The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Climate denial of what the actual climate models say is not going to help.

Indeed. So maybe you should pay attention to the scientists when they say adapting for 2-2.5°C will be far less painful than adapting to a 3-4°C world.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Spending 100s of billions on virtue signalling that will have a rounding error effect on the climate is not only pointless but will use up resources that could be much better spent on adaption.

We can cut emissions now collectively or spend multiples of the cost of mitigation over the long run on adaptation for an even worse net outcome. It's quite the assumption to say adaptation will be cheap and easy when the scientific consensus says otherwise.

We should do our bit. And also push/help developing countries to cut their emissions. We might well need a modern day climate version of the Marshall Plan to do this.

If the argument is, "But China....", fine let's have a carbon tariff trade war with them. It'll help bring our emissions down too. I'm all for it.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Climate denial of what the actual climate models say is not going to help.

Spending 100s of billions on virtue signalling that will have a rounding error effect on the climate is not only pointless but will use up resources that could be much better spent on adaption.

People can stick their heads in the sand all they want, but it doesn’t change the reality or the cold hard math. Barring a completely unforeseen technology that completely changes everything (and maybe there is a carbon Norman Borlaug out there somewhere), catastrophic climate change is happening. If it isn’t too late already (and with the feedback mechanisms that have been triggered already there is a fair amount of evidence it is), it will be to late by the time electric cars become widespread in the 2040s, or China phases out coal in the 2050s or world population peaks in the 2060s. We we need to take a hard look at actual projections from actual climate and start developing a mitigation strategy, which will cost hundreds of billions.

I agree. We need to invest considerably in carbon capture and storage. Also we must invest in accelerating the development of Gen IV nuclear reactors. Hopefully we can also find a place to store all that CO2 and radioactive waste (maybe in the same desert shithole we deport all the anti-vax incel CHUDs to).

Perhaps we use the nuclear energy to turn the CO2 into biofuels? Or just find a way of separating the C from the O2, as solid carbon seems much easier to deal with than the gas.

Green energy isn't all that greeen. Hydro and geothermal are true renewable energies that actually provide consistent output suitable for the modern industrial world. Wind turbines and solar panels aren't all that recyclable and end up in the landfill for the most part.

It's not just climate I'm worried about. There is an obscene amount of plastic packaging in literally EVERY time we buy, and governments need to step in and stop that. Plastic recycling was always a meme, and most of what goes in your blue bin winds up in the landfill with the windmills.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Floppa

I agree. We need to invest considerably in carbon capture and storage. Also we must invest in accelerating the development of Gen IV nuclear reactors. Hopefully we can also find a place to store all that CO2 and radioactive waste (maybe in the same desert shithole we deport all the anti-vax incel CHUDs to).

Perhaps we use the nuclear energy to turn the CO2 into biofuels? Or just find a way of separating the C from the O2, as solid carbon seems much easier to deal with than the gas.

Green energy isn't all that greeen. Hydro and geothermal are true renewable energies that actually provide consistent output suitable for the modern industrial world. Wind turbines and solar panels aren't all that recyclable and end up in the landfill for the most part.

What is it with people who think that a discussion on climate means they have to offer up precise climate solutions. You don't need to tell utilities what kind of power generation to build. The rising carbon tax substantially discourages power generation that emits. The only reason they aren't building more nuclear generation or carbon capture is because they have alternatives that are cheaper. And frankly as long as it is clean and cheap, you shouldn't care whether your power comes from a solar farm, a hydro dam or a nuclear power plant. Let the engineers figure out the best grid mix for their utility.

Originally Posted by Floppa

It's not just climate I'm worried about. There is an obscene amount of plastic packaging in literally EVERY time we buy, and governments need to step in and stop that. Plastic recycling was always a meme, and most of what goes in your blue bin winds up in the landfill with the windmills.

The glut of plastic isn't an accident. The oil industry's game plan for the coming energy transition is to preserve some oil demand, by flooding the world with plastics. They've got over $400 billion invested in this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...0bn-investment

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What is it with people who think that a discussion on climate means they have to offer up precise climate solutions. You don't need to tell utilities what kind of power generation to build. The rising carbon tax substantially discourages power generation that emits. The only reason they aren't building more nuclear generation or carbon capture is because they have alternatives that are cheaper. And frankly as long as it is clean and cheap, you shouldn't care whether your power comes from a solar farm, a hydro dam or a nuclear power plant. Let the engineers figure out the best grid mix for their utility.




