The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[someone123]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

There's more low-hanging fruit in developed countries - there are more emissions (per capita) to cut. Can't cut emissions that don't exist.

It's easier to replace a coal burning power plant with something else than it is to get the entire population of a democratic developed nation to voluntarily consume less. In Canada we have already phased out a lot of dirty power sources or had hydro to begin with while other countries continue to build coal plants.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by Wigs

agreed.
Look at the Line 5 Eglinton or Crosstown Light Rail in Toronto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_5_Eglinton

It started in 2011. It's now 2023 and won't open until 2024. What happened to Canada (or some parts of it) where we can't seem to complete infrastructure projects in a timely manner? (I hate to see the final cost tally for Line 5 as well)

I mean Montreal opened a 17km metro line just 5 years after starting construction this week.

We still can - it's just that the Crosstown has been a problem plagued project. Those happen all over the world.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I mean Montreal opened a 17km metro line just 5 years after starting construction this week.

We still can - it's just that the Crosstown has been a problem plagued project. Those happen all over the world.

I said in parentheses some parts of Canada
I'm aware the REM in Montreal is an example of how to properly do infrastructure

I have an acquaintance in Toronto that said "I was a kid when the Eglinton project started, now I'm a man and it's still not finished"

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Wigs

what have you been doing to prepare for 15 years?

Diversified investments that all have in common the fact that they'd become more valuable if the world was hotter by a few deg C on average.

Not rocket science

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by lio45

Diversified investments that all have in common the fact that they'd become more valuable if the world was hotter by a few deg C on average.

Not rocket science

I was kinda hoping you were going to say something more elaborate like you've built or are building a "prepper" house off the grid in the Laurentides

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's easier to replace a coal burning power plant with something else than it is to get the entire population of a democratic developed nation to voluntarily consume less. In Canada we have already phased out a lot of dirty power sources or had hydro to begin with while other countries continue to build coal plants.

Ultimately, this is exactly why I think the only way the Global South will be able to force cuts in the developed world is by imposing border tariffs based on per capita emissions differences. I don't see how countries in South Asia, for example, can accept plenty of climate damage while continuing to give first world companies access to their growing markets. I do think trade wars in this manner are becoming inevitable.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's easier to replace a coal burning power plant with something else than it is to get the entire population of a democratic developed nation to voluntarily consume less. In Canada we have already phased out a lot of dirty power sources or had hydro to begin with while other countries continue to build coal plants.

And despite phasing out the worst emissions associated with electricity production, we still have one of the highest per capita levels of GHGs.

"In 2019, Canada was the highest GHG emitting country per capita among the top 10 emitting countries with 19.6 t CO2 eq"

And we've only very slightly reduced that despite whatever 'efforts' we're making.

"Canada’s GHG emissions per capita has decreased 8.5% since 2005, from 21.42 t CO2 eq to 19.6 t CO2 eq" [source].

The planet can probably tolerate 8 billion people generating between 2.5 and 3 t CO2 eq per year. It's prefectly possible to survive comfortably in Canada on that sort of carbon budget, although parts of the economy would effectively disappear and get replaced with new greener economic activity. But there's little evidence that the majority of the population would accept those levels of GHG generation. (And even if we did, we're still going to have to find ways of reducing the atmospheric greenhouse gas levels to return the climate to the more 'normal' atmospheric activity that reduces catastrophic storms and further sea level rise.)

[someone123]

That -8.5% per capita since 2005 includes oil production roughly doubling though (how much of that goes to the US or other countries?), and oil and gas GHG emissions are around one quarter of the country's emissions today. Another portion is home heating which people need more of in Canada.

To me unmoored statements about how we aren't doing enough etc. don't really mean anything if they're not connected to some kind of plan with widespread buy-in (doing, not talking), which for climate change needs to be global. I think what will happen is there will be some improvements from technology, modest sacrifices borne by some countries but not others (with some developing nations with exploding emissions blaming the USA and so on), and we will muddle through with a few degrees of warming in the coming decades. This will have some net negative effect but will be more than offset by economic growth, especially in the developing world. For example, having modern crops, climate control in buildings, or flood control systems has more impact on quality of life and survivability than climate change will.

[casper]

Originally Posted by someone123

That -8.5% per capita since 2005 includes oil production roughly doubling though (how much of that goes to the US or other countries?), and oil and gas GHG emissions are around one quarter of the country's emissions today. Another portion is home heating which people need more of in Canada.

To me unmoored statements about how we aren't doing enough etc. don't really mean anything if they're not connected to some kind of plan with widespread buy-in (doing, not talking), which for climate change needs to be global. I think what will happen is there will be some improvements from technology, modest sacrifices borne by some countries but not others (with some developing nations with exploding emissions blaming the USA and so on), and we will muddle through with a few degrees of warming in the coming decades. This will have some net negative effect but will be more than offset by economic growth, especially in the developing world. For example, having modern crops, climate control in buildings, or flood control systems has more impact on quality of life and survivability than climate change will.

