The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Airboy

Exon /Imperial Oil are building a renewable fuel facility at it's Strathcona Plant site.
(They could build this on the old Shell refinery site across the road).
They will be using Blue Hydrogen.
https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...el-2021-08-25/

Pretty cool. Is there a specific market they are targeting for all that fuel?

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Pretty cool. Is there a specific market they are targeting for all that fuel?

Transportation.

Here's the service article.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...esel-1.6152892

[ssiguy]

Although I am strongly against Trudeau's pipeline purchase, in general, he does done a LOT for the environment and more than every other PM combined.

He had the balls to bring in a carbon tax {which admittedly I'm not a huge supporter of}. He has mandated all cars & trucks sales be zero emissions by 2035 which ties us with the most aggressive plans on the planet. He is helping phase out all non-zero polluting electrical production by 2030. Brought in cars/truck electric rebates, has developed and put in large sums for hydrogen, thru govt assistance will make all our transit systems zero emitting by 2035 at the very latest, greatly increased recharging infrastructure, will be planting 2 billion tress, and has reaffirmed our commitment to net-zero by 2050.

Of course all those things take time to come to fruition and hence seeing the results but he has created a strong foundation to ensure that Canada can meet it's targets.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Although I am strongly against Trudeau's pipeline purchase, in general, he does done a LOT for the environment and more than every other PM combined.

He had the balls to bring in a carbon tax {which admittedly I'm not a huge supporter of}. He has mandated all cars & trucks sales be zero emissions by 2035 which ties us with the most aggressive plans on the planet. He is helping phase out all non-zero polluting electrical production by 2030. Brought in cars/truck electric rebates, has developed and put in large sums for hydrogen, thru govt assistance will make all our transit systems zero emitting by 2035 at the very latest, greatly increased recharging infrastructure, will be planting 2 billion tress, and has reaffirmed our commitment to net-zero by 2050.

Of course all those things take time to come to fruition and hence seeing the results but he has created a strong foundation to ensure that Canada can meet it's targets.

Canada already plants around 600 million a year.

[Truenorth00]

Conservative climate plan violates the Paris Agreement requirement against backsliding:

The Paris Agreement requires countries to submit targets to reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions to the UN, which are called “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs).

Countries must also update their climate commitments at least once every five years, according to Article 4(9) of the agreement. Each new submission must be stronger than the previous one, according to Article 4(3) of the agreement.

On June 12, the federal government submitted its updated GHG-reduction target to the UN, which is 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. That’s up from Canada’s 2016 target of a 30 per cent reduction below 2005 levels by 2030.

The Tories’ climate plan sticks with the 30 per cent target. When Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole released it in April — which is the same as the one in the party’s platform — Canada’s target was still 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

https://ipolitics.ca/2021/08/26/tori...ement-experts/

To be fair, I don't think the Liberals would have met 40-45%. But I'm not sure the Conservatives can actually achieve a 30% cut based on their current proposals.

[O-tacular]

I'm curious to know O'Toole's stance on the Grassy Mountain coal mine application refusal. I have a sinking feeling Kenney is already greasing the wheels to get approval on the slew of vastly opposed coal mines on the Eastern slopes. Anyone voting east of Alberta should really consider the fate of their drinking water with this vote. I'm sure Australian coal magnate Gina Rinehart is watching the election with bated breath.

[dleung]

I don't drive much in Toronto, but have been recently driving more for a project site, and noticed far fewer Teslas here than in Vancouver where they seem as common as Honda Civics... apparently this is not just about the super-rich asians, but also the work of local and provincial governments in combating climate change

Vancouver is leading the charge as Canada switches to electric vehicles by 2035
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/mar...hicles-by-2035

B.C. has the highest uptake of electric vehicles in North America, and in the Vancouver region, EV adoption is even higher. In 2020, 11 per cent of new cars in Metro Vancouver were zero-emission, compared to only 2.4 per cent in Toronto and 3.5 per cent across the country. In the City of Vancouver, the figure is thought to be even higher: between 12 and 17 per cent. In fact, there were more new EVs registered in Metro Vancouver alone last year than the whole province of Ontario.

