The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Should we be looking at China like they are Nazis?.. they’re still building massive amounts disgusting coal power plants online. Forget about some of the attitudes you might seem to think people have on here, the future of our children’s lives very much sits in the hands of that one nation.

Per capita emissions.

China: 7.38t
Canada: 18.58t

Source: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-em...ns-per-capita/

If China is comparable to the Nazis for building some coal plants, what should the world call Canada and its oil sands?

The disparity gets even worse when you look at cumulative emissions to date. From the perspective of the developing world, Europe and North America came over and exploited them for centuries, then emitted most of the carbon in the atmosphere today, and is now asking them to live in poverty while well off Westerners drive large vehicles to large houses with red meat at every meal.



We should be encouraging the developing world to avoid a carbon intensive development path. But that's going to take substantial leadership by example.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The math is the math because for too long there have been many self-centred people like yourself that put a fight against any solutions.

Christ I don't know if you are worse than those people that deny ACC. You don't deny it; you simply don't give a shit.

The math is the math because:

The West decided to outsource its production to a fascist totalitarian dictatorship that burns obscene amounts of coal and bases a significant portion of its economy on building empty houses and unnecessary infrastructure.

The Western environmental movement has an irrational hatred of nuclear power, which is still the only viable scaleable zero emission source of power in most countries (that don’t have hydro), so places like Australia, Germany and Japan which should have thriving nuclear industries and low emissions also burn obscene amounts of coal.

The US political system is too unstable to do anything about climate change.

Politicians in Canada and elsewhere have embraced and subsidized the hell out of low density sprawl.

Since none of these things are going to change the math is not going to change.

Just for the record, my carbon footprint is almost non-existent. I am almost completely unaffected by carbon taxes one way or the other. I am just sick of all this magical thinking that accomplishes nothing and avoids reality.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Just for the record, my carbon footprint is almost non-existent. I am almost completely unaffected by carbon taxes one way or the other. I am just sick of all this magical thinking that accomplishes nothing and avoids reality.

We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Per capita emissions.

China: 7.38t
Canada: 18.58t

Source: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-em...ns-per-capita/

If China is comparable to the Nazis for building some coal plants, what should the world call Canada and its oil sands?

The disparity gets even worse when you look at cumulative emissions to date. From the perspective of the developing world, Europe and North America came over and exploited them for centuries, then emitted most of the carbon in the atmosphere today, and is now asking them to live in poverty while well off Westerners drive large vehicles to large houses with red meat at every meal.



We should be encouraging the developing world to avoid a carbon intensive development path. But that's going to take substantial leadership by example.

Per capita emissions don’t warm the climate, actual emissions do.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Per capita emissions don’t warm the climate, actual emissions do.

Per capita emissions are emissions. They are just a measure of relative consumption. But we both know you know that, and you're just deflecting.

Really, what you're arguing here is that nothing should change for you or the poor African cooking on firewood, because emissions are emissions. So basically, you shouldn't have to say pay more in taxes to fund better transit to make room in the carbon budget for that poor African to get a solar panel and a hot plate.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Per capita emissions don’t warm the climate, actual emissions do.

Originally Posted by accord1999

I support that people should be allowed to use energy based on their conscience and budget to enjoy life as they see fit.

.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Per capita emissions are emissions. They are just a measure of relative consumption. But we both know you know that, and you're just deflecting.

Really, what you're arguing here is that nothing should change for you or the poor African cooking on firewood, because emissions are emissions. So basically, you shouldn't have to say pay more in taxes to fund better transit to make room in the carbon budget for that poor African to get a solar panel and a hot plate.

African countries burning firewood have few actual emissions. And emissions from firewood are mostly carbon neutral.

One country with 18% of the world’s population (and falling) is responsible for 27% of the world’s emissions (and rising). That’s more than the entire “developed” world, combined. You can apologize for fascism or blame colonialism all you want, but math does not have political beliefs. Those 1,082 coal power plants (compared to 281 in more populous India or 252 in CC-denying US) are going to push the climate over 3 degrees, regardless of whether you flex on the gram with your new electric car.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

One country with 18% of the world’s population (and falling) is responsible for 27% of the world’s emissions (and rising).

