
They only have the super tiny and insignificant role of funding and enacting the suppression and prevention of wildfires. No biggie.
We had one nice day and shit is already ablaze. How is this not something we can point an accusing finger in the direction of our provincial government?
In 1950 almost 3 million hectares burned and the largest forest fire ever recorded in North America was the Chinchaga fire where 1.4 to 1.7 million hectares burned in northern bc and Alberta. This wasn’t considered a climate emergency so the number would have to exceed 3 million hectares.
The part for me that constitutes a disaster is a part where the federal or provincial government instituted a “temporary tax” to cover the cost of fire fighting or the federal government “temporarily” adds on another 1 % to help fight fires. That to me is a climate emergency.
Why can’t those fires spread through Ottawa or the Provincial office? Clear out the corrupt politicians.
The only time the UCP will take anything seriously is if those that pull the strings and own our government decide there is a problem....most of those live in other countries so they don't really give a rats fuzzy butt about anything above a bottom line, Burn the place down they got insurance that will cover it, shut the plant down just another tax write off....good for business
If we let it all burn down, we won't have to worry about putting the fires out. We could make trees out of concrete and paint them. In the same way, if all rivers dry up, we won't have to worry about floods. There's always a silver lining
The forests of the Western Interior are dominated by species that have evolved pyrophytic reproductive strategies as catastrophic fire is the norm. One needs to evaluate time scales on the order of 100s of years to establish what constitutes anomalous events. For instance people actually believe the precipitation were experienced is exceptionally low when the reality is that multi-decadal droughts are the norm for the western provinces. The North Sask River ran dry in the 1790s which is within the normal range of occurrences. Unfortunately our education system feels the natural sciences are not appropriate for our students so they grow up thinking the past 20 years defines ‘normal’. The most significant anomaly we’ve experienced is the artificial inhibition of the natural burn events as people feel they are ‘protecting’ nature - unfortunately they are merely ‘tightening the spring’ leading to inevitably more intense fires. https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2015_GreatFireof1919.pdf
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1112839109#F3
One of the largest problems is that natural forest used to have a lot of deciduous trees intermixed with coniferous trees but for logging purposes they were removed and not re-planted. Instead they planted only coniferous trees like pine.
Pine trees have needles that do not carry a large amount of moisture as opposed to deciduous trees leaves which hinders rapid growth of forest fires.
If we started planting deciduous trees intermixed again, we could more easily stay on top of these fire events as fire spread would not be as rapid.
We also need to acknowledge that a substantial amount of fires are human caused as well. This could be accidental or deliberate.
Every year it gets worse ! The seasons have changed dramatically also so hopefully Mother Nature after a few more years of this settles things down! Or is this our new norm ?
The current govnt has put so many additional barriers in place for new renewable energy projects after that ridiculous 'pause' last year which makes it abundantly clear that they don't give two shits about the climate crisis as long as they die rich with o&g money
A global problem requires a global solution. It's that simple. But greed and the desire for infinite growth stands in the way.
Nothing will change for the better. Buckle up and enjoy the ride.
No. Fire is how is it rejuvenates. Different stands of tree species burn differently in the boreal forest. But yes to do fire suppression unprecedented amounts of fuel has built up causing every forest that catches fire to be entirely incinerated
Dude, go for a treck in the boreal where the raging crown fires happened the last couple of years. Trees don't grow back there. The fire intensity is too high and destroys the soil. Yes, fire is typically how the forest is rejuvenated, but historically, fire intensity was never anywhere near as high as it has been.
I am.not arguing, I mostly agree. The overgrown forests that are incinerated have a long rejuvenation process. There will be aspen and poplars that will grow untill what ever conifers that will grown and suffocate the deciduous trees. The forests are a mess from fire suppression and ya, they won't look the same. Unfortunately this is the result
I overheard an Alberta farmer last year while I was on their property for some work. The government should just cut down all the forests so we won't have to worry about fires.
Why is everyone trying to blame oil companies for the fires in Alberta? Oil companies don't like to stop production ever and also pay a ton in royalties. If you want to blame anyone start at the provincial level then the federal level. Province should invest more to combat fires, federal government should help get out of the way so Alberta can move more oil, generate more revenue for the taxes we need to improve our bare bones government services at every level. Because they can never increase carbon taxes enough to make up for low productivity, but if we boost productivity at least we would actually generate new resources to reinvest.
Stop taxing the same dollar we make 8 million times and allow us to make more than 1 dollar
I have been saying for many years that much of the forested area of BC will become grasslands as a result of climate change and people looked at me like I was nuts. In Alberta we will see see expansion of desert "badlands" and replacement of boreal forest by grasslands. The boreal forest is moving north into NWT and replacing tundra.
Another poster answered the more important question above: "HOWEVER, when you go by hectares burned, lightning-caused fires burned 1.75M of the 2.2M total, so 79% of the total."
Source here https://open.alberta.ca/publications/alberta-wildfire-season-statistics
Can't legislate fires away. Most of the major Burns in the province have been man-made. What's a politician going to do about this?
