HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 21, 2019, 6:13 PM
CityTech CityTech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,807
We're just too far north for large scale solar power plants. Wind is much more effective--Ontario makes good use of wind backed up by hydroelectric and gas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 22, 2019, 12:06 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 16,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityTech View Post
We're just too far north for large scale solar power plants. Wind is much more effective--Ontario makes good use of wind backed up by hydroelectric and gas.
Ontario is mostly nuclear (currently about 10k MW). Wind is 3%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 22, 2019, 3:00 PM
CityTech CityTech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Ontario is mostly nuclear (currently about 10k MW). Wind is 3%.
Wind varies dramatically. At times it surges to as much as 15% of demand, other times it drops to nearly nothing. Dam output from reservoirs and gas plants adjust for this--when wind output is very high gas plants turn off and dams dial down to fill their reservoirs. When wind drops the reservoirs are drawn down and the gas plants spun up again. The province has a complex system of hourly demand and weather forecasting it uses to make these decisions allowing it to optimize output.

Wind allows OPG to get more out of its hydroelectric plants by providing more times for the reservoirs to recharge. It also reduces the provinces carbon footprint by allowing gas plants to be turned off at times.

In 2018, wind provided 7% of the province's total power. (10.7 TWh out of 147.6 TWh). By contrast natural gas was less, at 6% (9.6 TWh).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 23, 2019, 2:33 PM
Eau Claire Eau Claire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 181
This is HUGE, and by huge I mean it’s a major milestone and not a finish line reached. The sooner we get facilities like this built the sooner we can refine them and bring the costs down. About 10 years ago when David Keith was still at the University of Calgary and working on this with his research group he did a detailed breakdown of this process from a cost perspective looking at all the best and worst case scenarios. With all the best case scenarios he calculated that he could remove CO2 for $20/tonne. This is in line with what the other major players in this area have said as well. Global Thermostat has said they could potentially do it for a s little as $15/tonne. Of course it’s unlikely that all the best case scenarios will line up, but it’s also possible that a technological improvement or currently unforeseen refinement of the process could bring down the cost. Right now Carbon Engineering is at about $100/tonne, with already makes it practical for large scale projects like this:


“Two companies together have set their sights on Texas oil country for building the world's largest facility for sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, a project that would use the trapped CO2 for boosting oil production.

Driving the news: Carbon Engineering and Occidental Petroleum said Tuesday they're going ahead with engineering and design for a plant in the booming Permian Basin of Texas.
Why it matters: A major UN-led scientific report last year concluded that pathways for holding global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius all require atmospheric carbon removal in addition to steep emissions cuts.
• Canada-based Carbon Engineering — whose investors include Bill Gates, the venture arms of Occidental and Chevron, and private equity backers — hopes to commercialize a direct air capture (DAC) technology.
• Occidental, which specializes in using CO2 injections to boost production from oil wells, can use that trapped CO2.
Where it stands: They're weighing plans for an initial plant that would capture around 500 kilotonnes of CO2 annually, and then scale up with additional facilities around twice that size.
• If the project moves forward, construction of the first plant would likely begin in 2021.
• One thing helping to make the project possible are expanded tax credits for carbon-trapping projects signed into law last year.
The big picture: If this project indeed moves ahead, it'll be an important move. "This project shows that this technology isn’t 10 or 20 years away," said Erin Burns of Carbon180, a nonprofit that advocates for negative emissions tech.
• "The first few projects like this are important not just because of the carbon dioxide they’ll pull out of the air, but because they’ll help pave the way for next tens and hundreds of these plants," she said.
The intrigue: Carbon Engineering CEO Steve Oldham told me the plant would cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
• He said Carbon Engineering is looking at multiple funding options, including existing investors and other parties. “We have some interested third parties who like the look of the business model,” he added.
• Carbon Engineering had closed a $68 million financing round earlier this year.
But, but, but: There's a tradeoff in using CO2 for producing oil that's later burned in engines.
• But Oldham said that the crude produced using the captured CO2 would pencil out to be carbon-neutral or even negative.
• And, he added, it's a big step toward helping DAC become a tool in fighting global warming.
• “This is proving the technology to achieve what the [UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] says is utterly necessary,” he said.”
https://www.axios.com/new-project-su...96a24ba40.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 4:08 PM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 22,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityTech View Post
We're just too far north for large scale solar power plants. Wind is much more effective--Ontario makes good use of wind backed up by hydroelectric and gas.
All of Alberta is significantly north of Southern Ontario and even the NCR, and yet Solar is our fastest growing energy market. The Calgary metropolitan area alone is set to add another 175 megawatts of solar over the next year or two. I believe the province itself is to add around a gigawatt of solar by 2022. All while being colder on average than most of Southern Ontario, a bit warmer than the NCR, and Calgary (in the relatively far south) being over 750 km further north than Ottawa. So, being "too far north" isn't really a problem.
__________________
Strong & Free