So you're concerned about disproportionate emissions (based on proportion of population, aka per capita). But apparently only when it's about China.

No mention of the country with 4.2% of the world's population that produces 14% of the world's emissions?

Or the country with 0.48% of the world's population and 1.5% of the world's emissions.

So China produces 50% more emissions than their share of population, but you're not at all concerned about the countries that produce well over 200% more than their share of the population?

Your argument to the Chinese would be, "I know you have a quarter of the per capita GDP that we do, a quarter of your population is still poor and agrarian, but really you need to cut back and keep those rural folks poor, while we do nothing, cause you know we need to get home to those McMansions in our SUVs to the waiting steaks."

For a guy who claims to be wise about geopolitics, you sure don't seem to get how that comes off.

The crazy part is that for all your deflection, the Chinese at least are trying. Yeah, they refuse to let hundreds of millions live in energy poverty and so they burn coal in the mean time. But they build and add more renewables to their grid than Europe and North America combined. They invest massive amounts in public transport so that they don't develop the car dependency that we have (or the foreign oil dependency that makes them vulnerable). And they have such a large portion of the electric vehicle market, that in some markets (like electric buses), the rest of the world is a rounding error.

They are also decently reliable at meeting targets they commit to. And they generally don't commit to targets they can't meet. So when they say they will start phasing out coal in 2026, and phasing out gas and diesel in 2035, their targets are more reliable than anything we'd ever commit to.

But hey, if we're so worried about the Chinese, let's help them cut emissions sooner. We can start by cutting all our shipments of oil and gas to them. I'm sure all the conservatives bleating about China's emissions should be down for putting their profits where their mouths are. And as I've said before, I'm more than happy to tariff Chinese imports with the same carbon tax as us. Killing off dollar stores and Walmart doesn't bother me in the least.

[MolsonExport]

It is like the overweight family that eats 4 meals a day shitting on the skinny family that eats only 2, because that other family has more kids.

[jamincan]

Surprise, surprise, the same people who said that human's can't possibly cause global warming are the same people who say it is hopeless for us to do anything to reverse it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Surprise, surprise, the same people who said that human's can't possibly cause global warming are the same people who say it is hopeless for us to do anything to reverse it.

When have I ever said humans can’t possibly be causing global warming? There is a mountain of scientific evidence to support anthropogenic climate change.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Surprise, surprise, the same people who said that human's can't possibly cause global warming are the same people who say it is hopeless for us to do anything to reverse it.

Meh. At this point, it's best to just ignore them and focus on solutions that have benefits beyond cutting emissions, and/or the obvious technological solutions that are within our grasp. And for all the doom and gloom the progress made by some technologies has been nothing short of miraculous.

There was a recent IEEE article on Li-ion batteries and their incredible development. In the 30 years since commercial introduction in 1991, they have dropped 97% in price. And they are due to more than half again this decade.



Source article: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/bat...costs.amp.html

I'm a firm believer that the way out of this is to work hard on operationalizing a lot of this tech faster. The bigger social policies can wait. But thinhs like tighter building codes (I'd argue the feds should make CMHC qualification contingent on all electric homes), stricter vehicle fuel consumption rules (including annual zero emissions vehicle targets) and government policies that largely restrict federal transport infrastructure funding to public and active transport, can all be put in place immediately. Life won't be substantively different a decade from now with these policies, except for better air quality in our cities and new homeowners with lower energy bills.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So you're concerned about disproportionate emissions (based on proportion of population, aka per capita). But apparently only when it's about China.

No mention of the country with 4.2% of the world's population that produces 14% of the world's emissions?

Or the country with 0.48% of the world's population and 1.5% of the world's emissions.

So China produces 50% more emissions than their share of population, but you're not at all concerned about the countries that produce well over 200% more than their share of the population?

Your argument to the Chinese would be, "I know you have a quarter of the per capita GDP that we do, a quarter of your population is still poor and agrarian, but really you need to cut back and keep those rural folks poor, while we do nothing, cause you know we need to get home to those McMansions in our SUVs to the waiting steaks."

For a guy who claims to be wise about geopolitics, you sure don't seem to get how that comes off.

