The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[lio45]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yeah this whole "oh noes the agricultural land" argument (used for other reasons too) doesn't hold water. Canada has a shit ton of land, with a huge amount used for agriculture. The prairie land in particular is vast and seems to encounter varying disasters on a yearly basis, so losing a tiny fraction of the least productive land is hardly going to be an issue.

Even if this was a concern, economics fixes it. In the preposterously absurd scenario that solar energy starts having a significant effect on food production, food prices will rise. If it's more profitable (and therefore valued more by Canada) to farm food on a field than solar, farmers will do it.

The sunniest land also happens to be the driest, and is probably not good for growing stuff anyway. All the AB land that's only good as pasture should stop being useful eventually as we realize we should drastically cut our meat consumption (environmental and health reasons combined).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What is not up for debate is that you don't get to tell a farmer how they use their land. If farming photons is more profitable than farming soybeans, so be it.

When I was looking to branch out into a business model that can run by itself, that's the formulation I used to explain the idea to friends and family: "farming photons and turning them (slowly) into valuable hardwood is one of very few industries that can be left to operate completely unsupervised."

[thebasketballgeek]

Yea the large swaths of land in the prairies solely dedicated to grains, canola, and soybeans is probably not the most practical use of land. With all the advancements of technology is there not a way where these products can be farmed in a more compact manner?

I mean since we’re mostly urbanists we all talk about densifying our cities, but wouldn’t it be just as beneficial to densify our farming and use the rest of the land for means of renewable energy, wetlands, forests, and increased biodiversity as some examples?

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by casper

Not just Vancouver. There is one in downtown Toronto on Lake Ontario. No one cares much about that one as well.

Its only one in each location. Try putting up a lot more and watch what happens. Do some off shore in the Georgia strait and you will have a minor war.

Or put some out past centre island to catch that lake effect wind.

Its one reason the wind farms in Ontario and Alberta are far from urban centres. The ones in Van and TO are mostly for show. I think I have actually only saw the TO one operating 1 trip into TO.

There are few areas where sustained winds are enough to accommodate large wind farms. Mind you with newer tech like micro turbines we could see them used in urban settings. Love to see a mix of turbines and solar PV on new construction.

regrettably I am only seeing PV panels being used on renovations (under the federal community enhancement programs). Most new construction has the infrastructure to add it later. (At least in AB, BC and Sask). We are doing more district energy systems now though.

[Truenorth00]

Thankfully, none of the ignorant concern trolling here actually works with decision-makers.

To the broader concerns. We'll never have that much on-shore wind. The whole industry is prioritizing off-shore wind due to higher capacity factors and better returns and fewer restrictions on size. Just one GE Halidade X can power 3000 homes conservatively (they claim 16 000 homes). And if the UK can build enough off-shore wind to power every home in the UK, just imagine the off-shore wind potential of Canada. And you will mostly never see these things when they are located over the horizon.

Between that wind potential, and the massive amount of hydro in this country and existing nuclear, the amount of land, particularly agriculturally productive land in Canada, tied up with renewables is always going to be miniscule. Indeed, our massive hydro reserves are now being eyed as some kind of North American battery for Canada and the US (or at least for bordering regions).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Airboy

Or put some out past centre island to catch that lake effect wind.

I look forward to offshore wind in the Great Lakes. The Liberals stupidly opposed it as a political sop to NIMBYs. Doug Ford came in and cancelled a lot of green power contracts. It's been a blessing in disguise. The technology has only gotten better and they can go further off-shore and bigger. Governments aren't going to be able to ignore the costs and returns forever. And NIMBYs will have a tough fight complaining about specks on the horizon.

[TorontoDrew]

I never understood why people think windmills are an eyesore.

[MolsonExport]

Haven't you guys heard of Windmill Cancer?



so says Lio's stable genius

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Anybody else here think we are at the tipping point now or have already passed it? We need drastic change right now if it's not already too late. We need to get off fossil fuels right now.

I also think that we are at the tipping point and 2050 for net-zero maybe way to late to undue the permanent damage we have caused.

That said, we cannot get off fossil fuels for many decades to come. Even if we gave ourselves a decade {little alone "right now"}, the world economy would completely implode, there would be wholesale starvation even in Western countries, and a plunging life expectancy.