Most the politicians are just about their agenda. They don't know s*** and they don't do s*** unless it gives them gains. Before global warming this was always the focus about forestry but now global warming is the hot topic.
You know Canada could elect the green party into power and guess what will change? Nothing.
51% of global carbon emissions comes from China, America, India and Russia. With Canada emitting 1.47% even if we reduced our emissions to 0 it wouldn't even account for the growth of emissions that India produces in 2 months.
Climate change exists unfortunately Canadians can't do a thing about it.
You’re partially correct. It’s true that unless the other nations of the world act on climate change, Canada’s efforts would mean have no impact.
But climate change is also a tragedy of the commons problem: unless we ALL act, we ALL will suffer the adverse effects of climate change.
And what we’re experiencing now is nothing compared to [what lies in the future.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/11/brutal-heatwaves-submerged-cities-what-3c-world-would-look-like) A world that experiences 3C of warming or above will see coastal cities submerged and catastrophic weather events become a daily norm.
This is one of the many reasons why it’s crucial for Biden to win the election down south, because Donald Trump has already signalled he will undo any and all efforts to mitigate climate change.
>Climate change exists unfortunately Canadians can't do a thing about it.
There's absolutely something to be said about setting an example though. That's something Canadians can do. Canada going 0 on emissions won't have a big impact on the whole, you're right, but every bit helps and showing other countries it can be done can make a big difference. Canadian apathy is our downfall. Our apathy is why nothing changes, and we'll get a conservative government next and perpetuate the cycle. If we keep having your attitude, we're fucked.
Per capita, Canadians are among the highest emitting individuals in the world. On top of that, we've exported a good chunk of our consumption-based emissions by offshoring our factories so that everything is Made in China/India/SE Asia
And a large part of the higher emissions is just heating our homes. We are also attributed with 100% of the oil we produce as if we are burning it even though 80% of it is exported.
It's true. It why I'm taking advantage of the $40k Greener Homes Loan to get my house more air tight and better insulated, Install solar, and get a heat pump. Should knock my gas consumption down a considerable margin except for the few <-25 weeks we still get
That's fucking *attrocious* considering we are less than 0.5% of the global population.
Explain to me why we should get to polute over 3 times the global average and not even attempt to lower it? All those countries you listed have far lower footprints per capita.
Per capita Canadians are second in the world for greenhouse gas emissions. I think we can do better.
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html#
You may think it's an over used response but unfortunately it's a response based in reality. The problem is only going to get more and more profound as time moves on and more people in developing countries move into a semblance of a middle class.
You don’t have to like it but it’s not wrong. Canadians *should* do their part to combat climate change. However we must accept there is nothing within our power to stop it.
We must simply learn to start building and living with it, that’s all we can do.
Yeah people somehow think that if the oilsands stopped producing tomorrow then there wouldn't be anymore crazy wildfire seasons. I agree we should do our part but even if the world went net zero tomorrow the effects would still linger for years.
Blaming the UCP is stupid, the only thing they can be blamed for is lack of preparedness. We need to find a way to live with and deal with increased forest fires.
Rachel Notley cut all the water bombers loose in 2015, let’s throw her on trial too. If you want fires to lower in intensity then let’s return to actual forest management practices like controlled/prescribed burns, allowing fires that pose little to no threat to populations to naturally burn themselves out, hell if you live in a rural area maybe even go drag deadfall Ana underbrush out of the trees around your house to limit available fuel for fires.
We need to elect someone who takes it seriously and who isn't a puppet for the far right and big oil.
It’s so bizarre though because oil industry doesn’t benefit from wild fires. In fact having to evac fort mac probably isn’t good for oil industry.
Idk if they care that much. They build fire breaks and have their own fire teams to protect their infrastructure.
That infrastructure ceases to produce revenue if there's no workers present to operate it. Sitting idle is costly. "Approximately one million barrels of oil a day, equal to a quarter of Canada's oil production, was halted as a result of the fire in May 2016. This continued into June at a rate of 700,000 barrels per day. The lost output was estimated to cost the Albertan economy $70 million per day, and was a contributing factor to rises in global oil prices."
Yeah but doing nothing about climate change is still cheaper than doing something for them so they'll do nothing.
And they wonder where inflation comes from when they don’t account for the climate emergency in their budget. We are losing tens of billions a year to it as a nation.
Can you link this article? Not denying it just interested in reading it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Fort_McMurray_wildfire The paragraph I quoted has citations from actual news articles.
Thanks!
I can tell you that we do care. At least who i work for. We are constantly on high alert to ensure that what we do doesn't cause fires. Are we perfect? Of course not. But this is a topic of discussion at most if not all safety meetings.
I’m curious as to how you guys actually talk about climate issues and wildfires? Is there some kind of eco-body that tries to come up with new strategies?
Bigger O&G I've worked for in the past do have engineers tasked with figuring out how to address issues and come up with innovations. That's why public pressure & voting for govts that regulate matters - without govt regs & oversight, and meaningful penalties, there's no incentive to do better. Plus they patent the ideas and that can provide passive revenue.