The crazy part is that for all your deflection, the Chinese at least are trying. Yeah, they refuse to let hundreds of millions live in energy poverty and so they burn coal in the mean time. But they build and add more renewables to their grid than Europe and North America combined. They invest massive amounts in public transport so that they don't develop the car dependency that we have (or the foreign oil dependency that makes them vulnerable). And they have such a large portion of the electric vehicle market, that in some markets (like electric buses), the rest of the world is a rounding error.

They are also decently reliable at meeting targets they commit to. And they generally don't commit to targets they can't meet. So when they say they will start phasing out coal in 2026, and phasing out gas and diesel in 2035, their targets are more reliable than anything we'd ever commit to.

But hey, if we're so worried about the Chinese, let's help them cut emissions sooner. We can start by cutting all our shipments of oil and gas to them. I'm sure all the conservatives bleating about China's emissions should be down for putting their profits where their mouths are. And as I've said before, I'm more than happy to tariff Chinese imports with the same carbon tax as us. Killing off dollar stores and Walmart doesn't bother.

Again, none of this matters. Whether it is fair or unfair or the fault of the opium wars. The fact remains that one country is pushing out an enormous amount of carbon, almost half of it from coal plants that are completely unnecessary. Even if China meets its commitments and starts to reduce emissions in 2030, they will have pumped out our remaining carbon bank (see the guardian countdown I posted earlier) before getting emissions down to a reasonable level. Canada could cut its emissions to zero tomorrow and global warming will still exceed 3 degrees.

How the hell is China “trying”? They approved the construction of 31 GW of new coal power plants last year, 5 years after the Paris accords. In comparison, during their 13th Five-Year Plan from 2016 to 2020, they built nuclear power plants with a total capacity of 23 GW. In comparison Bruce is 6 GW.

BTW, China imports 505 million metric tones of oil a year. 2 million comes from Canada.

[jlousa]

Battery technology won't save anything. They are just a storage device for energy, the energy still needs to be created. Personally I feel the models for ACC are flawed and all greatly exaggerate the effects by manmade inputs (this is not a denial of ACC). In most urban cities the greatest source of CO2 is from the buildings, and I feel that is what we should be tackling first. It's the easiest, and most cost effective way to make a difference. Change code to require much higher efficiency in all new construction and renovations. With Western birthrates plummeting and other countries flowing behind along with technology advances I'm more optimistic then most that we will weather this (pun intended)

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Again, none of this matters. Whether it is fair or unfair or the fault of the opium wars. The fact remains that one country is pushing out an enormous amount of carbon, almost half of it from coal plants that are completely unnecessary. Even if China meets its commitments and starts to reduce emissions in 2030, they will have pumped out our remaining carbon bank (see the guardian countdown I posted earlier) before getting emissions down to a reasonable level. Canada could cut its emissions to zero tomorrow and global warming will still exceed 3 degrees.

How the hell is China “trying”? They approved the construction of 31 GW of new coal power plants last year, 5 years after the Paris accords. In comparison, during their 13th Five-Year Plan from 2016 to 2020, they built nuclear power plants with a total capacity of 23 GW. In comparison Bruce is 6 GW.

BTW, China imports 505 million metric tones of oil a year. 2 million comes from Canada.

It looks like China is "trying" about as much as Canada is, doing the bare minimum as the economics justify it. The pretend carbon tax in Canada appears to be doing bugger all, as it doesn't apply to a large part of our emissions, and is pretty tiny.

I'm coming round to your nihilistic mindset. Like it or not, Canada can make near zero difference to the climate, and the only thing that will save us is technological innovation. All I really care about is that Canada sets itself up for the economy of the future.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It looks like China is "trying" about as much as Canada is, doing the bare minimum as the economics justify it. The pretend carbon tax in Canada appears to be doing bugger all, as it doesn't apply to a large part of our emissions, and is pretty tiny.

Partly why I look forward to carbon tariffs motivating the laggards....

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm coming round to your nihilistic mindset. Like it or not, Canada can make near zero difference to the climate, and the only thing that will save us is technological innovation. All I really care about is that Canada sets itself up for the economy of the future.

Unfortunately, the nihilists are also usually borderline luddites who don't want policies that ramp up tech uptake either.