Like it or not, over the last 200 years of industrialization we have built an economy based on fossil fuels and to even suggest we stop using them exemplifies how we really do under estimate how fossil fuels effect our lives in every possible way.

From sanitation, to food production & distribution, running of our cars, planes, trains, freight, transit, and cargo, medical equipment, plastics, construction, housing, heating, communication, manufacturing of nearly everything {including all those windmills and solar panels}...........we are completely dependent on fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels must be part of the solution at least over the next 30 or 40 years. The problem is not the use of them but rather what we do with them after we use them and where we put them. The issue is not the commodity but rather that we take them and stick them in the air as opposed to putting them back in the ground where they belong.

[Truenorth00]

Ahh the old strawman of, "we can't get off fossil fuels ever because we are dependent on them today."

I sincerely hope the people who think this recall their ignorance in the decades to come. Technology is going to make fools out of a lot of people.

[MolsonExport]

sounds similar to the posturing pedestrian argument of how guns are a big part of the solution for gun violence problems in the USA. Like some kind passage from the NRA bible: guns begat guns which begat guns which begat guns....

fossil fuels got us into this mess. how the fuck are they going to get us out of it?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

fossil fuels got us into this mess. how the fuck are they going to get us out of it?

They won't. And at this point, a bet on fossil fuels, is a bet against democracy, capitalism and human ingenuity.

Maybe we take two steps forward and one step back with climate action on the political front. But the long term trend is clear. And as governments respond the demands of voters so will capital markets and tech investors and developers.

Added bonus, is a nice alignment of geopolitics. Half of the world's shittiest regimes are very fossil fuel dependent. Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar and the UAE. Even stopping demand in oil growth is massively in the geopolitical interests of the West. The stable genius may not have thought that deeply about this. But Biden fully understands this. It's partly why the Obama administration put limits on the export of fracking tech to Russia. Every electric car that Ford or GM or Volkswagen sells is one cut in the death of a billion cuts coming for these regimes.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by lio45

The sunniest land also happens to be the driest, and is probably not good for growing stuff anyway. All the AB land that's only good as pasture should stop being useful eventually as we realize we should drastically cut our meat consumption (environmental and health reasons combined).

We can all go vegan and live in pods but it's not gonna stop AGW, not when 2/3 of all emissions come from big corporations and the 1%. Prepare for the end.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

sounds similar to the posturing pedestrian argument of how guns are a big part of the solution for gun violence problems in the USA. Like some kind passage from the NRA bible: guns begat guns which begat guns which begat guns....

Not everyone lives in a city. Die mad about it lol

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Floppa

We can all go vegan and live in pods but it's not gonna stop AGW, not when 2/3 of all emissions come from big corporations and the 1%. Prepare for the end.

Surprise: the "big corporations" are you.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Surprise: the "big corporations" are you.

This is news to me

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Not everyone lives in a city. Die mad about it lol

seemingly random reply without connection to my comment. Migsian?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Floppa

This is news to me

They don't just burn carbon for fun, twiddling their moustaches, while having a separate stream of carbon neutral goods for you and everyone else. Corporations produce CO2 because people want their products.

[Psychedelic Sailor]

Originally Posted by Floppa

We can all go vegan and live in pods but it's not gonna stop AGW, not when 2/3 of all emissions come from big corporations and the 1%. Prepare for the end.

"Look someone else it doing it" is a terrible non argument

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by milomilo

They don't just burn carbon for fun, twiddling their moustaches, while having a separate stream of carbon neutral goods for you and everyone else. Corporations produce CO2 because people want their products.

Ah yes, all humans are perfectly rational agents when it comes to consuming and advertising isn't a thing. You can make the same argument for drugs, but in the case of opioids, big pharma pushed them really hard, then acted like "Oh but we're just responding to market demands!"

Yes, I have wants and needs as a consumer. Enough plastic packaging to choke a horse surrounding EVERYTHING I BUY isn't one of them! Why are socks bound together with little plastic strips? And what's with electronics getting packaged with tiny 1-inch-long charge cables??? Give me a cable or don't!

Yes people bear responsibility but that doesn't mean we should let big corps off the hook for their irresponsible practices.