[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I don't know how you can conclude anything but that the science is settled that humans are causing the climate to warm. There aren't really two sides to the debate. However, we do not know all the ramifications of that so we can not pinpoint flooding or other disasters directly to climate change.

When your frequency and severity of extreme weather events is increasing absent any other change by anthropogenic climate change, I think you safely conclude that these changes are because of climate change. Is it raining outside because of climate change? No. Are we getting once a lifetime flooding every 2-3 years because of climate change? Yes.

I don't get how people can say they accept the science but then reject the idea that extreme weather frequency and severity is being driven by climate change. Scientists are telling us this. Is this like religion for y'all where you pick and choose what parts of the faith you like?

Originally Posted by YOWetal

We also don't know the economic and social impacts on Canada. It is easy to argue that in fact they would be a net positive. I have not seen a comprehensive Canadian study but a very large US study showed positive economic impact for almost all the border counties and states so extrapolating from that it could very well be positive.

National impacts are less relevant to the city than local impacts. Ontario and Canada could be net beneficiaries and there could still be neighbourhoods in Ottawa that will be more and more prone to severe flooding.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That said it will almost be certainly disastrous for the world so morally Canada should do its part. The question is what is that. Keeping in mind any changes we make will have close to zero impact given our contribution to emissions and can only be seen as a role model or solidarity. Meanwhile China and India are allowed to continue to increase emissions and the US is not participating. An analogy we are Arnprior and are slightly impacted by sewage in the Ottawa river. The city of Ottawa refuses to do anything as does Hawkesbury and points further down river. How much should we spend to stop polluting the river?

Your analogy is flawed. Effectively the developed world used up a massive part of the atmosphere's carbon absorption capacity to develop (cause we didn't know about anthropogenic climate change back then). What you (and all those who bring up the India, China, Africa red herring) are suggesting is that they should stay poor because we don't really want to cut emissions. Cutting our emissions allows them to keep developing. Notably, this also gives us a strong industrial incentive since we get to develop the technology to sell them. There's a reason Tesla started in the US and not in India or China.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The Canadian government is saying lets pay a very small amount that will have a small impact. I think the logic of you have to start somewhere is sound. Surveys show though most people are against even this small amount. Everyone agrees someone else should pay to mitigate the problem which is why BC and Quebec like to point the finger at Alberta when they live in huge houses in sprawling suburbs.

This is true to a degree. But a lot of this "opposition" is political wrangling. Let's be honest. If Harper had put on a $20/tonne climate tax, I doubt we'd see conservatives crying as much as they are now. Conversely, the Trudeau Liberals waited right until the the last year in office to implement this. Didn't really dedicate significant infrastructure funding to mitigation. And now insist that as climate champions they should be rewarded. The politicization of this issue is what is deplorable. Instead of discussing how we can cut emissions and what is the most equitable and fair way to distribute that burden, political parties are simply using the issue to score points.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Really we need $200 a ton and really at a world level in order to actually reduce emissions. There was an opinion survey and even among Americans who believe in climate change most were unwilling to pay $10 a month to solve the problem. This is the level of disconnect we have.

It's less about the absolute amount than the rate of change. If we added $5/tonne every year for 10 years, most people really wouldn't notice and would simply adjust gradually over time. You could even get $200 a tonne and your economy would be find because the ramp up over 10-20 years will have given your citizens and industry plenty of time to adjust and adapt.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

So the city declaring an "emergency" seems like empty hyperbole to me. But sure let's charge all cars a $20 congestion charge to enter the core and use the money to speed up LRT and buy electric buses. But I think we know there would be a voters revolt even among the moms who march for climate change and drive Subarus with save the planet bumper stickers.

There's less obvious ways to achieve the same thing. They should have limited LRT extensions to inside the Greenbelt. But that ship having sailed, they can:

• Limit sprawl.
• Mandate EV charging infrastructure for all new housing.
• Move forward on full electrification of city vehicles and servicing equipment.
• Tax parking spots in the core (especially at surface lots) which are massively land inefficient.
• Map out flood/fire prone areas and limit development there.

There's lots they can do.