I have long argue that climate change should be treated as much of an economic opportunity as it is an environmental threat. And that is particularly the case for Canada, since we have an overabundance of clean energy, tons of resources and a skilled workforce.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Battery technology won't save anything. They are just a storage device for energy, the energy still needs to be created. Personally I feel the models for ACC are flawed and all greatly exaggerate the effects by manmade inputs (this is not a denial of ACC).

What exactly if your viewpoint based on? We now have scientists saying that they may have underestimated the frequency of fire and floods, compared to what they are seeing.

https://news.stanford.edu/2020/03/18...her-predicted/

Originally Posted by jlousa

In most urban cities the greatest source of CO2 is from the buildings, and I feel that is what we should be tackling first. It's the easiest, and most cost effective way to make a difference. Change code to require much higher efficiency in all new construction and renovations.

It's the easiest change to make and somehow even more politically difficult than phasing out gas and diesel cars for reason. It boggles my mind how ridiculously low our construction standards are in Canada, particularly for housing. And at this point, really, there's no reason that we all-electric homes can't be built outside the Arctic. But builders have zero motivation to push this unless there are actual mandates. Especially when they know most homebuyers still care more about granite countertops than the potential massive energy liabilities they are taking on.

There was a project I was interested in near me. The developer asked for community feedback. I suggested they install NEMA 14-50 outlets in all their garages and upgrade service. Doing this at the time of construction is only about $500 more in construction costs, which any prospective buyer (and I'm one) would happily pay. I suggested they could market it as "EV ready". Their PR dude came back telling me that they believe a regular wall outlet is enough. This is exactly why I think we need government mandates on this. They insist on being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Partly why I look forward to carbon tariffs motivating the laggards....



Unfortunately, the nihilists are also usually borderline luddites who don't want policies that ramp up tech uptake either.

I have long argue that climate change should be treated as much of an economic opportunity as it is an environmental threat. And that is particularly the case for Canada, since we have an overabundance of clean energy, tons of resources and a skilled workforce.

Canada is the laggard unfortunately.

As much as I truly believe a clean system of carbon taxes and tariffs is the best way of reducing emissions, and that anyone who disagrees is 100% wrong, I have my doubts that any system that is set up will actually come quick enough and be strong enough to matter. Raising gas prices, or any prices, in America is political poison and the Chinese don't GAF, so all European tariffs will likely achieve is make things more expensive for Europeans. By the time the world actually gets on board with this sort of stuff, we'll both have caused more damage to the climate than we should have, but the technology to carry on will be available. It's like the problem of horse shit piling up in cities - humans never solved that problem through policy, because horses were too valuable. They just happened to invent a better horse that doesn't poop.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by milomilo

As much as I truly believe a clean system of carbon taxes and tariffs is the best way of reducing emissions, and that anyone who disagrees is 100% wrong, I have my doubts that any system that is set up will actually come quick enough and be strong enough to matter.

Yes, I think it is the correct abstract economics "pricing in externalities" approach. The problem is that the system is subject to political constraints (also pricing carbon I think involves predicting the future which is difficult). Often you hear arguments that these political or coordination problems are just distractions or things done by bad people, etc., but this is the force that has done the most to hold back humanity for its history. It is the real "problem".

My best guess is the world will muddle through the issue. The temperature will rise by over 2 degrees from 2000-2100. There will be costs but they will amount to less than 20% of economic growth so humanity will be far better off. By 2100 humans will only use hydrocarbons in niche applications and changes like reduced farming footprint will make the earth's ecosystems better off than now.

The most beneficial immediate project would probably be a large program to make modern nuclear power accessible. Any better ideas? It would take decades to ramp up. It would make nuclear a cheaper option for countries than coal, and so their economic incentives would be aligned similarly to how carbon pricing could work except administration would be easier.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by acottawa

China has not been a “developing” economy for some time.

Simply factually wrong.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It has money for high speed trains to nowhere

The most extensive HSR network in the world goes nowhere? kk.

Originally Posted by acottawa

ghost cities, space stations, wacky river diversion schemes, and aircraft carriers.

Sounds like things the US has, too. And Russia, and Japan...

Originally Posted by acottawa

It has the money to dramatically reduce coal consumption if it wanted to. It just doesn’t want to.

It has the money to do a lot of things that it doesn't - just like us.