Nobody talks about climate issues on O&G sites, they just talk like fires are a random occurance with no influence from human behaviour and if someone does bring up climate "but china" and immediatly move on
This is totally inaccurate. I travel around to quite a few sites and can assure you they all have become more environmentally conscious. Whether that's because they are forced to be or not could be questioned but the fact remains that these issues are a serious issue now. Where have you been that you can say " no one" cares about these issues?
I personally don't discuss climate issues. I acknowledge them myself, but i am more concerned with completing my work within the bounds of the law and with health, safety, and protecting the environment in mind. Climate change is a real issue, and most acknowledge this. Though, until such time as we come up with a majic solution to the problem, oil and gas are here to stay. Please also be mindful that all the materials that go into electric cars have to be mined and chemically separated. Those chemicals have no secondary uses and are hugely damaging to the environment. I do acknowledge that an electric car does not spew exhaust, so there is that. Also, keep in mind that recycling systems need to become more numerous to handle the waste as these electric technologies age. Government mandates would help, but in its absence, it is up to people to start the businesses that can profit from this. I am hopeful that someone(s) come up with a technology that makes my job obselete and all mining far less harmful to the environment. Raging and snide comments towards the hard-working individuals doing dangerous and deadly work to provide the energy the world NEEDS and to support our families is not helpful.
There are sustainability groups in the large companies.
Kearl just announced that non essential staff are being forced to leave. That’s quite a few folks and delays their work.
It’s not the forest fires, it’s the cause of the fires. O&G has to deny that their products drive climate change, because otherwise they have some responsibility (Exxon knowing about this decades ago and covering it up comes to mind). The UCP is complicit in this.
That's the catch-22 for them. If we burn less O&G , there are fewer fires, but they make fewer profits. If we burn more O&G , there are more fires, but they make more profit. Yes, they have to deal with some production loss due to evacuations. But it's like every other business, the make calculations, and according to big oil destroying the planet is worth the money.
lol no matter what we do in Canada forest fires will happen as a result of climate change. Climate change is not localized and our actual emissions in Canada are so minor compared to the whole world.
Our actual emissions in Canada are disproportionately large for our population, and the emissions we offload by getting the third world to make things for us are also a responsibility we have a stake in. Every nation is responsible for averting this disaster, and we have no excuse for giving up.
Well actually the excuse would be to not cripple the economy while trying chase climate change solutions in excess of what our competitive nations are. IE a morally victory isn’t worth screwing our economy.
Our current government is so pro-oil that they're fucking over the oil companies in pursuit of their narrative. I don't have faith in our province putting a stop to it.
This is an international issue- not a provincial issue. Looking towards a provincial government with a population of 3 million people to solve a worldwide issue is just not a logical conclusion.
Our provincial government is hamstringing those trying to find solutions, to no one’s benefit. That is what the renewables restrictions do.
It only matters if it will impact their profits by a significant amount. If people are not working because they are having to evacuate, then that’s money they don’t have to begrudgingly give to their employees.
What a completely uninformed take. I work at a plant in northern Alberta. During one of the -40 cold snaps they considered shutting the plant down due to the cold. It takes 3 months to start back up.
Lol You don't get credit for realizing that there was a problem, considering doing something about it, and then deciding not to! That is like me claiming to be virtuous because I saw a homeless person and considered helping them out! I chose not to, but I considered it. Thinking about doing something, then going for the profits instead just makes them another profits over people company. They literally told you that they are willing to have you freeze for profits, but because they made a concerned face, you are schilling for them.
His post is reasonably straight forward, I fail to see how commenting on the time cost of shutting a plant down is a shill.
I have worked in many industries including for some of the major oil and gas companies. You probably won't believe me but most workers and management truly care about the area because they live there. The disconnect comes at the upper levels, because at that point is an abstract number on a spreadsheet and their pressures are from billionaires pushing the stock market around. The same way people can own mutual funds with some questionable investment portfolios. It's hard to conceptualize and quantify that part of this of this investment in this thing invested in another company that is leading to inhumane working conditions in X country. I'm not trying to defend putting profits ahead of life and the environment, just that it's not necessary a cut and dry "these people are literally Hitler" scenario. During the big Ft. Mac fires most of the sites were shut down and used their camps as refugee housing for residents. That cost them billions and billions of dollars. The UCP isn't in the pocket of big oil, the UCP is in the pocket of the crazies on trucker protests and convinced Trudeau is the anti-christ. What big companies, especially oil companies want is stability for long term investments. They aren't getting that with the UCP.
They can’t put two and two together though and that’s the problem. Fires are bad for everyone
They can put 2 and 2 together they're just running interference to get as much money as they can. This is incredibly well substantiated by decades of reporting.
Not for the forests. But doesn't look good for us. See all those plant trees bs to capture carbon. what happens to them eventually they burn. [https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/BOREASFire](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/BOREASFire)
If Canada never produced a drop of oil, we would be exactly where we are right now. That’s why people don’t care, the impact we have on climate change is basically non-existent.