Mohkínstsis — 1.6 million people at the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 400 high-rises, a 300-metre SE to NW climb, over 1000 kilometres of pathways, with 20% of the urban area as parkland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 4:20 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 16,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
All of Alberta is significantly north of Southern Ontario and even the NCR, and yet Solar is our fastest growing energy market. The Calgary metropolitan area alone is set to add another 175 megawatts of solar over the next year or two. I believe the province itself is to add around a gigawatt of solar by 2022. All while being colder on average than most of Southern Ontario, a bit warmer than the NCR, and Calgary (in the relatively far south) being over 750 km further north than Ottawa. So, being "too far north" isn't really a problem.
How is that working out?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 6:13 PM
Jaws Jaws is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
How is that working out?

It will work out fine
https://energyhub.org/solar-energy-maps-canada/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 6:16 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaws View Post
Your map makes no sense. Here's a better one:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 9:22 PM
accord1999 accord1999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillaccc View Post
So, being "too far north" isn't really a problem.
It is a major problem being far from the equator, because solar produces virtually nothing in the winter, when demand for electricity is highest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 9:35 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
It is a major problem being far from the equator, because solar produces virtually nothing in the winter, when demand for electricity is highest.
Same problem with wind - peak demand is in the evening whereas peak wind speeds are usually in the day. Wind does tend to blow stronger in the winter though. Alberta is especially unsuitable for solar as it has minimal air conditioning demand
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted May 23, 2019, 2:55 PM
CityTech CityTech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2,807
I'm skeptical of carbon removal tech simply due to basic thermodynamics but sure, lets research it. Might go somewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted May 23, 2019, 3:32 PM
Eau Claire Eau Claire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityTech View Post
I'm skeptical of carbon removal tech simply due to basic thermodynamics but sure, lets research it. Might go somewhere.
Exactly, and this is why this is so big, imo. They operated a tiny unit at the UofC for some years, and for the past year or two they've been operating a much bigger but still small unit at their facility in Squamish BC, and now this is the next step. This would basically be a full sized unit. If this is successful then I think they will officially be going somewhere. 20 years ago very few people would have predicted that solar would be where it is today. Keep in mind that we are only 4 years into the 85 year project laid out in the Paris agreement in 2015. I hate saying that technology is going to solve the problem, because technology is not going to do it on it's own. We can't just sit back and let "technology" solve the problem, iow. It's takes very smart people and a lot of hard work, but with very smart people and a lot of hard work much is possible using technology.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted May 25, 2019, 2:21 AM
Eau Claire Eau Claire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 181
Some good news adn some bad news. I’ll start with the bad, another CBC fearmongering/fake news bit on climate change, this time trying to exploit the High Level Alberta fire.
https://podcast-a.akamaihd.net/mp3/p...G-20190523.mp3

During the first half they interview residents, but the host refers to fires like this being the “new normal”. She provides no explanation but I think she’s trying to suggest that climate change is a major factor in this fire, which is known not to be true. In the second part she talks to an “expert”, a guy from Queens, who continues the story. He says that forest fires are getting “bigger, hotter, and more frequent,” and in the short term this is true, but there is a known cause and it’s not climate change. He then goes on to say that climate change IS a significant part of the issue here and that High Level is 1.7 degrees warmer than it was 80 years ago (referring back to Kenney’s comment), and with every degree there is a 12% increase in lightning, extended drought, and a longer fire season.

So let’s check his claims. They referred to the Slave Lake and Fort McMurray fires as part of this pattern so I’ll include them as well. I found a useful link which summarizes weather changes in Alberta since 1950:
http://albertaclimaterecords.com/#

- It’s true the High Level area has had an increase in average temperature of about 1.7 degrees in that time, but if you look closer most of that has been in the winter, while the summers have been essentially the same.
-If you check the precipitation tab in the link you will see that there has been an increase since 1950 around SL and HL, and a slight drop around FM but only in winter. So no drought. In fact these areas tend to be wetter.
- All three fires have been in May, so the there was no impact of an “extended fire season”. This is a known high risk time of the year for fires, btw. There is a high risk period after the snow melts but before the forest “greens up”, before the new grasses sprout up, and the new leaves come out, and the sap starts flowing in the trees again. This is a very dry window that every year is high risk for fire.
- But for there to be a fire there has to be a point of ignition. I don’t recall hearing a reference to increased lightning with increased temperature before, but both the SL and FM fires were started by man. The SL fire has been called arson, and the FM fire has been identified as being started by man, leaving open the possibility that it was an accident. I don’t think we know yet what started the High Level fire.

