Climate Change - Wither Now?

As human beings, we are often prone to looking at the problems rather than the opportunities.   I wonder whether it is at least as valid for us in north america to look at potential opportunties that climate change might offer us, as well as the increased risks and costs of climate change.    For example, we presently have three to eight months of winter in most of north america.   Siberia also has long winters, which are costly in terms of heating needs , short growing season for crops, frost damage to roads and equipment, need for additional clothes and housing, etc.   Longer summers in some of those areas will allow more crop production to take place, and will reduce heating costs.  Other opportunities might be to increase housing in temperate climates, and to reduce winter vacation  travel to warmer climates further south. 

We are often inundated with the potential problems and hazards of climate change;   but can you think of potential opportunities that climate change might offer us? 

Having just returned from a ghg conference in Animal Agric in Ireland, I would say there are many opportunities.  Delegates from Japan and Brazil, Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Australia, NZ, Canada and the USA and many other countries, presented research, over 400 presentations.  Some of this research showed what would not work, and some showed some promising reductions of methane with certain practices or feed additives.  Interesting is that increased efficiency usually means reduction of methane and CO2 and N2O.   What that means is that it should be possible to produce more food with less resources, which helps to solve the global food demand issue (9 billion people by 2050 anticipated).  

On the adaptation side, the recent flooding in Southern Alberta also highlighted the likely costs of not anticipating greater weather fluctuations in the future.  But the opportunity might be that setting up better irrigation infrastructure (water storage) might also reduce catastrophic flooding events.  Anyway, thinking about opportunities, will make the costs of adaption become investments, rather than merely costs. 

Hi John -- I agree that getting oil from Canada is a far better choice than the Middle East but I don't think we should be industrially strip mining the Alberta landscape to get the oil to supply one of the most inefficient vehicle fleets in the world.  In situ production of the oil sands (or bitumous sands :)) is much easier to accept.

Jeremy

~ "There are no unsacred places; there are only sacred places and desecrated places."    Wendell Berry

Jeremy, strip mining does seem a bit drastic, but it will be reclaimed... and still be more productive than some natural canadian shield rock scapes.   I was even wondering whether we could grow crops on some of the reclaimed areas... just wondering.    yes, the north american fleet is relatively inefficient, but that's probably because we like bigger cars to carry stuff, and we have sleepers on most long haul trucks, and we don't use buses like they do in Europe cities.  Double deckers everywhere in Dublin and London, for example.  More buses than cars almost, it seems.  But most homes are brick row housing there also, packed like sardines into streets, without yards, or with postage sized front yards, mostly.  Some larger homes, with tall stone fences around them... and garages large enough to accomodate two bicycles, side by side... 

Most of the open pit oilsands is already in operation now.  From now on it will be insitu bitument, with still a large footprint because of all the injection wells and extraction wells, but without surface mining, and so a much smaller footprint.  New technology being discovered all the time, including alternatives to steam injection.  Yes, it will be nice to have more alternatives to fossil fuels, but it will still take fossil fuels to create many of those alternatives.   In the meantime, we ought to make the transport of these fuels as energy efficient as possible, thus reducing ghg.   

Jeremy, Canada signed the Kyoto accord, and yet has been less successful in reducing emissions than the USA, which did not sign the accord.  So now Canada has not signed the renewal of the accord;  and hopefully it will be more successful in reducing emissions.   However, Canada's emissions are primarily based on consumption in other parts of the world, particularly in the USA, and so these emissions ought to be attributed to USA consumption.  This applies to both oil and livestock.  But lets not nitpick.  Yes, there is still some more land to be open pit mined, but it is a relatively small portion and small area compared to future bitumen supplies.   Most bitumen is too deep to surface mine. 

Reclamation is the beginning of restoration, which wouldn't happen until the forest is at the previous mature stage.  But the landscape won't be exactly as it was before, although the intent is to replicate to some degree the similar uneven terrain.   In some ways, you might even call it a giant oil spill cleanup, since the soil will have less oil in it than it did before the mining.   There are some small portions already reclaimed with vegetation growing.   New technology which removes the need for tailings ponds is also being developed.  Things are never static. 

So a church may divest of oil stocks.  What are they doing investing in business opportunities anyway?   Why don't they invest in missions instead, which is what the money was probably intended for.   But if we shouldn't invest in fossil fuel industries, then why should we invest in churches which usually burn these fossil fuels in their inefficient furnaces, and paint with fossil fuel paints, and use fossil fuel created carpeting and chairs, and transport their sunday school kids in fossil fuel powered buses and vans, and inevitably have their pastor driving a fossil fuel powered contraption in order to make visits to members and new attenders, as well as driving or flying to classis and synod and mission fields in Honduras?  Just asking. 

"Many of the mainline Protestant churches discussing divestment are struggling, having seen significant declines in attendance over the last two generations." (according to Jeremy's linked article). 

"The (United Church of Christ) denomination places high emphasis on participation in worldwide interfaith and ecumenical efforts.[5][6] The national settings of the UCC have historically favored liberal views on social issues, such as civil rights, gay rights, women's rights and abortion rights." Wikipedia.  This is one of the churches favoring divestment.   It would be a question as to whether the oil industry is more immoral than this church....when it comes to gay rights, sex education and abortion rights.    

If interested, here's another church calling for divestment.

http://fprespa.org/cpt_news/council-approves-overture-to-general-assembly-2014-on-fossil-fuel-divestment/

http://www.emoregon.org/power_light_fuels.php