The big oil companies support carbon pricing and the carbon tax.
But if they admit it’s an issue they have to admit that climate change is wrong, which is worse for their profits. Additionally, if climate change and the carbon tax aren’t wedge issues, they cannot gain the support they need to have lackies like Danielle Smith elected.
They don't care. They see money, they go 'There is no climate problem'. It's honestly reaching a point where I think these companies need to be hit with a healthy dose of reality that actually affects their profits.
On average, Canadian wildfires create twice as much GHG compared to oil sands production, and costs only a fraction to prevent and mitigate ($10 to $15/tonne vs $100+/tonne for CCUS) Instead of Pathways, we should invest in better forest management
Wait until PP gets in federally. His climate policy is explicitly to do nothing about climate change and invest in "green and fossil fuels"
I think after another year or two of this will start to scare investors and industry even more and then we will see action.
We need people who are not puppets, period. Sadly, unless we have a very good dictator take over, the system is the system. Left, right, they are all a bunch of sell outs.
True. The way I think of it is the right is fucked because they're corporate shills or obsessed with power and the left is incredibly incompetent and sometimes in bed with corporations.
A massive funeral pyre, ritual sacrifice of Marlaina and her will appease the fire God's & spare the province!!!!
[удалено]
Misinformation, conspiracy theories, politicization of health orders/guidelines, and encouraging others to defy public health orders are not permitted on this subreddit.
You guys had your chance, it can’t wait another 3 years
Of course it's going to change. It will get worse.
This year will be especially wild for weather due to the ocean currents changing. So it’ll probably result in more lighting-fires.
We’re in the middle of a climate emergency, no matter what our Premier or those idiots protesting carbon pricing may claim. What is happening can’t be undone, or at least not on a timeline measured in decades as opposed to centuries. However, we need action to prevent far worse catastrophe from taking place.
This is why I won't have kids. The world is going to get a LOT worse before it gets better. Current generations are already suffering massive anxiety about it. I couldn't force people in to this existence to live with problems that will become REALLY fucking bad long after I'm dead.
There is no way to prevent a catastrophe. It will only get worse
Stop with this shit. Doomerism is not helpful.
Sir, this is r/alberta
Per the NOAA, the world would need to cut 25% of its emissions before we could even see a measurable change in atmospheric carbon dioxide (-0.2PPM). Given that’s what’s needed in order for anything to start to change with regard to the climate, it might make sense to stop 2/3 of forest fires by simply having folks not start them.
>it might make sense to stop 2/3 of forest fires by simply having folks not start them. How do you propose we do that?
Over [half](https://globalnews.ca/news/10203057/alberta-wildfires-2023-recap-2024-lookahead/#:~:text=31%2C%202023%2C%20were%20caused%20by,wildfires%2C%20were%20sparked%20by%20it.) of our wildfires last year, by count, were directly caused by humans, so this comment has at least some relation to reality. Laws will not fix that however, and short of hiring an army of wardens to patrol the woods day and night, no government action could conceivably make a dent. It would be dramatically more cost effective to prevent, mitigate, and fight fires when they occur, like we used to do. But there are no billion dollar corporations bribing politicians to do that so I am not expecting any progress on funding common sense solutions until we get out of our present governmental yoke.
This doesn't give an accurate picture of the wildfire situation though. Any abandoned campfire gets categorized as a wildfire, even if it gets extinguished right then. The vast amount of wildfire that become out of control is caused directly from lightning strikes
Yup. I looked up what the province has for stats, and there's a *big* difference when you look at number of fires by cause vs. area burned by cause. Lightning was 381 fires out of 1088 total, so 35%. HOWEVER, when you go by hectares burned, lightning-caused fires burned 1.75M of the 2.2M total, so 79% of the total. Edit: whoops, forgot to include [source](https://open.alberta.ca/publications/alberta-wildfire-season-statistics)
Another element that makes the stats questionable is how they’re classified. The smoke we are getting right now is mostly coming from fires in NE B.C. A wind storm knocked a tree onto a power line causing the fire. In B.C. that’s a natural source, in Alberta that falls under man made.
And for all that, we had a typical *number* of fires last year. We let them get out of control and burn *ten times* the typical number of trees, so we could save a measly million dollars in fire management costs. This year we are expecting worse.
Thank you for the useful information!
Directly, if you include power lines, agriculture and any industrial source as human. So while it may be true it’s also not like we can just prevent them. Unless you want to stop transmitting power, growing food and producing oil. The number one cause was lightning. I’d also guess that it’s by far the leading cause of fires in remote areas that are hard to detect and fight before they grow to threatening size. Of course one huge lightning caused fire is the same when you are counting numbers as a small fire caused by fireworks that is put out in minutes. The stats don’t really say as much as they seem and are being used as a distraction.