So the only thing this guy said that was true was that the area has warmed by 1.7 degrees, but he left out the fact that almost all of this has happened in the winter. If I’m being charitable to this “expert” I would say that he has no idea what he’s talking about. There are many academics in this area and throughout AB, SK and MB who understand these forests very well, so I guess it’s not surprising that the CBC had to go as far away as Queens to find someone clueless enough to say the things they wanted him to say. Some may remember that the CBC did this in its coverage of the Calgary Stampede some years back as well, going to someone from the Vancouver Humane Society for comments on rodeos.

Another very important part of this is that the fires have become very big and destructive, but there is a known cause for this and it’s not climate change. It relates to the forestry practices over the last century, and the same thing is happening in the US as well. In short fire is a natural and necessary part of the regeneration of these forests but about a century ago in both the US and Canada we decided that we should try to fight and put out forest fires. The result has been that instead of having much smaller but much more frequent fires that clear out the old, dead, growth in the forest floor, we have put these fires out and now have a huge accumulation of dead material on the forest floor, in many places over half a century worth, and these places are now essentially HUGE bonfires just waiting to go off. These huge fires burn much differently. The fire races to the crown much quicker, and from there is spreads much quicker. They are much hotter and can burn green forests much more easily. PBS did a piece called Inside the Megafire on these fires. The critical bit starts at about 30 min and runs to about 40 min, but the part from 20 min to 30 min adds a lot as well.
https://www.pbs.org/video/inside-the-megafire-uzvhug/

But as an example of how wide spread today’s climate change hysteria is, even this piece isn’t free from it. After about the 40 min mark, after they have explained why there are so many more fires today and why they’re so much bigger, even they start into the same baseless fearmongering. “There’s no fire season anymore. There’s a fire year, year after year.” Well, no. They’ve just finished explaining why and how these fires are caused by a century of build up of dead material on the forest floor, and they’ve just showed visually an area that had been cleared out and then subjected to a prescribed burn, and they showed it 16 years after the burn and showed that that it’s still wide open without a great deal of buildup on the forest floor, and then they say this?? No, there could not be a major fire there “year after year”, as they have just shown! If you did nothing and let the material build up for another 100 years you could have another one then, but the lessons learned here are that if you manage the forest properly and do a prescribed burn every few decades or so you will never have another megafire again. This is, however, a good example of the bizarre and counterfactual hysteria around the climate change issue these days.

The good news will be in the next post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 25, 2019, 2:44 AM
Eau Claire Eau Claire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 181
On the SMR front, Moltex is back in the news. This is the company that is partnering with NB Power to develop a SMR project in NB. There’s nothing very new to me here, but their claims have gotten bigger, as I recall anyway. They’re probably too big, in fact, but just for fun let’s get them on record in this thread and see how things pan out.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/bu...-waste-313709/
“Moltex believes its technology has the capacity to solve the climate change crisis on its own. In time, says Moltex, it could deliver affordable electricity with no carbon emissions while reducing the world’s stock on nuclear waste.
“The opportunity here is so big,” said Moltex CEO North America Rory O’Sullivan in an interview. “The GDP increase for the host nation would be $1.5 trillion and it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. That opportunity is too big just for Canada.”
Moltex is one of a handful of companies around the world that is working on technology that would convert the waste from nuclear plants into electricity — another is Bellevue, Wash.-based TerraPower, founded by Bill Gates.
Some environmentalists believe nuclear power is key in battling climate change because it produces energy on-demand, whereas renewables like solar or wind are sporadic. This new technology would mitigate the downside of nuclear power by consuming nuclear waste.”

