Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 16h

Me: "Fossil fuel expansion is dangerous. Here's IPCC research to back me up."

You: "Promising fossil fuel expansion & tabling fossil fuel expansion as policy don't really indicate intention to expand fossil fuel, & here's "because I said so" to back me up. Stop assuming policies are intentional."

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 16h

You're apparently assuming that Carney repeatedly saying he'll expand fossil fuels & also taking actions to do so somehow don't indicate that he plans to expand fossil fuels. Based on zero supporting evidence you've thus far presented.

That's a truly gigantic unsupported assumption.

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 16h

You ignore very real risks associated with Carney's fossil fuel expansion *statements* and his fossil fuel expansion *policies.*

You never *stated* it, but repeatedly minimizing & dismissing those risks instead of acknowledging them is a very effective way to *demonstrate* it anyway.

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 16h

If you go and read Chicken Little, you'll discover that quite famously, the title character gets quite upset about a danger they imagine that doesn't exist.

My concern is about a very real danger that definitely exists.

You aren't being honest. You're being partisan while dismissing valid concern.

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 16h

You're clearly not concerned by Carney's public statements about expanding fossil fuels. Nor his actions to expand fossil fuels. Nor IPCC statements about what those efforts mean.

If you were, you'd be on my side, on the climate's side, rather than cheerleading for Carney right now.

Own it.

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 20h

IPCC: "more fossil fuel expansion ensures the worst climate scenarios become inescapable."

Carney: "I'm going to massively expand fossil fuels"

Muse1267: "I don't believe he really wants to do what he firmly says he's going to do and what his legislative actions show him already attempting to do."

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 20h

What govts say & what they do are often different ... so when they promise incredibly destructive policies and take clear steps towards enabling exactly those destructive things to really happen, it's no big deal at all and we shouldn't be concerned about either their words or their actions?

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 20h

Chicken Little didn't cite peer reviewed science and top expert opinions about a real crisis that already had a body count in the millions.

But comparing climate concern to Chicken Little really does help to explain your utter rejection of all the evidence, though, so thanks for the context.

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 20h

Given what you believe are his beliefs, you'll ignore what the world's climate scientists and a dozen other kinds of experts besides have to say about his actual public policy decisions.

Because some of the things he says reassure you, & other things he says you'll ignore.

Good luck with that.

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 21h

So if Carney hasn't successfully committed ecocide *yet,* then we environmentalists should just shut up until after he's had enough time to try and finish the job, say these LPC loyalists.

It's not like mere *attempted* ecocide could be a problem or a credible reason to express concern, right?

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 21h

Muse1267's logic level here is that if someone publicly says that they plan to shoot someone and you watch them buy a gun and you watch them load it with bullets and you watch them point it at that someone and you watch them put their finger on the trigger, it's way to early to judge the situation.

2

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 21h

So not only don't you believe *me* saying those things, you apparently don't believe all of the top relevant experts on Earth saying them.

But you completely and unquestioningly trust that Carney, despite admitting your lack of relevant expertise, is smart to ignore all their warnings at once.

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 21h

All of Canada's professional medical organizations agree that climate change is the greatest health threat of the 21st century.

How is worsening that risk supposed to improve Canada's economy?

Be specific. Show us actual evidence.

We'll wait, but won't hold our breath.

cape.ca/wp-content/u...

cape.ca

1 1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 21h

Insurers call climate change “the mother of all risks.” While waving around the receipts, so they should know. We should assume Carney knows better than the entire industry whose whole business model is based on effective risk assessment why, exactly?

www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08...

'The Mother of All Risks': Insurance Giants Call on G20 to Stop Bankrolling Fossil Fuels | Common Dreams

Multinational firms managing $1.2tn in assets declare subsidies for coal, oil, and gas 'simply unsustainable'

www.commondreams.org

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 22h

Military intelligence experts tell us that climate change is a threat multiplier, while pointing at real world conflicts it’s already made much worse.

Carney knows better than all of the generals and the real world examples that prove them right, does he?

sustainablesong.medium.com/climate-conf...

Climate Conflicts: What the Pentagon Means by “Threat Multiplier”

Wars already intensified by the climate show us what to expect next.

sustainablesong.medium.com

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 22h

Here's the latest IPCC assessment report in its entirety. It's not just evidence, it's the highest quality of scientific evidence on this topic that's available on the face of the planet.

I recommend you read it. It says don't do what Carney's doing.

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/w...

www.ipcc.ch

1 1 1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 22h

“NO new oil and gas development is possible if the world is to stay with the Paris Agreement temperature limits. Any new oil and gas fields will push the world beyond 1.5°C."

The science does NOT say "expanding fossil fuels further can strengthen economies."

Evidence

www.iisd.org/articles/ins...

IPCC Research Shows Need for Ramping Up Mitigation Ambition, Tackling Adaptation Gaps

The IPCC Synthesis Report of its sixth assessment cycle confirms that the world is dangerously close to the 1.5°C limit under the Paris Agreement—but also affirms there are proven options to avert cat...

www.iisd.org

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 22h

60 central banks from around the world, including the Bank of Canada, agree that climate change is a clear and present danger to not only individual national economies but the entire global financial system.

We should ignore them why, exactly?

www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/31/g...

‘Uninsurable and Unhedgeable’: Central Banks Warn of Financial Crisis from Climate Change

A future climate disaster, or “green swan” event, could bring down the global financial system, according to a new report from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), an international financial ...

www.desmogblog.com

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 22h

Complete study by college of actuaries: Current climate trajectory endangers fully 50% of global GDP possibly as early as 2050 and definitely no later than 2070.

Again, this is what evidence looks like. Try responding to it, not simply ignoring it.

actuaries.org.uk/media/qeydew...

actuaries.org.uk

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 22h

Canada's current level of dependence on fossil fuels - *without* Carney further expanding the sector - already endangers 20% of national GDP and 8% of employment by 2030.

Complete peer reviewed macroeconomic study here.

This is what we call evidence.

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets

Nature Climate Change - New fossil fuel investments may become stranded if demand for fossil fuel declines due to technological change. This could amount to a discounted global wealth loss of...

www.nature.com

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 22h

You haven't "made points." You've repeatedly said that Carney is doing his best to improve our economy while ignoring every single scrap of relevant evidence which shows that his policies cannot possibly improve the economy and are guaranteed to harm it.

Let's look at some links together, shall we?

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 22h

Carney:
• "I'll expand our fossil fuel industry"
• changed law to help do so
• put fossil fuel CEO in charge of major projects office
• put fossil fuel expansion at the top of his first list of "major projects"

You: "None of that proves that he intends to increase fossil fuels!"

Parody account?

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 22h

"Our govt has to do all it can to keep our economy stable" by... (checks notes) doing what research shows us is the best way to collapse the global economy, & by magnifying already record inequality to even greater heights, by hurting the poor, & by fattening billionaires.

Spoiler: that won't work.

1 1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 22h

Apparently you haven't read. But you feel super confident that we should blindly trust Carney knows better than the IPCC, than the entire insurance industry, than the World Bank, than the college of actuaries, than every professional medical organization in Canada, than agronomists, and so on.

1

Michael Nabert @sustainablesong.bsky.social · 22h

Get this through your head:

*I* am not saying that more fossil fuel development endangers the global ecosystem. The world's top climate scientists are.

*I*m not saying "increased national security risks." Top military intelligence are.

*I*m not saying "human health risks." All our doctors are.