Steam is required for product processing in the oil sands. A major contributor has been from boiling water to make steam. There have been proposal to built nuclear to do that for the past 20 years. The industry settled on burning natural gas. The option to shift that to nuclear is still there.

The LNG Canada terminal needs a lot of electricity to run turbines in its cryogenics plant. Most LNG terminals burn natural gas, this one is expected to buy power from BC Hydro instead of running its own gas fired plant. BC Hydro with the new site C facility has capacity to support this. It sounds like they don't for the other LNG terminals planned in BC.

So there are things that can be done to bring down the industrial component. We should be doing those. Those don't hit individual consumers.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by someone123

That -8.5% per capita since 2005 includes oil production roughly doubling though (how much of that goes to the US or other countries?), and oil and gas GHG emissions are around one quarter of the country's emissions today. Another portion is home heating which people need more of in Canada.

To me unmoored statements about how we aren't doing enough etc. don't really mean anything if they're not connected to some kind of plan with widespread buy-in (doing, not talking), which for climate change needs to be global. I think what will happen is there will be some improvements from technology, modest sacrifices borne by some countries but not others (with some developing nations with exploding emissions blaming the USA and so on), and we will muddle through with a few degrees of warming in the coming decades. This will have some net negative effect but will be more than offset by economic growth, especially in the developing world. For example, having modern crops, climate control in buildings, or flood control systems has more impact on quality of life and survivability than climate change will.

You're right, expanding oil production at a time that we need to stop burning stuff has kept our GHG emissions much higher than they might be. The 19.6 t CO2 eq is purely associated with the GHGs we're pumping into the atmosphere associated with extraction. The GHGs from burning the oil anywhere outside Canada is associated with the numbers for those countries. I'm pretty sure Sweden isn't warmer in winter than Canada - and they manage a quarter of the emissions that we generate, so there are ways of heating homes that don't involve burning as much stuff.

What you're suggesting might happen won't get us (or anyone else) close to what needs to happen. "A few degrees of warming" would affect the world in ways you clearly haven't researched. I fear you might be correct.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ultimately, this is exactly why I think the only way the Global South will be able to force cuts in the developed world is by imposing border tariffs based on per capita emissions differences. I don't see how countries in South Asia, for example, can accept plenty of climate damage while continuing to give first world companies access to their growing markets. I do think trade wars in this manner are becoming inevitable.

They're all net exporters so not sure how that'll work.

Originally Posted by casper

Steam is required for product processing in the oil sands. A major contributor has been from boiling water to make steam. There have been proposal to built nuclear to do that for the past 20 years. The industry settled on burning natural gas. The option to shift that to nuclear is still there.

The LNG Canada terminal needs a lot of electricity to run turbines in its cryogenics plant. Most LNG terminals burn natural gas, this one is expected to buy power from BC Hydro instead of running its own gas fired plant. BC Hydro with the new site C facility has capacity to support this. It sounds like they don't for the other LNG terminals planned in BC.

So there are things that can be done to bring down the industrial component. We should be doing those. Those don't hit individual consumers.

Someone has to pay for all this. Building a nuclear power plant and spreading the energy around in order to produce steam sounds insane. Certainly in the high hundreds of dollars per ton of carbon saved. Meanwhile we are building a new coal powered plant somewhere on a weekly basis. It's a joke.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I appreciate your sentiment. But 70% by 2030 is ridiculously impossible. Here's the major sources of emissions in Canada. Where do you think the 70% of cuts can be made by 2030, and how would you accomplish it? Be specific.

[IMG][/IMG]

You can see with the above why the government is imposing carbon taxes, and pushing an ICEV sales ban and Clean Electricity Standard for 2035. But just look at the many provincial governments and industry groups hat have gone to war with the feds on this. It's easy to say 70% by 2030. Not so easy to do. I won't even get into the nutter set who think this is all made up.

And Canada's goal for 2030 is 40% below 2005 levels. Just imagine the effort required to achieve 70% by 2030. I don't want to play politics, but this is part of the legacy of the Harper government doing basically nothing. They've made the gradient of cuts required by every other government so much higher. And now in 2023, to some extent the Trudeau government is doing the same with population growth.

Yikes.. I didn't realize so much of the footprint was in so many hard-to-reduce things.

I guess we've already done the quickest win (no coal power..)

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

They're all net exporters so not sure how that'll work.



Someone has to pay for all this. Building a nuclear power plant and spreading the energy around in order to produce steam sounds insane. Certainly in the high hundreds of dollars per ton of carbon saved. Meanwhile we are building a new coal powered plant somewhere on a weekly basis. It's a joke.

I think 2023 is too late to putting this kind of money into oil, but in retrospect, if we had built a nuclear plant in AB for the oil sands steam in 2005 or so, it would have really helped. Such a plant could have doubled as a supply of clean energy to Edmonton & Calgary.

[casper]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

They're all net exporters so not sure how that'll work.



Someone has to pay for all this. Building a nuclear power plant and spreading the energy around in order to produce steam sounds insane. Certainly in the high hundreds of dollars per ton of carbon saved. Meanwhile we are building a new coal powered plant somewhere on a weekly basis. It's a joke.