Here are a couple of links on the technology from their site.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/ourbreakthrough/
https://www.moltexenergy.com/stablesaltreactors/

"In a Molten Salt Reactor, the gases are not produced and the reaction takes place at atmospheric pressure, so explosive release of radioactive products is not possible. Also the reaction slows down as the temperature rises, and so the system is self-damping. The net effect is to simplify the engineering massively and thereby to significantly reduce the size and cost of the reactor. The SSR will be one eighth of the cost of a current nuclear reactor of the same output and cheaper even than coal or gas."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 25, 2019, 2:15 PM
Eau Claire Eau Claire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 181
More big news on the carbon capture front, and from a Canadian project too:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ilestone-early
“A Royal Dutch Shell Plc-operated carbon capture and storage project in Canada has hit a milestone of sequestering 4 million tons of carbon dioxide about six months ahead of schedule and at a lower cost than estimated, helped by better-than-expected reliability.
The Quest facility, which sequesters emissions from the Scotford Upgrader near Edmonton, Alberta, started up in November 2015 and has since run ahead of its target of capturing 1 million tons of carbon a year, said Anne Halladay, a geophysicist who has been an adviser on the project since it was in construction in 2014. That performance has been driven by less unplanned maintenance than projected and more efficient performance, including less chemical usage, she said.
While Shell's carbon storage project has been a success, Halladay sees more of a future for projects that use the sequestered carbon for industrial purposes such as fertilizer, pharmaceuticals and enhanced oil recovery. Halladay said large projects like Quest tend to need large amounts of capital and more regulatory incentives to get built. The Quest facility cost about C$1.35 billion ($1 billion) to build and received C$865 million from the Canadian and Alberta governments.”

https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/20...trending-down/
“”I think what we’ve been able to demonstrate over the past four years is that our costs are coming down. Initially in the project phase 5-10 years ago we thought it was going to cost us about $120/tonne to build and operate this facility. Now we’re finding that costs are more around $80/tonne, so that’s super significant,” she said.
“If we did this again, we think we could even get that lower to $60/tonne.”
That’s also an estimate of the cost to replicate the Quest CCS facility and not for a carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) project that involves a commercial use for the carbon dioxide - something like the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line.
The $900-million ACTL project is currently under construction and expected to start operating in 2020.
When completed, it will be the world’s largest CO2 pipeline. The 240-kilometre pipeline will collect captured CO2 from a fertilizer plant and the new Sturgeon Refinery near Edmonton, and pipe it to mature conventional oilfields near Clive, Alberta.
It is estimated that the CO2 from the pipeline will allow producers to wring an additional one billion barrels of light oil out of mature, largely depleted reservoirs.
ACTL is also expected to sequester up to 1.8 million tonnes of CO2 per year.”


$60/tonne is a very impressive number. It’s easy to see that even with a small carbon tax rebated to teh operator, say $30/tonne, it’s very realistic to think that there could be commercial uses for CO2 for the remaining $30/tonne plus a profit margin. And remember that we’re only 4 years into the 85 year project laid out in the 2015 Paris agreement, and already this is where the technology is at. There is still a lot of work to be done, however. There is a huge amount of carbon to be captured and it will be necessary to develop industries that use it and roll them out on a large scale over the next few decades. With CO2 this cheap lots of possibilities exist, but lots of work is still needed to turn them into realities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 11:26 AM
LakeLocker LakeLocker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: London ON
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityTech View Post
I'm skeptical of carbon removal tech simply due to basic thermodynamics but sure, lets research it. Might go somewhere.
I'm skeptical of all of this nonsense, because it requires deflecting responsibility to the government.


Why is it so hard to figure out, if you have a problem with carbon reduce your own personal consumption or get out of the way.


I hardly care about global warming, I really think it's pointless fear mongering and irrational hysteria coming from people that haven't addressed their own personal anxiety issues.

If you actually care you know dam well no technology or tax is gonna solve the problem better than simply consuming less.

I like living a low consumption lifestyle because it saves me money and I don't like being dependent on external forces.

But I also like trolling the f*** out of people who consume more than me and whine about carbon.

Me and my wife have quit consuming cow products as a result of a recent ssp post. It was the easiest switch as a lot of our bad eating habits revolve around cow products like hamburgers, pizza, and using cheese on everything(potatoes, slices of toast, soups, sandwiches, etc).

If we stopped eating cow products, we could free up land and get rid of those stupid green belts within a week.

I'm all for a cow tax if it means removing government regulation.

As no one needs cows as there are plenty of alternatives, however everyone needs energy and taxing energy will only hurt the consumption of the more vulnerable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 1:24 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeLocker View Post
I'm skeptical of all of this nonsense, because it requires deflecting responsibility to the government.


Why is it so hard to figure out, if you have a problem with carbon reduce your own personal consumption or get out of the way.


