The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by misher

I partially agree with this. However technology has improved so much its crazy. We can't be using incidents that happened back when magnet tapes were considered a "ground breaking" technology to justify blocking development in the present day. Technology is so much much much more advanced. We actually have sensors and automatic shutoffs. Look at the Fukushima plant at Japan that had a disaster, that was built in 1971 and honestly wasn't that bad considering they got hit by a 9.0 quake and tsunami. If we build modern plants in places that won't have earthquakes we can be quite assured that we will be safe. There are 60 plants in America that have been operating for decades.

Also we got to get with the climate change program. We need a lot more power that doesn't rely on rainfall or sunshine. We could also drastically cut Alberta's emissions by building a nuclear plant for their industries to use. Geothermal is a possible alternative that needs to be better explored.

Interesting answer. Thanks!

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's true that governments haven't properly decided what to do with the waste, but that isn't due to a lack of technological solution but instead procrastination of politicians and ignorance of the populace.

Regardless, even taking into account Chernobyl and Fukishima and the rest, looking gloablly including much all the history in less safe countries than Canada, nuclear is still far and away the safest form of energy we have.



I believe this holds up if you just look at Canada also.

I agree nuclear power is one of the safest energy sources but otherwise this chart is total BS. There are not 100,000 deaths from coal use, this is a made up fictitious death count. There is a statistical reduced life expectancy of a few months for people living in areas (primarily large cities) with higher levels of sub 2.5 micron particle emissions. This is taking medical science that says breathing cleaner air is better for us (doh) and turning it into propaganda to attack fossil fuel power generation. You could easily argue that cheap power produced in a country coal fired power plant provides a city with electricity that reduces pollution and extends lives.

Ever look at dirty truck exhaust? The dirty, smoky part of that stream of exhaust is made of particle pollution...... Particle pollution can increase the risk of heart disease, lung cancer and asthma attacks and can interfere with the growth and work of the lungs.

Looking at air quality in 545 counties in the U.S. between 2000 and 2007, researchers found that people had approximately four months added to their life expectancy on average due to cleaner air.

Researchers are exploring possible differences in health effects of the sizes of particles and particles from different sources, such as diesel particles from trucks and buses or sulfates from coal-fired power plants. Recent studies have tried to answer this question. So far, the answers are complicated.

The best evidence shows that having less of all types of particles in the air leads to better health and longer lives.

https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives...pollution.html

[milomilo]

I don't know how accurate the number is, but I've never read anything that disagrees that particulates from burning coal and other dirty fuels are pretty bad.

Coal gave us the industrial revolution and the immense increase in wealth that came with it. It's served us well, but its time has passed, we will soon no longer need it. The same will happen with other fossil fuels, and eventually may happen with nuclear fission as we know it today, to be replaced by fusion or some other advanced energy source.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by jawagord

You could easily argue that cheap power produced in a country coal fired power plant provides a city with electricity that reduces pollution and extends lives.

You could argue that, but there are over a billion people in China that would have something to say about it.

Coal heated China when it needed it the most, and helped develop the country, but it came a huge cost. In the 13+ years I lived there, I saw and felt the effects of coal in the air. The pollution due to coal-burning in the winter would get so bad, you would only go outside if necessary (and I was in SH where it wasn't nearly as polluted as up north). Sunny days resembled overcast ones. The difference being the toxic smell in the air, and a blood red sun trying to burn through the smog. I'd feel my heart rate increase on days like these as my body worked extra hard to get the reduced oxygen out of the air, and to my brain. It got so bad, the state media turned on the government back in December 2013 demanding change (PM 2.5 levels were over a 1000 in Beijing and 600 in SH for days on end). They went rogue, and started publishing reports of the rise of hundreds of thousands of respiratory cases in hospitals around the country. It became the largest public outcry the government had faced since 1989.

Since then, China has focused heavily on nuclear power, and good on them. It's not like they had a choice though. People were ready to take to the streets if change wasn't implemented immediately.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by giallo

You could argue that, but there are over a billion people in China that would have something to say about it.

Coal heated China when it needed it the most, and helped develop the country, but it came a huge cost. In the 13+ years I lived there, I saw and felt the effects of coal in the air. The pollution due to coal-burning in the winter would get so bad, you would only go outside if necessary (and I was in SH where it wasn't nearly as polluted as up north). Sunny days resembled overcast ones. The difference being the toxic smell in the air, and a blood red sun trying to burn through the smog. I'd feel my heart rate increase on days like these as my body worked extra hard to get the reduced oxygen out of the air, and to my brain. It got so bad, the state media turned on the government back in December 2013 demanding change (PM 2.5 levels were over a 1000 in Beijing and 600 in SH for days on end). They went rogue, and started publishing reports of the rise of hundreds of thousands of respiratory cases in hospitals around the country. It became the largest public outcry the government had faced since 1989.

Since then, China has focused heavily on nuclear power, and good on them. It's not like they had a choice though. People were ready to take to the streets if change wasn't implemented immediately.

China's failure to implement clean technology on coal fired power plants and heavy industry is the problem, the results of the old "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" Communist state 5 year plans at work. It's easier and less costly to remove coal particulate and sulfur/mercury emissions at the power plant than to go all nuclear. And China is not moving away from coal but hopefully they've learned their lesson and will employ modern technology to remove the harmful emissions at the source.

https://www.power-eng.com/2016/06/20...xic-emissions/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ledge-capacity

[WarrenC12]

Kind of what I've been saying, I actually thought it would need to go higher, faster:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...ts-report-says

[milomilo]

The important take away from that is that any other method than a carbon tax will cost us more. It cannot be stated enough.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The important take away from that is that any other method than a carbon tax will cost us more. It cannot be stated enough.