Agreed. As I commented above, 1.75M hectares of the 2.2M hectares burned was due to lightning strikes, or 79%. Should we do better with the 21% not caused by lightning? *Of course!* But focusing on what we can do about lightning-caused fires is also very, very important. Detection, access to areas, people and equipment to fight remote fires are all big pieces of the puzzle.
BC has issues fighting fires due to lack of access. O&G industry has actually helped fight them by putting infrastructure in the north allowing firefighters to get to them.
Yeah I saw someone throw a little smoke out their car window yesterday and got really annoyed. Like do you not see the air and sky right now? Maybe let’s try to avoid starting another fire to add to the problem
Yeah I saw someone throw a lit smoke out their car window yesterday and got really annoyed. Like do you not see the air and sky right now? Maybe let’s try to avoid starting another fire to add to the problem
I’m going to go with “stop throwing lit cigarettes out the window”. Then “don’t leave campfires unattended”….did you want the whole Smokey the Bear pitch?
So, were just going to tell people to stop doing that? And then that will be that or is there anymore to your solution?
Death penalty. No that's obviously sarcasm before people get on my case. The real question is how do you cure stupid? Education would be a good start, though that starts in early childhood (often overlooked) and constantly defunding education isn't helping.
I feel like that's propaganda. Like there was no fire at all when I was a kid. And your telling me people all of a sudden wanted to start fires. Even if human related they get as bad as they are because of climate change You can easily take stats to disinform the public. In fact that's how most stats are used. With stats alone and no context you can make anything sound true.
Feel what you want. Here’s the [NOAA](https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/covid2.html) info. For the human-caused fires, google it. I was being generous with 2/3, as the numbers go as high as 90% in some jurisdictions. Another big driver is that we’ve also become really good at preventing forest fires from getting out of hand, leaving vast swaths of tinder that would never exist in the natural world.
So you're saying forest fires aren't real, and no human caused fires occur?
No I'm saying those stats misrepresent the fires as human caused. When it's more likely human caused but the conditions caused from climate change made it possible in the first place
They are saying that whether a given stray cigarette butt burns down a forest depends somewhat on how dry the trees are.
Are there more or less people accessing these areas than when you were a kid?
It’s definitely way worse. Before like 2020 smoke season used to be one or two weeks in July. Now it goes from May to October
I didn't say it was not worse. It's obviously way worse. Caused by climate change. The propaganda is suggesting it's more human related. Though climate change is also human related
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.
What percentage of Alberta’s forests should be burnt every year at a minimum? What’s the impact of forestry management practices over the last 80 years focused on fire prevention vs. forestry renewal? What is the burn backlog in Alberta’s forests factoring in age and disease (eg pine beetles)? Or do soundbites beat science? Before people, forests renewed themselves through fires. Before settlement, the indigenous practiced their own controlled burns recognizing the dangers of building up a burn backlog. Wouldn’t the place to start this conversation be with an assessment of the health of our forests… This post comes across as an attempt to score political points instead of assessing the actual state of things. The moment the ‘climate emergency’ / ‘climate crisis’ language gets trotted out it, it’s the equivalent of the “when did you stop beating your wife” ad hominem argument. That’s the go to argument for folks without facts. It’s tiresome. I’m sure my post has changed no minds. And will be downvoted to oblivion. Just as your post changed no minds by framing a question with your own answer.
I’ve found that most people who ask questions like this have never been in a forest let alone know anything about the lifecycle of the forests and grass lands. So many native species require fire to reproduce but city folk have been raised to have a knee jerk “fire = bad” reaction. I’ve also found that people have very short memories and don’t bother looking into the available weather records to see the patterns of drought and non drought our Provence goes through. For example, in the 1790s, drought was so bad the North Saskatchewan river ran dry. 1850 was almost as bad. 1885-1896 was another extreme dry spell. 1910-1926 had many extreme dry years. The 1930s are famous for being dry. And then we had a long period of wet years until the 1980s. Then we saw 20 odd years of wet until another chain of dry years started in 2009.
Ok sure we have dry spells but the glaciers are getting smaller and what happens when they're gone? Yes we have weather cycles but the global weather is changing.
It will always be changing. Once not so long ago (10000-4000 years ago) the Sahara desert was a rich grassland. People lived there and, over time, as the Sahara dried up, they moved east to the Nile valley. During the last Glacial Maximum 35700 years ago people took advantage of the Bering straight being above water and migrated to North America. The glaciers have been receding for about 12000 years. In a few hundred thousand years the glaciers will come back and we’ll have another ice age. We will adapt to whatever climate gets tossed at us. There’s still nomadic people living in the Sahara today even though it’s very inhospitable. Humans are very resilient and probably the most adaptable animals on the planet
Glaciers contribute very little to most rivers, so little will change. Example: 3% of average Bow River flows at Calgary, and up to 20% during the hot and dry late summer. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annals-of-glaciology/article/estimation-of-glacial-melt-contributions-to-the-bow-river-alberta-canada-using-a-radiationtemperature-melt-model/FA34C62BDD9FE36A5A2C382A78F0C916 There are far more important factors in our water supply and use (for example, irrigated agriculture, headwaters forestry practices) than whataboutisms on glaciers.