You would build the plant, generate electricity that you sell and use the waste steam from the plant to provide steam for industrial processes.

Piping steam around is not unusual. District heating is a common thing even in Canada. A substantial part of downtown Vancouver is heated from a central district plant; many universities and industrial sites also do the same. Here is an overview of district heating in Canada from 2014:
District Heating in Canada

Honestly, you either have a natural gas fired station or a uranium fired station.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

They're all net exporters so not sure how that'll work.

Depends on who and where. A country like India which exports services or a country like Bangladesh which exports textiles. We're not going to do all trying to get around their tariffs. China with manufactured goods? Sure.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Yikes.. I didn't realize so much of the footprint was in so many hard-to-reduce things.

I guess we've already done the quickest win (no coal power..)

We've not even finished that quickest win. There's still 8-10 coal power plants in the country. Most are scheduled to close or convert to Natural Gas by 2030. Would they keep that promise if a new government scraps the Clean Electricity Standard? Hard to say.

What I would like to see from the Feds:

1) Much stricter building code. The fact that we can build buildings that can be heated and cooled passively, and don't do this is mind boggling. Not only should there be a much tighter building code, federal program eligibility like CMHC, should be based on meeting this higher standard.

2) Immediate effort for high speed rail in Quebec-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton to substantially reduce aviation emissions in Canada. Half the air passengers in this country are just traveling in this Corridor. Not just construction of HSR, but full air-rail integration that allows for amalgamation of air services so that Calgary replaces Edmonton airport and Dorval replaces Ottawa airport.

3) Significant effort at building proper high quality active transport infrastructure. I'd like to see at least $1B per year to start on multi-use pathways, protected bike lanes, bicycle garages, etc. Strict design standards to qualify. If you put a painted bike lane on a stroad, you get nothing.

4) Electrification of school buses. To some extent, electrification of transit is proceeding. The feds could speed that up a little. But the place we're really behind is electrifying school buses. And these are much cheaper to pull off too. Quebec is really leading the way on this one. $100M and they are electrification 65% of school buses by 2030. The long term health and education savings alone from electrifying buses would justify this.

5) 15 min neighbourhood requirement to qualify for transit grants. The federal government should not be paying for rail lines to Timbuktu so that Joe can drive his F150 to a rail station parking lot to commute and his Bronco for 90% of other trips. No 15 min city, no funding. They can still build the sprawl if they want. They'll pay for it.

6) Transit improvement program. Not just transit construction. But transit improvement. We've built a lot of transit in Canada over the decades. But a lot of it needs investment to improve safety, reliability and comfort. Like platform screen doors for subways or decent bus shelters with next bus information signs or wayfinding posts or universal payments. This stuff gets put off. But it's not all that expensive per se. But it needs to be done to actually increase transit as a preference.

7) EV charging investments at common use locations. It takes too long to add charging to every apartment. Give Loblaws and Sobeys subsidies for 100 kW chargers at their stores so that an apartment dweller can charge for the week while getting groceries.

These 7 things. If I add it all up, it's the feds spending something like $5-6B per year for 15-20 years. But the regulatory changes and investment would see substantial reductions in emissions along with a substantial increase in quality of life.

[MolsonExport]

[Innsertnamehere]

Canada's high per-capita number is driven almost entirely by Alberta.

This data says Ontario has a per-capita GhG emission of 10.1 tonnes for example - in line with Taiwan. Quebec stands at 8.9 tonnes.

Alberta meanwhile has a per-capita emission of 58 tonnes per capita.

Canada's solution to reducing it's carbon emissions lies in Fort McMurray.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's easier to replace a coal-burning power plant with something else than it is to get the entire population of a democratic developed nation to voluntarily consume less. In Canada we have already phased out a lot of dirty power sources or had hydro to begin with while other countries continue to build coal plants.

People in developing nations would say that it's easier to stop driving F150s than it is to reduce their electricity supply.

Always easier to redirect the responsibility onto someone else (BTW, this is a general statement rather than being aimed at you) than to take a lifestyle change - which is why we're having these discussions, I guess.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Wigs

I was kinda hoping you were going to say something more elaborate like you've built or are building a "prepper" house off the grid in the Laurentides

I actually do have a perfect Post-Apocalyptic spot ready, where I could live off the land (lots of flat and fertile ex-farmland, plus tons of game and fish), in a wooden cabin built with wood from the site, ideally near the river which is powerful enough for generating turbines, which can even be combined with solar panels to make sure I can live comfortably even off the grid. (That river would also be the water source, obviously.)



(not kidding, except I'm not pessimistic enough to think I'll ever go live there.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

People in developing nations would say that it's easier to stop driving F150s than it is to reduce their electricity supply.

Yes and no, because if you actually think about it, if the constituents of a democratic jurisdiction really insist on driving F150s and would immediately vote out any politician perceived to be willing to introduce anti-F150 measures (in order to replace them by pro-F150 politicians), how exactly do you proceed?