The glut of plastic isn't an accident. The oil industry's game plan for the coming energy transition is to preserve some oil demand, by flooding the world with plastics. They've got over $400 billion invested in this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...0bn-investment

You want the government to create incentives to limit industry's carbon pollution, but nothing else? I'd like to live in a planet that isn't Wall-E from plastics, and solar/wind farms generate horrendous amounts of that.

Letting industry run wild and do things their own way is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Floppa

You want the government to create incentives to limit industry's carbon pollution, but nothing else? I'd like to live in a planet that isn't Wall-E from plastics, and solar/wind farms generate horrendous amounts of that.

Letting industry run wild and do things their own way is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

1) Solar PV and wind turbines are substantially recyclable. Just need to ramp up the salvage sector for those. This is way less of a problem than say dealing with nuclear waste.

2) Not all environmental problems are created equal. And climate change is a large and more imminent threat than running out of landfill space.

Also, industry does just fine when regulated and incentivized properly. There recent experience with Covid should have shown people this.

[Truenorth00]

What the new UN report warning of climate impacts means for Canadians
...
In northern North America, which includes most of Canada, the report found that "temperature increases are projected to be very large compared to the global average, particularly in the winter."

"Heat waves, and changes in fire weather — that is the frequency or the likelihood of getting the combination of dry, hot conditions that lead to wildfires like the ones we're seeing this year — those increase along with temperature," said Greg Flato, senior research scientist with Environment and Climate Change Canada and vice-chair of the IPCC group that authored the report.

"The higher the temperature gets, the more frequent, and the more severe these heat waves will become and the more frequent and more severe the fire weather conditions will become."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ipcc...nada-1.6134879

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Floppa

You want the government to create incentives to limit industry's carbon pollution, but nothing else? I'd like to live in a planet that isn't Wall-E from plastics, and solar/wind farms generate horrendous amounts of that.

What?

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ipcc...nada-1.6134879

Sounds like we need carbon capture and storage.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Sounds like we need carbon capture and storage.

Trees do that.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Trees do that.

Not very well.

We don't need a policy of carbon capture, we just need to pay people a set price for every ton of carbon they permanently lock away.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Sounds like we need carbon capture and storage.

The more you emit, the more you have to capture. And capturing is more expensive than cutting emissions. So how about focus on the part first. Maybe in a decade, after we've done all the easy stuff, we can talk about carbon capture.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not very well.

Mature trees don't. Young trees do. But overall, you're right that trees aren't the magic bullet people think they are.

Originally Posted by milomilo

We don't need a policy of carbon capture, we just need to pay people a set price for every ton of carbon they permanently lock away.

Can we at least save this discussion for after we actually make serious efforts to cut emissions?

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Mature trees don't. Young trees do. But overall, you're right that trees aren't the magic bullet people think they are.



Can we at least save this discussion for after we actually make serious efforts to cut emissions?

It doesn't need to be a complicated discussion - just set the payment for the sequestering of a ton of carbon to be equal to that charged for the creation of a ton of carbon. As the carbon tax increases and returns become increasingly marginal, more gains can come from the increased payment for carbon sequestration.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

It doesn't need to be a complicated discussion - just set the payment for the sequestering of a ton of carbon to be equal to that charged for the creation of a ton of carbon. As the carbon tax increases and returns become increasingly marginal, more gains can come from the increased payment for carbon sequestration.

I wonder how many people would be disappointed if it turned out eventually that the first class flight from London to Dubai could clearly be offset with $10. I suspect the goalposts would shift as necessary (we need to stop the flights to make up for past wrongs, etc.). The political drive is not really just about climate change.

This number might be plausible. A commercial airliner apparently emits in the ballpark of 100 kg of CO2 per hour. Cost estimates for capture are all over the place, and a lot of the estimates are just proposals for new technologies. They range from tens to hundreds of dollars per tonne.

[ssiguy]

Our climate crisis is indeed urgent but I disagree with this idea that we have to stop using fossil fuels. To use the analogy of a car..........the fuel isn't the problem and neither is the engine but rather the tailpipe.

The source of power doesn't matter but rather what we do with the emissions. There is NOTHING wrong with using fossil fuels as an energy source. They are naturally created commodities and Mother Nature doesn't make mistakes. The issue is not the kind or even amount of emissions they produce but rather what what we do with those emissions.