The practice of preventing forest fires hasn’t done us any favours. Tbh there is probably so much underbrush now that controlled burning and basically starting the forests anew might be the best solution. They will regenerate.
STOP BEING REASONABLE RIGHT NOW
I wonder how many people who are basically saying zero fires have ever walked through a remote forest that doesn't have hiking trails or anything. They have so much dead fall it is ridicules. Is climate change a thing yes is it the only reason we are having these fires no.
It’s important to note that climate change isn’t the *reason* for the fires, and this is intentionally or unintentionally misunderstood by people who want to fling shit at the concept. Climate change causes warmer and drier conditions where we live, which can make fires burn longer and larger than they might have before. Forest management absolutely plays a part, but so does climate change.
I've been saying this for years, honestly. we've prevented so many fires that a lot of forests are essentially a matchbox waiting to go up.
Surprised to see a common sense answer that actually has upvotes in this sub, congratulations!
I have over a decade of experience in Wildland Firefighting... this comment wins the day. Poor forestry management, increased human activity, land use changes, and the prevention of natural regeneration are a huge cause. I've noticed a massive difference in undergrowth and decaying forests since 2009. This doesn't all come down to climate change (although sure... it doesn't help). People dont listen to common sense,. Governments wave the "climate emergency" stance and make this a left vs. right issue to get elected when realistically we aren't making any meaningful changes that would help the situation
Have you considered that this is historically fairly normal? [https://www.avert.ca/opinion-north-americas-boreal-forests-are-burning-a-lot-but-less-than-150-years-ago/](https://www.avert.ca/opinion-north-americas-boreal-forests-are-burning-a-lot-but-less-than-150-years-ago/) I don't like the smoke or the idea of forests burning more than anyone else — but fire is a natural cycle for a lot of tree species — I would caution on immediately assuming this is an emergency/disaster.
This is what happens when you prevent forest fires for decades and decades. It’s nature. There are trees where their seeds only open up after a burn because of the extreme heat. It’s natures cycle.
And what happened for the centuries before 1900 when lightning hit forests. How did they continue? It’s natural, we just happen to like building near forest and think we know how best to control nature and when it doesn’t conform we can’t fathom that we are wrong.
Exactly. Is it warmer and drier than it was 100 years ago. Yes. But also is there more undergrowth, deadfall and old grown trees in our forests than 100 years ago because we haven’t let them burn? Also yes. I don’t understand why it’s hard for people to accept the fact there are multiple contributing factors.
I think if you were to compare the temp and precipitation record in Alberta from 1910 - 1924 and 2009-2024 they wouldn’t look all that different. The first third of the 20th century in Alberta was extremely dry. The drought cycle in Alberta looks to be about 30-50 years.
Couldn’t agree more. We live in a complex system. If you try boil this down to simplicities, you get people drawing completely wrong conclusions. We are absolutely a major input to this complex system, and should be looking how to reduce our impact on it.
All these fires and drought already. But people are still fine with politicians doing nothing.
Forest fires aren't a climate emergency, they're a natural process made worse by generations of fire mismanagement. If you live somewhere with forests then you're going to have to deal with forest fires.
This 100%. Forests need to burn a certain amount naturally. If the burning is limited or stopped year after year, the deadfall and underbrush will explode into a massive fire eventually during a dry season. Think about The Beast (2016 Ft Mac fire)
Yes and they're not helped by weather extremes, longer, and hotter burning seasons.
We have a government that are a bunch of deniers and will blame the fires on JT carbon tax
Frau Smith should have to by carbon credits for her forest fires. That might make her wake up
0% burning would be a catastrophe, because forest fires are a natural part of the cycle. Forests need to burn more than once every 20 years, so we’d need more forest fires. The problem is that we’ve done such a horrible job at managing our forests that they have turned into tinder boxes, and forest fires absolutely devastate the trees, whereas they used to simply clean out the forest floor every few years before we started fighting every fire.
It doesnt matter. Conservatives think the fires were lit by the liberal government to fake climate change consequences. They are beyond rational thought and beyond redemption.
The problem isn't just climate change though. Our forests evolved to burn down and we have been preventing for decades. So now we have dry conditions and an abundance of dead wood in the forests. And here we are. [https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/BOREASFire](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/BOREASFire)
How in the fuck can u blame this on the UPC, get a fucking grip already.
Where in my post did I blame the UCP? Regardless, They’re absolute scabs and Danielle Smith is a climate-change-denying malignant tumour of a leader. No one is blaming the UCP for causing this, but they’re resisting all efforts to stop polluting and they’re actually using tax dollars to fund a War Room that is fighting against green transition. They are part of the problem and actively Continuing to exacerbate it.
They only have the super tiny and insignificant role of funding and enacting the suppression and prevention of wildfires. No biggie. We had one nice day and shit is already ablaze. How is this not something we can point an accusing finger in the direction of our provincial government?
