Climate change predicted to transform Vancouver into San Diego, but at a heavy cost

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What I think should be on the forefront for us in Vancouver is potential sealevel rises. Our most valuable land and most fertile land are on the edge of sealevel today, not to mention huge pieces of important infrastructure (YVR).

Nothing Vancouver, British Colombia or Canada does unilaterally will make any meaningful change on sea level rises (if there will even be any noticeable rises in the next 100 years).

The only think Metro Vancouver could do is build dykes and other structures to keep water out (like the Dutch have) and/or raise land elevations in the most at-risk areas.

I think that funds would best be used to ensure less environmental damage from our actions, such as reducing particulates in the air, more recycling and better land use.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Nothing Vancouver, British Colombia or Canada does unilaterally will make any meaningful change on sea level rises (if there will even be any noticeable rises in the next 100 years).

The only think Metro Vancouver could do is build dykes and other structures to keep water out (like the Dutch have) and/or raise land elevations in the most at-risk areas.

I think that funds would best be used to ensure less environmental damage from our actions, such as reducing particulates in the air, more recycling and better land use.

Obviously individual action(s) (on carbon emission) alone will make little impact....the key thus is numerous (individual) actions (in concert) towards COLLECTIVE action that will ultimately make the difference.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Obviously individual action(s) (on carbon emission) alone will make little impact....the key thus is numerous (individual) actions (in concert) towards COLLECTIVE action that will ultimately make the difference.

In addition, many first movers in the technological solution space stand to gain economically in the medium to long term.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Obviously individual action(s) (on carbon emission) alone will make little impact....the key thus is numerous (individual) actions (in concert) towards COLLECTIVE action that will ultimately make the difference.

Then do it with your own time and money. If it's such a great idea you shouldn't need the threat of government violence to achieve your desired outcomes.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Then do it with your own time and money. If it's such a great idea you shouldn't need the threat of government violence to achieve your desired outcomes.

As usual I hear the selfish/individualistic ring of (right-wing?) "capitalism" in your statement above. The unforgiving reality though is that "no man is an island". We (humans) are social animals/beings. We live our lives thus, communally (via collective reciprocity).

Further,...why would you need to insert the caveat of governmental violence to achieve any social good (as with controlling excessive carbon emissions)? I guess such stance/(threatening use of violence) represents the desperate realities of fascism and Stalinist communism

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Nothing Vancouver, British Colombia or Canada does unilaterally will make any meaningful change on sea level rises (if there will even be any noticeable rises in the next 100 years).

The only think Metro Vancouver could do is build dykes and other structures to keep water out (like the Dutch have) and/or raise land elevations in the most at-risk areas.

I think that funds would best be used to ensure less environmental damage from our actions, such as reducing particulates in the air, more recycling and better land use.

That is ridiculously fatalistic.

First world countries should be leading the charge on this, especially rich ones like Canada. We've created a substantial portion of the atmosphere change regardless of any new emissions that get generated. The emissions rates don't matter, more the cumulative amounts that have been dumped into the air.

Its likely that countries like the India will never catch up in terms of Carbon emissions compared to the first world.

Shouldn't we be the ones morally burdened with providing the technology and solutions that can be rolled out into the rest of the world?

The easiest way to do that is to fix our shit first.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Shouldn't we be the ones morally burdened with providing the technology and solutions that can be rolled out into the rest of the world?

The easiest way to do that is to fix our shit first.

Regardless, he's got a point. It's easy for Vancouver and BC to become carbon neutral - and to lecture other, larger cities/nations about doing the same - when we never produced that much carbon to begin with.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Regardless, he's got a point. It's easy for Vancouver and BC to become carbon neutral - and to lecture other, larger cities/nations about doing the same - when we never produced that much carbon to begin with.

64 million tonnes per year CO2e in BC. That's certainly not nothing. More per capita than most countries on the planet.

His point is contrary to technological progress. Technological progress typically occurs in societies that can afford it, then the benefits spread down to ones that couldn't afford to develop it.

Just look at computers. Look at telecom. Look at nuclear power. Look at solar power or wind turbines. Look at the internet. Who paved the way for these technologies? Was it Zimbabwe, Somalia or Bolivia?

How many countries outside the G8 have nuclear fusion development programs?

Who do you think gets a jump start in capturing that value when it's created?

My problem with the conservative mindset is that it tends to towards zero sum thinking. By that measure we're already doomed.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Regardless, he's got a point. It's easy for Vancouver and BC to become carbon neutral - and to lecture other, larger cities/nations about doing the same - when we never produced that much carbon to begin with.

