Bob Rae preaches sustainable development of oilsands

[Dexter Sinister]

Given that sustainable means capable of continuous re-use, I wish I knew what sustainable development is supposed to mean in the context of a finite, non-renewable resource. I have a hard time thinking it means anything at all. Oil is maybe renewable on geological time scales, if it doesn't require unique environmental conditions unlikely to be repeated to create it in the first place, but not on the scale we're using it. Could it mean we don't develop it faster than the environment can recycle its toxic byproducts? We crossed that line long ago. I incline to the view that sustainable is one of those eco-buzzwords that mean almost nothing. I think the idea Rae was really going for is more like managed, controlled, regulated, something like that.

 

[mentalfloss]

Sustainable development (SD) is a pattern of economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come.

Sustainable development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Okay, like I said, regulated, controlled, managed. Sustainable's the wrong word.

 

[TenPenny]

Sustainable development (SD) is a pattern of economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come.

Sustainable development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, so we'll make sure we only use oil at the same rate that it is being replenished.

Let me know when you figure that out.

 

[mentalfloss]

Ah, so we'll make sure we only use oil at the same rate that it is being replenished.

Let me know when you figure that out.

I'll let you know.

By the way, there is no problem with resource depletion as long as we have a working, alternative method to substitute for that resource. Of course, if we're out of oil in the next couple of generations, not only is the environment ****ed - but all the money in the world won't buy us technological advancement.

 

[beaker]

Okay, like I said, regulated, controlled, managed. Sustainable's the wrong word.

I think that sutainability is definitely one of the most used and least understood words currently floating around..


But sustainability is larger than the one issue of oil sands use, Use of a resource like that could be sustainable if it was being developed in a way that improves our ability to survive, and the planets ability to perpetuate all the species. So if it was being done in a way that left the planet at least as clean as it is, if it was being developed so that by its use we were developing a renewable energy infrastructure that would mean we wouldn't need the oil in the future, and if social and intergenerational equity weren't being compromised even use of the oil sands might be sustainable. I'm going to have to think about that a bit.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

But sustainability is larger than the one issue of oil sands use... I'm going to have to think about that a bit.

Agreed, and me too. My first thought is that we have two meanings of the word in different contexts and people use them interchangeably when they shouldn't. There's an ecological/environmental meaning of being more or less indefinitely reusable with proper care, as with water and soil, and an economic/financial meaning, which is really about regulation, management, and control.

My second thought is that any economist will tell you, in the the context of any non-renewable resource, that there will always be some available at some price, though it may get high enough to render it unavailable in any practical terms.

My third thought... haven't got there yet.

 

[TenPenny]

By the way, there is no problem with resource depletion as long as we have a working, alternative method to substitute for that resource.

That doesn't quite jive with the definition that you provided, so let me know when you've settled on a definition. There was no mention of alternative methods or substitutes in your previous definition.

 

[mentalfloss]

That doesn't quite jive with the definition that you provided.

Of course it does.

The resource may be depleted over a number of generations rather than a short period of time.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... there is no problem with resource depletion as long as we have a working, alternative method to substitute for that resource.

Yeah, that's the economist's argument, rising prices draw forth alternatives, and by and large it's worked so far, but betting it'll work forever seems a little risky to me.

 

[TenPenny]

Of course it does.

The resource may be depleted over a number of generations rather than a short period of time.

You could read what you posted, as opposed to your interpretation of what you posted.

 

[beaker]

Yeah, that's the economist's argument, rising prices draw forth alternatives, and by and large it's worked so far, but betting it'll work forever seems a little risky to me.

If we are only going to rely on market place it is going to be hit and miss. I think a good approach might be a direct intervention with shareholders of the corporations involved, an introductory course in ethical investing for example.

 

[Redmonton_Rebel]

“I don’t think it’s just a matter of saying ‘I’m pro-development’ or ‘I’m anti-development,’ I think everybody recognizes it’s a huge resource for Canada. The question is: Can we do it in a sustainable way?”

No, of course we can't. The region is already being devastated by the local impacts like huge water use, removal of hundereds of square miles of forest and peat cover and the creation of massive toxic tailings ponds behind the worlds largest earthen dams.

The Tar Sands use natural gas which is the least carbon intensive fossil fuel for primary processing, it uses coal power electricity for intermediate upgrading and is then further refined before being comsumed by end users. It's one of the least sustainable sources of energy there is. It's just boneheadedness on the part of industry and political "leaders" that is allowing this travesty to continue.

 

[CDNBear]

Let's put this one down to misunderstanding.

No doubt.

Its the reason why I asked what is the difference between sustainable and "sustainable" and where responsible fits in.

In this case, context would matter.

mentalfloss was making false allegations, yet again, about the the Present Gov't.

I was just showing how he was.

Sustainable development (SD) is a pattern of economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come.

Sustainable development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you could at least use the wiki article applicable to the Canadian version, while you shift the goal posts.

Sustainable Development Strategy in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Sustainable", "Responsible", Tomato, Tomato.

Unless one is having difficulty seeing the forest for the different trees, or blinded by an ideology.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

I would say that Mentalfloss came closest to a definition. It seems to me that "sustainable" development, in the context of climate change and energy policies, is development that can be sustained during the transition period to a fossil free future. It should be reducing as the use of alternatives grows and should, as a matter of policy, grow rapidly.

That is what is not happening as Rebel points out.

 

[CDNBear]

I would say that Mentalfloss came closest to a definition.

He did?

But he didn't post what he thinks is a definition. He posted a caption and link from wikiality.

And not even Canada's version thereof.

 

[petros]

Given that sustainable means capable of continuous re-use, I wish I knew what sustainable development is supposed to mean in the context of a finite, non-renewable resource. I have a hard time thinking it means anything at all. Oil is maybe renewable on geological time scales, if it doesn't require unique environmental conditions unlikely to be repeated to create it in the first place, but not on the scale we're using it. Could it mean we don't develop it faster than the environment can recycle its toxic byproducts? We crossed that line long ago. I incline to the view that sustainable is one of those eco-buzzwords that mean almost nothing. I think the idea Rae was really going for is more like managed, controlled, regulated, something like that.

The "environment" hasn't stopped making oil...

 

[beaker]

Sustainable development (SD) is a pattern of economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come.

Sustainable development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is a good definition mentalfloss, and sustainable development would have to lead to sustainability. What the tar sands are now is a grotesque misuse of resources to mine a filthy energy source, in a manner that gives not a thought to future generations. I'ld like to nominate redmonton to sit on the board of directors for Shells tar sands operations. Max of a four year term though, and no more contaminating contact after that. Do you accept the nomination?

 

[petros]

The Bolsheviks already tried "sustainable development". How did that work out for them?

 

[beaker]

The Bolsheviks already tried "sustainable development". How did that work out for them?

Please give us some kind of reference point for where such a comment comes from.