Unless it’s “ Too late for a carbon tax, says former Ontario Liberal environment minister”

Murray, who is now working as a clean tech entrepreneur,says carbon taxes will take too long to work, given how quickly the planet is warming.
"If we had 40 years, 30 years, maybe that would work," he said Wednesday.

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/20.../#.Xd8QAi8TGfB

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Unless it’s “ Too late for a carbon tax, says former Ontario Liberal environment minister”

Murray, who is now working as a clean tech entrepreneur,says carbon taxes will take too long to work, given how quickly the planet is warming.
"If we had 40 years, 30 years, maybe that would work," he said Wednesday.

That just means it needs to be higher than the level he has in mind (the "correct" level if we had 40 years).

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Unless it’s “ Too late for a carbon tax, says former Ontario Liberal environment minister”

Murray, who is now working as a clean tech entrepreneur,says carbon taxes will take too long to work, given how quickly the planet is warming.
"If we had 40 years, 30 years, maybe that would work," he said Wednesday.

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/20.../#.Xd8QAi8TGfB

Does not contradict what I said one bit. Either option just costs more now.

[TorontoDrew]

Another smooth move by a provincial CONSERVATIVE party that will cost the rest of Canada.


source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...iser-1.5376658
Ontario adviser recommends new flooding plan, province doesn't commit to funds

Province (Cons Doug Ford and his sheep) reviewing recommendations, may ask Ottawa for funding assistance

Ontario's special adviser on flooding has published 66 recommendations to improve the province's resiliency to floods, but the government isn't saying if it will commit more funding to implement them.

Doug McNeil, a former Manitoba deputy minister who also held senior positions at the Manitoba Floodway Authority, was appointed after several areas of Ontario experienced high water this spring.

McNeil says the flooding was caused by a colder-than-average winter and spring, higher-than-average snowpack, the lack of a significant winter thaw, rapid snowmelt and a lot of rain in the spring.

His recommendations to mitigate damage include changes to floodplain mapping, and helping municipalities to ensure the conservation and restoration of natural green infrastructure such as wetlands.

Progressive Conservative member Natural Resources Minister John Yakabuski says he will be reviewing the recommendations and won't commit right now to more funding, but he says he believes the province will be asking the federal government to contribute.

Earlier this year, the Progressive Conservative government cut conservation authorities' funding for flood management in half.

[ssiguy]

I don't agree with a national carbon tax, never have, never will.

We are not some little European country but a vast one with huge differences in our social, economic, political, geographic, and topographic makeup................in Canada, one size definately doesn't fit all.

Ottawa should dictate the emissions levels but let each province figure out how best to get there whether that be a carbon tax or not. Quebec has lower than average emissions with a carbon tax but BC has higher than average emissions with one.

[Loco101]

I still don't understand why some people are going nuts over having a carbon tax. We have one in Ontario imposed by the federal government and I have yet to meet someone who is upset by it other than a few politicians in the media. I don't see any evidence that it is costing us very much.

What is really weird is that the current Ford PC government promised to reduce electricity rates by 12% yet they have just raised them 1.8%. (They never did lower the rates since coming into power) That increase alone is costing most Ontarians more than they pay in carbon tax up front.

But the interesting thing is that the vast majority of Ontarians get more money back at tax time from the carbon tax initiative than they pay into it when buying gasoline or whatever!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I don't agree with a national carbon tax, never have, never will.

We are not some little European country but a vast one with huge differences in our social, economic, political, geographic, and topographic makeup................in Canada, one size definately doesn't fit all.

Ottawa should dictate the emissions levels but let each province figure out how best to get there whether that be a carbon tax or not. Quebec has lower than average emissions with a carbon tax but BC has higher than average emissions with one.

So a cap on each province?

[Hackslack]

Question out of curiosity...How much will the carbon tax reduce CO2 emissions?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Question out of curiosity...How much will the carbon tax reduce CO2 emissions?

It's impossible to say anything for sure, all that can be done is estimate. Same as with anything in economics, and those estimates are highly prone to change with the winds. But according to that report that was just released, this is where the current federal plan will get us (missing our target):



And according to them, $210/ton would get us to the target while costing the economy the least.

[SpongeG]

The cold reality of effective policies to combat climate change

Sustainable energy experts urge focus on what is achievable
By Nelson Bennett | December 3, 2019

In 2009, Canada pledged under the Copenhagen Accord to cut its greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.

That required reducing emissions from 730 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) to 607 megatonnes by 2020.

Canada produced 716 megatonnes of CO2e in 2017 and is on track to miss the target by more than 100 megatonnes, which is probably why you never hear Canadian politicians talking about the Copenhagen Accord anymore. They now talk about the Paris Agreement.

If Canada achieved only a 2% reduction in the last 10 years, what makes the federal government think Canada can achieve a 30% reduction in the next 10 years under the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth?

...

https://biv.com/article/2019/12/cold...8gZFkOJR3rdd_E

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

That required reducing emissions from 730 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) to 607 megatonnes by 2020.

Canada produced 716 megatonnes of CO2e in 2017 and is on track to miss the target by more than 100 megatonnes, which is probably why you never hear Canadian politicians talking about the Copenhagen Accord anymore. They now talk about the Paris Agreement.

If Canada achieved only a 2% reduction in the last 10 years, what makes the federal government think Canada can achieve a 30% reduction in the next 10 years under the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth?

I found your 100 megatons:

[TorontoDrew]

Only 2 provinces stick out on that chart based on their populations. Can you guess which ones? The others all fall in line where they should be.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Only 2 provinces stick out on that chart based on their populations. Can you guess which ones? The others all fall in line where they should be.

Also a pretty clear trend with the "Big 3" of Ont, Que, and BC. If Alberta wants to join the club...