It won't be "easy". Gregor's proposed green building code that bans fossil fuels has been estimated to add 20% to home building costs in an already expensive city.

[Vin]

What about the good building structures and viaducts we tear down to rebuild, only because there are restrictions on how tall or dense other areas can go in order to protect view corridors? Isn't that contrary to going green and trying to achieve carbon neutral as well? Also, what about allowing single family homes to exist in prime urban areas while sprawl continues to happen, resulting in more commute time with private passenger vehicles. We need to take all that into account. As of now, we are not green at all, even though we try to think that we are progressive in that arena.

Originally Posted by Jebby

Nothing Vancouver, British Colombia or Canada does unilaterally will make any meaningful change on sea level rises (if there will even be any noticeable rises in the next 100 years).

The only think Metro Vancouver could do is build dykes and other structures to keep water out (like the Dutch have) and/or raise land elevations in the most at-risk areas.

I think that funds would best be used to ensure less environmental damage from our actions, such as reducing particulates in the air, more recycling and better land use.

Agreed that what we do here don't contribute to sea level rises, but the steps we put in can let us enjoy the fresh clean air and water that we've always enjoyed, and allowing nature to flourish in the urban areas without having more low-density urban sprawl. I think Burnaby is doing pretty well in that regards.

[WarrenC12]

^^^^

Our per capita emissions are among the highest in the world.

[cornholio]

Its not the councils mandate to deal with co2 emissions and what not. They should be running a city. It is the provincial and federal responsibility from above to set these policies, nation/province wide.

As for me put me in the boat of tired of how overblown this has become. This whole planet will burn up one day one way or another, economic growth and expansion of knowledge should be priorities. With it we can overcome everything, and if not then who the heck cares. Earth is not permanent, nor is life on earth, unless we get it of this rock permanently. Climate change has never destroyed the earth and it wont do it this time, life adapts, it does not matter if you vaporize the surface of the earth, life on earth will not be eliminated. Its a incredible machine and is designed to overcome and adapt to allot, especially minor climate fluctuations. We can adapt, time moves on. I would be more concerned with overpopulation in countries with dysfunctional societies/cultures that bring little to the table. (today).

[isaidso]

Does this mean that places like Prince George might end up with a climate like Sacramento and Prince Rupert one like San Francisco?

[mezzanine]

Apropos of the june-uary weather we are having, this needs a bump. This was a post from 4 years ago, and for some reason it stuck in my mind, for all the wrong reasons.

I'll try to dust it off in another 4 years.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Does this mean that places like Prince George might end up with a climate like Sacramento and Prince Rupert one like San Francisco?

I don't think so. If climate warming keeps up on a sustained and measurable basis, I think PR could become like western Scotland (where palm trees will grow in some gardens)
and PG will still have a continental climate, only with somewhat shorter winters, and longer, hotter summers.

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Apropos of the june-uary weather we are having, this needs a bump. This was a post from 3 years ago, and for some reason it stuck in my mind, for all the wrong reasons.
I'll try to dust it off in another 3 years.

June is often a relatively cool, damp month in Vancouver and the Western USA in general. (June gloom they call it in Southern California)
That said, summer is off to a fine start with temperatures in Vancouver forecast to be in the low 30s over the upcoming weekend, and places like Ashcroft and Osoyoos in the low 40s.
And that's just at the outset of summer. What will July - August bring, I wonder.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I don't think so. If climate warming keeps up on a sustained and measurable basis, I think PR could become like western Scotland (where palm trees will grow in some gardens)
and PG will still have a continental climate, only with somewhat shorter winters, and longer, hotter summers.


June is often a relatively cool, damp month in Vancouver and the Western USA in general. (June gloom they call it in Southern California)
That said, summer is off to a fine start with temperatures in Vancouver forecast to be in the low 30s over the upcoming weekend, and places like Ashcroft and Osoyoos in the low 40s.
And that's just at the outset of summer. What will July - August bring, I wonder.

I know what I hope it DOESNT bring; fires and smoke.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by rofina

I know what I hope it DOESNT bring; fires and smoke.

I hate to be a downer, but it most probably will, unless we enter a cold, rainy summer weather pattern, and I doubt that's likely.
https://thehill.com/policy/equilibri...e-wildfires-in

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by rofina

I know what I hope it DOESNT bring; fires and smoke.

Of course it will...

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I hate to be a downer, but it most probably will, unless we enter a cold, rainy summer weather pattern, and I doubt that's likely.
https://thehill.com/policy/equilibri...e-wildfires-in

There's also this site (only shows US fires). It's scary how many fires there are.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Studies say that climate change also brings more random monsoons too... let's hope so.

[Denscity]

Van Diego?