I hardly care about global warming, I really think it's pointless fear mongering and irrational hysteria coming from people that haven't addressed their own personal anxiety issues.

If you actually care you know dam well no technology or tax is gonna solve the problem better than simply consuming less.

I like living a low consumption lifestyle because it saves me money and I don't like being dependent on external forces.

But I also like trolling the f*** out of people who consume more than me and whine about carbon.

Me and my wife have quit consuming cow products as a result of a recent ssp post. It was the easiest switch as a lot of our bad eating habits revolve around cow products like hamburgers, pizza, and using cheese on everything(potatoes, slices of toast, soups, sandwiches, etc).

If we stopped eating cow products, we could free up land and get rid of those stupid green belts within a week.

I'm all for a cow tax if it means removing government regulation.

As no one needs cows as there are plenty of alternatives, however everyone needs energy and taxing energy will only hurt the consumption of the more vulnerable.
It must be trolling as your opposition to a carbon tax is completely illogical. You correctly point out that the way to reduce emissions is to reduce personal consumption, but are then opposed to the one best tool the government has to effect that. And you claim to support a 'cow tax', but again oppose a tool that effectively does that (in a much more elegant way).

I'm very confused by people who are already using little carbon being so opposed to carbon pricing. What is your goal here? If it's easy to reduce one's carbon footprint, why do you not agree that manipulating the pricing will change people's behaviour?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 2:51 PM
Eau Claire Eau Claire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 181
Here's another one that's particularly relevant to this forum. There are a number of different solutions for this problem, including carbon neutral or even carbon negative concrete, LED lighting, the use of low carbon electricity (i.e. nuclear power), passive heading and cooling, and a range of others.

https://www.citylab.com/environment/...eutral/569644/
"If cities are going to curb the rise of global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius, they’ll have to address the single largest contributor, by sector, to their carbon footprint: buildings. Buildings account for roughly 50 percent of a city’s total carbon emissions, and 70 percent in major cities like London, Los Angeles, and Paris.
The ultimate goal, as laid out by the World Green Building Council at COP 21 in Paris in 2015, is that by 2050—when 68 percent of the world’s population is projected to live in urban areas—all buildings will only use as much energy as they generate..."


See also:
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/28/fo...mmitment-2030/
https://www.dezeen.com/2017/10/04/no...inable-office/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 3:02 PM
Eau Claire Eau Claire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 181
Cows are a strange issue. I understand the burping thing, but they are often talked about as using a lot of water and land, and that I don't understand, at least in the Canadian context. Cows may use, but they don't use up, water. What goes in one end comes out the other. They also don't generally use otherwise useful land. If you can farm a given piece of land you generally do. Farming makes more per acre than ranching, but if you have land that's too dry or not fertile enough to farm you put cows on it and you let them graze. So in fact ranching makes use of land that would otherwise be nonproductive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted May 29, 2019, 5:04 PM
LakeLocker LakeLocker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: London ON
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
It must be trolling as your opposition to a carbon tax is completely illogical. You correctly point out that the way to reduce emissions is to reduce personal consumption,
There's a massive difference between choosing to do something out of free will and being forced to do so because of cost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
but are then opposed to the one best tool the government has to effect that.
Because it's not the role of government to address the issue. It's the job of the individuals that care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
And you claim to support a 'cow tax', but again oppose a tool that effectively does that (in a much more elegant way).
And by elegant you mean needlessly complicated and entirely likely to hurt people with less money than more.


Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I'm very confused by people who are already using little carbon being so opposed to carbon pricing. What is your goal here?
Personal freedom, I don't live 100 kilometers way from the nearest employer, I don't own a factory, I'm not a small sized contractor, a farm owner etc.

I don't believe attacking people who work outside of the service economy is fair.

I don't believe in authoritarian government laws that take from the average person blindly without having any understanding of their life circumstances.

Especially when we know dam well that money is going to green start ups subsidies in wealthy places like Waterloo and Silicon valley.

You also make the outlandish assumption that because I consume little that I am not concerned by how carbon taxes might effect my employer or the community around me.

The fact that you expect my own selfishness to surpass my concern for others is revealing.

A whole lot of this green thinking is directed at people who are looking out for themselves.


Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
If it's easy to reduce one's carbon footprint, why do you not agree that manipulating the pricing will change people's behaviour?
Because manipulating pricing is manipulating people.

If you believe that its a problem take care of your own dam house.

If you don't consume much already attack people on your side before you attack people who aren't so concerned.

Last edited by LakeLocker; May 29, 2019 at 5:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:28 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.