Long ago, Cree leader Captain Swan visited the Athabasca area. In 1715, he described a scene to Hudson’s Bay Company fur trader James Knight: “... there is a Certain Gum or pitch that runs down the river in such abundance that [Indians] cannot land but at certain places.” This was the first written reference to bitumen in Canada. Bitumen forms when organic matter is buried and subjected to heat and pressure over geological timescales. That organic matter was primarily algae and plants, which had sequestered carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, thereby locking CO₂ in place, significantly reducing atmospheric CO₂ levels, and helping sustain all aerobic life.

In 1859, John Tyndall explained how atmospheric gases absorb heat from the sun as infrared radiation. His paper details an early understanding of the greenhouse effect. Scientists have long since linked CO₂ emissions—burning refined bitumen and coal—to changing Earth’s climate. A 1912 Popular Mechanics article states, “The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2 billion tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and raise its temperature.” A century on, we’re burning 500% more fossil fuels.

Wishful thoughts will not prevent Earth’s global average temperature from increasing as we combust fossil fuels back into atmospheric CO₂. And while our generation reaps the rewards of inexpensive energy, our grandchildren will face the consequences of repaying this debt. A debt undermining the ancient Haudenosaunee philosophy that today’s decisions should result in a sustainable world seven generations from now.

Building a better world for our children requires energy—yet doing so by burning fossil fuels to the point of climate destabilization twists irony into generational betrayal far removed from sustainability.

In a 2013 experiment, University of Berkeley researchers found that breathing in a CO₂ concentration of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) indoors causes a measurable decline in intellectual capacity; at 2,500 ppm, initiative and strategic thinking declined to a dysfunctional level, which has since been corroborated by other researchers, including a 2023 meta-analysis on the short-term exposure to indoor CO₂ levels versus cognitive task performance. These cognitive effects become particularly concerning when viewed against atmospheric trends. On June 2, 2025, atmospheric CO₂ surpassed 429 ppm, a significant increase from the 318 ppm measured at Mauna Loa on June 15, 1959.

https://i.ibb.co/yFcXJqCy/graph.png

The graph illustrates a troubling acceleration in CO₂ emissions. At the current growth rate of 3.8 ppm per year, atmospheric CO₂ could reach 1,000 ppm in six generations (150 years). A 2021 study published in Nature emphasized the urgent need for action, stating that global oil and gas production must decline by 3% annually until 2050. Moreover, to limit warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels (1850–1900), an additional 25% of oil reserves must remain untouched.

Against this backdrop, political leaders advocate for increased fossil fuel extraction. Danielle Smith wants to unlock Alberta’s “$14 trillion in oil wealth” to “benefit millions of Canadians for generations.”

Short-term economic benefits derived from resource exploitation have repeatedly led to gradual, often unheeded, environmental degradation. This pattern repeatedly culminated in ecological and economic crashes, devastating the very communities who initially profited. Notable cases include Mesopotamian salinization, the Classic Maya collapse, the Ancestral Puebloan collapse, Norse Greenland settlements, Easter Island’s deforestation, the Dust Bowl, the Aral Sea’s desiccation, and the Grand Banks cod collapse. While some nations have sustainably managed resource wealth, the immediate economic pressures and political incentives that drive extraction often overshadow long-term planning.

The question is not: “How many Canadian generations will benefit?”

The question is: “How many generations will suffer, globally?”

Will we learn from history? Will we set an example for the next seven generations?

Or will we build more oil and gas pipelines, condemning our descendants to an unsustainable future?

Hereby released into the public domain. Feel free to adapt, correct, and send to representatives.

Disclaimer: I don't quite know how to address the topic, so I want to state I'm trying to approach this with sensitivity; I hope this might lead to a helpful and insightful conversation on a potentially difficult issue. Apologies if I don't quite get it right!

I noticed the absence of a name I'd become familiar with on Tildes and wanted to start a discussion on how the community should handle situations where a person of community renowned abruptly departs.

The user in question is @daychilde, who is one of the users I'd seen around quite a bit. I've been on Tildes for quite a while now, and would like to think I've had a positive - if not vast - contribution. Overall, I probably read more than I respond; I bring this up because I am aware that I probably represent the voice of a significant portion of the userbase here: I'm figuring stuff out as I go and probably am not in the loop on the majority of stuff going on on Tildes. All in all, I don't recognise a lot of names on Tildes, but @daychilde is/was a character who stuck out and seemed to have a significant impact on the community.

From what I deduce, @daychilde has been banned some time in the past week, and I thought it worth discussing given there are at least a couple of things left in the lurch as a result that people might seek information on. The ones that have crossed my vision are the following:

https://tildes.net/~tech/1od9/personal_offer_do_you_have_a_website_based_project_youve_been_wanting_to_do_but_worried_about_cost
and
https://tildes.net/~life/1n7e/daychildes_walking_thread

At the risk of broaching a difficult topic - I'm not looking to cause drama or speculate - we should probably discuss the fallout of a situation like this. Hopefully at the very least this topic might be something others can find if they also become aware of the departure of a notable person and are looking for confirmation or where might be appropriate to discuss any fallout that might occur.

For @daychilde in particular, this website seemed to be a resource that helped him manage his life. I wonder if we should consider whether there is some duty of care to users to depend on Tildes in some capacity?

There are also people who might be looking to discuss the hosting that he had offered/agreed, and might now be left in the lurch.

Unfortunately I don't have solutions, but I didn't see any discussion or information on this kind of a topic, nor any precedent for this kind of a situation!