As many will know, I spent my teaching career in a small, rural Saskatchewan community. That career ended with my retirement 15 years ago, but it's been interesting to remain in contact with a large number of former students as they move into careers of their own, families of their own and, hopefully, more informed opinions of their own.
It was with some disappointment, the other evening, that I was involved in another exchange involving the oil and gas industry, climate change, the carbon tax and other peripheral issues that have been dividing this country for a few years now.
The post that got this most recent "discussion" going was another in a series that promotes the Trans Mountain Pipeline and points to a single spill as evidence of how safe pipelines are. Never mind that the article pretty much misses the point about the other problems that increased tar sands production and increased oil use presents.
I countered with a Global News video that looked at the number of pipeline spills in Alberta. Note that this article doesn't include any pipelines under NEB (National Energy Board) jurisdiction, such as those crossing provincial boundaries.
Ever protective of their pet industry, a few former students weighed in, mostly with ad hominen comments related to my choice to commute to work in their town, questions about whether I had taken any plane flights recently, and what was I doing to own up to my personal carbon footprint.
What they didn't do was address the content of the Global News article.
I countered with an article from the Western Producer about Alberta's huge orphan wells problem, one variously pegged at costs between $50B and who knows where. A problem for which there is a mere pittance available to fund the cleanup of those wells that comes from the industry itself. It's pretty obvious that most of the cost will fall in the shoulders of taxpayers. I can't wait for the future to prove me wrong on this, but I don't expect to be.
Still no response directed to the articles presented, but certainly more comments about how I must know nothing about industry, life on the farm or anything else about "real life" because, mainly, I was a teacher (of science, among other things) for most of my working life.
It wasn't difficult to detect the arrogance of such claims coming from people who know almost nothing about science but still feel comfortable dismissing climate change. In this vein, the following canard was trotted out - how volcanoes contribute so much to CO2 emissions, far more, in fact, than humans ever have.
It's profoundly disappointing to see people who had access to the educational opportunities provided in a developed country and yet were so incapable of doing 10 seconds of research on the Interweb to find clear, unequivocal answers to these topics.
For instance, here, from Scientific American and the US Geological Survey.
Or here, in an article published in Forbes, a reasonably reputable business magazine.
Or here, from the website Skeptical Science, although I didn't use this one, knowing that climate change deniers will have no truck with anything found on that site.
Or here, from the US Government itself, but we all know that governments worldwide are in on the "climate change conspiracy" in a desperate grasp for power, tax revenue and control.
Those sources took me about 2 minutes to find. Even the first one, given the source, would likely have been enough. My science education and related experience over 4 decades has taught me a few things: I'm cautious about declaring what I know. I'm not an expert, but I recognize that there are experts who know more than I do about most things. I adhere to the cautious position that science has on knowledge, recognizing that new information can appear at any time, making current explanations (not beliefs - that's the purview of religion and politics) subject to change.
Not these fellows, though. Despite their science education being limited to a few years (apparently for little discernible result) in high school science classrooms, they are comfortable dismissing information as clear as the following:
This volcano trope was first proposed by geologist Ian Rutherford Plimer in his book Heaven and Earth. In his book he tries to argue that humans have an insignificant effect on global climate. His book has been widely discredited. Empirical evidence almost by itself would be enough to discredit such nonsense. But "arguments" similar to his are regularly trotted out by climate change deniers and fossil fuel enthusiasts.
This is not the only case that leaves me with my sense of profound disappointment. Another former student is, so far as I can tell, firmly in the anti-vax camp. I've resisted bringing the topic up, but I fear for her children. Her beliefs stem from a completely discredited article published by Andrew Wakeman several decades ago. Unfortunately, once nonsense gets out there, it's nearly impossible to walk it back.
Another former student has apparently spent far too much time listening to American talk radio and has a veritable compendium of conspiracy theories and related nonsense to trot out at any given time. As the talk became even wilder and far-fetched, I had to give up talking to him.
And yet another let loose with a collection of comments such as: "You don't see Smart cars pulling horse trailers", "climate alarmists are declaring fossil fuels irrelevant", and that if people had to pay these increased costs [from the minuscule carbon tax] they wouldn't be able to afford to "go green".
It should be obvious to anyone that when people have lots of money, they spend it on toys. Large trucks, ATVs, boats, big 5th-wheel trailers, vacations, etc. They certainly don't spend that extra cash on more energy efficient vehicles, or home insulation upgrades. The only time people will invest in anything more energy efficient (and keep in mind that few people even think about this topic much), is when they finally see that they can save money by doing so. And why would they start paying attention to this? When something costs you more that it used to, especially when it costs quite a bit more than it used to.
Frankly, I don't much care what people spend their money on, but they shouldn't expect there to be no consequences for their purchases. The costs of running them would be top of the list. At some point, most thinking people will realize that they can't afford NOT to invest in greener technology.
My life experience taught me that if I wanted to do something (buy a big truck, go on a vacation, etc), I had to be able to afford it. If not, I needed to find another way. But I had no right to expect the world to hand me whatever I wanted for no cost.
Where this anti-knowledge, anti-science mindset comes from would be interesting to discuss, but I can point to a meeting I had with one of the local Board of Education members, many, many years ago, during which he accused me of "pushing my own opinions", specifically, at the time, about acid rain. What it was quite obvious he didn't understand or accept, was that acid rain was a real problem and that I had been hired to teach science and was, therefore, at least passingly aware of the acid rain issue. What I taught were not "my opinions", but the accepted view of the mainstream science. The same could be said about the teaching of genetics, evolution, chemistry, or climate change. It was perhaps my first encounter with the small-c conservative party line as it relates to science. Deny, deny, deny. And, as we saw during the Harper regime, try to muzzle anyone who has opinions different from your own.
And, of course, we all know that science types are just pointy-headed intellectuals with no grounding in real life and the way the world actually works.
Tempering my disappointment is the knowledge that other former students have become exceptionally well-informed about many issues and who are prepared to discuss, intelligently, many of the important issues of the day. Not that we always agree, but that's not the point. It never is the point.
Unfortunately, we have to go back to the recent Alberta election. The UCP posted the following image on their Facebook page and some of their obvious supporters have taken great joy in re-posting it. Also, unfortunately, it doesn't say much for their level of knowledge of science, atmospheric pollution, air quality and climate change.