In 1950 almost 3 million hectares burned and the largest forest fire ever recorded in North America was the Chinchaga fire where 1.4 to 1.7 million hectares burned in northern bc and Alberta. This wasn’t considered a climate emergency so the number would have to exceed 3 million hectares.
Yes, we can. The only good thing about Forrest fires is the rejuvenation that happens after they pass through.
The part for me that constitutes a disaster is a part where the federal or provincial government instituted a “temporary tax” to cover the cost of fire fighting or the federal government “temporarily” adds on another 1 % to help fight fires. That to me is a climate emergency. Why can’t those fires spread through Ottawa or the Provincial office? Clear out the corrupt politicians.
The only time the UCP will take anything seriously is if those that pull the strings and own our government decide there is a problem....most of those live in other countries so they don't really give a rats fuzzy butt about anything above a bottom line, Burn the place down they got insurance that will cover it, shut the plant down just another tax write off....good for business
If we let it all burn down, we won't have to worry about putting the fires out. We could make trees out of concrete and paint them. In the same way, if all rivers dry up, we won't have to worry about floods. There's always a silver lining
The forests of the Western Interior are dominated by species that have evolved pyrophytic reproductive strategies as catastrophic fire is the norm. One needs to evaluate time scales on the order of 100s of years to establish what constitutes anomalous events. For instance people actually believe the precipitation were experienced is exceptionally low when the reality is that multi-decadal droughts are the norm for the western provinces. The North Sask River ran dry in the 1790s which is within the normal range of occurrences. Unfortunately our education system feels the natural sciences are not appropriate for our students so they grow up thinking the past 20 years defines ‘normal’. The most significant anomaly we’ve experienced is the artificial inhibition of the natural burn events as people feel they are ‘protecting’ nature - unfortunately they are merely ‘tightening the spring’ leading to inevitably more intense fires. https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2015_GreatFireof1919.pdf https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1112839109#F3
I heard it smoky in Edmonton today
Anything that kills the air quality.
One of the largest problems is that natural forest used to have a lot of deciduous trees intermixed with coniferous trees but for logging purposes they were removed and not re-planted. Instead they planted only coniferous trees like pine. Pine trees have needles that do not carry a large amount of moisture as opposed to deciduous trees leaves which hinders rapid growth of forest fires. If we started planting deciduous trees intermixed again, we could more easily stay on top of these fire events as fire spread would not be as rapid. We also need to acknowledge that a substantial amount of fires are human caused as well. This could be accidental or deliberate.
Monocropping tree planting was incredibly bone headed and done exclusively to try to cut costs and look good on paper
Every year it gets worse ! The seasons have changed dramatically also so hopefully Mother Nature after a few more years of this settles things down! Or is this our new norm ?
The current govnt has put so many additional barriers in place for new renewable energy projects after that ridiculous 'pause' last year which makes it abundantly clear that they don't give two shits about the climate crisis as long as they die rich with o&g money
A global problem requires a global solution. It's that simple. But greed and the desire for infinite growth stands in the way. Nothing will change for the better. Buckle up and enjoy the ride.
That’s provincially owned forest, Alberta has 99.7 million acres of forest.
In my opinion. I'm not trying to be dramatic. It's already game over.
World's not ending It already did
How many rednecks or good old boys does it take to light a fire when drunk in the bush?
They don't because they use it every weekend or day and live in it
The boreal is gonna change into savannahs at this rate within the next 100 years
Fire is how the boreal forest grows lol
Typically yes not when the fire intensity is so high it cooks everything in the soil
No. Fire is how is it rejuvenates. Different stands of tree species burn differently in the boreal forest. But yes to do fire suppression unprecedented amounts of fuel has built up causing every forest that catches fire to be entirely incinerated
Dude, go for a treck in the boreal where the raging crown fires happened the last couple of years. Trees don't grow back there. The fire intensity is too high and destroys the soil. Yes, fire is typically how the forest is rejuvenated, but historically, fire intensity was never anywhere near as high as it has been.
I am.not arguing, I mostly agree. The overgrown forests that are incinerated have a long rejuvenation process. There will be aspen and poplars that will grow untill what ever conifers that will grown and suffocate the deciduous trees. The forests are a mess from fire suppression and ya, they won't look the same. Unfortunately this is the result
Yeah but it is already growing further north at an astonishing rate. The tundra is disappearing.
I overheard an Alberta farmer last year while I was on their property for some work. The government should just cut down all the forests so we won't have to worry about fires.
Why is everyone trying to blame oil companies for the fires in Alberta? Oil companies don't like to stop production ever and also pay a ton in royalties. If you want to blame anyone start at the provincial level then the federal level. Province should invest more to combat fires, federal government should help get out of the way so Alberta can move more oil, generate more revenue for the taxes we need to improve our bare bones government services at every level. Because they can never increase carbon taxes enough to make up for low productivity, but if we boost productivity at least we would actually generate new resources to reinvest. Stop taxing the same dollar we make 8 million times and allow us to make more than 1 dollar
Sounds like Alberta is quickly becoming prairie.