Currently we have taken trillions of tons of natural commodities found underneath the ground and then stuck it in the air. What we should be doing, until at least weaning ourselves off fossil fuels as it an expensive process, is taking those fossil fuels, using their energy, and then sticking it back in the ground where it belongs.

To expect the world {and especially poorer countries which make up the bulk of the planet's population} to be able to afford to transform their economies away from fossil fuels over the next 30 years is simply absurd.

If you have lemons, make lemonade.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

It doesn't need to be a complicated discussion - just set the payment for the sequestering of a ton of carbon to be equal to that charged for the creation of a ton of carbon. As the carbon tax increases and returns become increasingly marginal, more gains can come from the increased payment for carbon sequestration.

Exactly. Make the payments ramp up to $170 the same as the rest of the carbon. If CCS is junk at that price, no matter, people won't do it.

Do we even have some sort of carbon credit scheme? There must be something already.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

It doesn't need to be a complicated discussion - just set the payment for the sequestering of a ton of carbon to be equal to that charged for the creation of a ton of carbon. As the carbon tax increases and returns become increasingly marginal, more gains can come from the increased payment for carbon sequestration.

CCUS at source (like powerplants) already effectively does this through carbon tax avoidance. So the business case only gets better with a higher carbon tax.

The major issue with carbon capture is the cost. Especially, once you get to something like Direct Air Capture. Take an outfit like Climeworks. They do DAC. And you can buy carbon offsets from them. At CA$125/tonne.

https://climeworks.com/subscriptions

A lot of carbon capture proponents just don't seem to understand the costs. And quite a few seem to think that it's a magic bullet that absolves them of the need to initiate major changes immediately. And quite frankly, there's no physical way we can build enough DAC to get out of this. It can only be a 5% or 10% solution if we're really lucky.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

CCUS at source (like powerplants) already effectively does this through carbon tax avoidance. So the business case only gets better with a higher carbon tax.

The major issue with carbon capture is the cost. Especially, once you get to something like Direct Air Capture. Take an outfit like Climeworks. They do DAC. And you can buy carbon offsets from them. At CA$125/tonne.

https://climeworks.com/subscriptions

A lot of carbon capture proponents just don't seem to understand the costs. And quite a few seem to think that it's a magic bullet that absolves them of the need to initiate major changes immediately. And quite frankly, there's no physical way we can build enough DAC to get out of this. It can only be a 5% or 10% solution if we're really lucky.

I don't think there's much disagreement here, except to say that there's no harm in providing credits for carbon capture at an appropriate price. If it turns out that someone can make money through carbon capture (perhaps by planting trees), then great. If they can't (as is likely until the price is very high), then no matter.

An appropriate price would be the easiest way of proving what you say to be true. Better than having people claim CCS as a panacea and have the government arbitrarily fund schemes on an inconsistent basis.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

I wonder how many people would be disappointed if it turned out eventually that the first class flight from London to Dubai could clearly be offset with $10. I suspect the goalposts would shift as necessary (we need to stop the flights to make up for past wrongs, etc.). The political drive is not really just about climate change.

That is some fucked up strawmanning.

People are rightfully suspicious of carbon offsets because they seem to have a pretty scammy setup in a lot of cases.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...m-warn-experts

Originally Posted by someone123

This number might be plausible. A commercial airliner apparently emits in the ballpark of 100 kg of CO2 per hour. Cost estimates for capture are all over the place, and a lot of the estimates are just proposals for new technologies. They range from tens to hundreds of dollars per tonne.

You can use the ICAO calculator to roughly estimate emissions.

https://www.icao.int/environmental-p...s/default.aspx

For a Premium category, one-way trip from London Heathrow to Dubai the emissions were 683.7 kg.

Offsetting that should cost more than $10 unless you're signing up with one of those scammy offsets. Would be $85 with Climeworks.

And indeed, for aviation, this may end up being a huge part of the solution. At least in the interim. They can use blended fuels and build in mandatory offsets for places where fuels have no carbon taxes.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That is some fucked up strawmanning.

What am I strawmanning? IMO the discussion would be better on here if the tired s-word were avoided.

Offsetting that should cost more than $10 unless you're signing up with one of those scammy offsets. Would be $85 with Climeworks.

So it is in the ballpark and less than 2% of the cost. Presumably the price per tonne of offsets (even real ones) will come down over time, particularly if it becomes a standard everybody needs to use. There are a lot of people researching better ways to do carbon capture.