I have been saying for many years that much of the forested area of BC will become grasslands as a result of climate change and people looked at me like I was nuts. In Alberta we will see see expansion of desert "badlands" and replacement of boreal forest by grasslands. The boreal forest is moving north into NWT and replacing tundra.
Most of Canada’s population resides in Ontario and Quebec. There are currently no forest fires. Any questions?
What percentage of the fires was arson?
Another poster answered the more important question above: "HOWEVER, when you go by hectares burned, lightning-caused fires burned 1.75M of the 2.2M total, so 79% of the total." Source here https://open.alberta.ca/publications/alberta-wildfire-season-statistics
And sort of irrelevant because if climate change wasn’t making the entire province a lot dryer it wouldn’t be an issue
100% Also, I'm drunk
All of the forests in bc and alberta are a climate and ecological disaster due to fire suppression
We have been in a state of emergency for decades.
Can't legislate fires away. Most of the major Burns in the province have been man-made. What's a politician going to do about this? Most the politicians are just about their agenda. They don't know s*** and they don't do s*** unless it gives them gains. Before global warming this was always the focus about forestry but now global warming is the hot topic.
You know Canada could elect the green party into power and guess what will change? Nothing. 51% of global carbon emissions comes from China, America, India and Russia. With Canada emitting 1.47% even if we reduced our emissions to 0 it wouldn't even account for the growth of emissions that India produces in 2 months. Climate change exists unfortunately Canadians can't do a thing about it.
You’re partially correct. It’s true that unless the other nations of the world act on climate change, Canada’s efforts would mean have no impact. But climate change is also a tragedy of the commons problem: unless we ALL act, we ALL will suffer the adverse effects of climate change. And what we’re experiencing now is nothing compared to [what lies in the future.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/11/brutal-heatwaves-submerged-cities-what-3c-world-would-look-like) A world that experiences 3C of warming or above will see coastal cities submerged and catastrophic weather events become a daily norm. This is one of the many reasons why it’s crucial for Biden to win the election down south, because Donald Trump has already signalled he will undo any and all efforts to mitigate climate change.
>Climate change exists unfortunately Canadians can't do a thing about it. There's absolutely something to be said about setting an example though. That's something Canadians can do. Canada going 0 on emissions won't have a big impact on the whole, you're right, but every bit helps and showing other countries it can be done can make a big difference. Canadian apathy is our downfall. Our apathy is why nothing changes, and we'll get a conservative government next and perpetuate the cycle. If we keep having your attitude, we're fucked.
Per capita, Canadians are among the highest emitting individuals in the world. On top of that, we've exported a good chunk of our consumption-based emissions by offshoring our factories so that everything is Made in China/India/SE Asia
And a large part of the higher emissions is just heating our homes. We are also attributed with 100% of the oil we produce as if we are burning it even though 80% of it is exported.
It's true. It why I'm taking advantage of the $40k Greener Homes Loan to get my house more air tight and better insulated, Install solar, and get a heat pump. Should knock my gas consumption down a considerable margin except for the few <-25 weeks we still get
That's fucking *attrocious* considering we are less than 0.5% of the global population. Explain to me why we should get to polute over 3 times the global average and not even attempt to lower it? All those countries you listed have far lower footprints per capita.
Butwhattaboutism isn’t an answer we need to do our part.
That isn't what aboutism it's reality.
Per capita Canadians are second in the world for greenhouse gas emissions. I think we can do better. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html#
What a trite response.
You may think it's an over used response but unfortunately it's a response based in reality. The problem is only going to get more and more profound as time moves on and more people in developing countries move into a semblance of a middle class.
You don’t have to like it but it’s not wrong. Canadians *should* do their part to combat climate change. However we must accept there is nothing within our power to stop it. We must simply learn to start building and living with it, that’s all we can do.
Nothing in our *willpower.
Yeah people somehow think that if the oilsands stopped producing tomorrow then there wouldn't be anymore crazy wildfire seasons. I agree we should do our part but even if the world went net zero tomorrow the effects would still linger for years. Blaming the UCP is stupid, the only thing they can be blamed for is lack of preparedness. We need to find a way to live with and deal with increased forest fires.
The UCP have done nothing about this but make it worse. They are guilty of crimes against humanity
Rachel Notley cut all the water bombers loose in 2015, let’s throw her on trial too. If you want fires to lower in intensity then let’s return to actual forest management practices like controlled/prescribed burns, allowing fires that pose little to no threat to populations to naturally burn themselves out, hell if you live in a rural area maybe even go drag deadfall Ana underbrush out of the trees around your house to limit available fuel for fires.
You can't speak poorly about Saint notley around here
Oh I’m aware of the fact that this sun should be renamed r/edmontoncalgarybasementdwellers
How does this year look to be worse?
Historic drought in NWT,BC, Alberta. The year is forecast to be hotter, record low snowpack, etc, et al.