So why is Vancouver so much further ahead, and what can the rest of Canada learn from its precocious EV ways? After all, commute times are similar across most large cities. The difference is that Vancouver benefits from a trifecta of EV policy solutions at the federal, provincial, and municipal government levels.

In other words, Vancouver is proof that when every level of government works toward a common goal, real and rapid change is possible.

Like all Canadians, Vancouverites can access the federal electric vehicle rebate, which knocks $5,000 off the sticker price of a new EV. The $3,000 provincial government rebate brings that total to $8,000. And then there are the various incentivesto install EV chargers. Alongside those favourable economics, the provincial government was the first jurisdiction in the world to make its commitment to phasing out gas cars legally binding. The rules, which require automakers to sell an increasing proportion of electric cars in the province, help ensure that British Columbians can actually find and buy the cleaner cars they want — something that isn’t the case everywhere in Canada.

But municipal governments also have a big role to play, particularly when it comes to charging infrastructure. The City of Vancouver has utilized its building code to assure the installation of 60,000 residential charging connections in new buildings since 2014, and is aiming to put all Vancouver residents within a 10-minute drive of a fast-charging station by the end of this year.

[MolsonExport]

95% of existing ocean climates could disappear by 2100 if CO2 emissions continue to climb

A new study suggests that, unless CO2 is drastically cut, Earth's oceans could lose 95 per cent of their existing climates

Canada is home to three oceans, all of which harbour thousands of fish and animals, on which many Canadians rely. But, with a warming planet, these bodies of water are rapidly changing.

A new study published in the journal Scientific Reports suggests that our oceans' climates — existing environments with delicately balanced ecosystems — face extreme change under climate-change scenarios.

When trying to predict how our climate will change as a result of increased greenhouse gas emissions, scientists use something called the representative concentration pathway, or RCP. They represent different climate futures under varying levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

In this study, the authors looked at two: RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5.

Under RCP 4.5 — considered a moderate scenario — emissions peak in 2050, and are then followed by a slowed increase. Under RCP 8.5 — often considered as a "business-as-usual" scenario, and the worst one — emissions peak in 2100 and are then followed by a slowed increase.

Under these scenarios, the authors suggest that 10 to 85 per cent of the surface ocean would see conditions never before seen, or a change in their "climate."

But under the RCP 4.5 scenario, 35.6 per cent of surface ocean climates may disappear altogether by 2100. Under RCP 8.5, that rises to 95 per cent.
[...]

As we produce more CO2, a lot of it is trapped in the atmosphere. However, our oceans actually absorb the majority of it.

A report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) this week found that in 2020, the ocean absorbed roughly three billion tonnes more CO2 than what was released, the highest amount since the start of records began in 1982 and roughly 30 per cent higher than the average over the past two decades.

And that changes the ocean's structure. Not only do our oceans warm, but the greater CO2 absorption also changes pH levels. This change is what is referred to as ocean acidification.

The Nature study examined the level of pH, or acidity, and something that is called a saturation state, which relates to how difficult it is for organisms to make their shells.

They found that under the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios, the ocean surface will become more acidic with a lower saturation of aragonite, which is a mineral used by corals and other marine organisms to form shells.

Just as we require calcium to make our bones, so do shelled organisms. They get this from seawater, but with ocean acidification, calcium becomes less available and hydrogen becomes more common.

And that presents a double whammy for organisms: it becomes harder to form their shells, and it also becomes more difficult to keep what shells they have from dissolving back into the seawater.

[...]

[JHikka]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts...denser-cities/

An overlooked climate strategy: Denser cities

The housing crisis and the climate crisis have caught the attention of the major parties in this federal campaign.

One policy solution would address both challenges at the same time: Letting more people live in dense urban neighbourhoods. Here, many jobs are close by and daily errands don’t require a car. If people reduce or eliminate their car commutes, if they live in apartments rather than detached houses, their emissions will fall.

The pattern is very clear across North America, where city residents consistently generate fewer emissions. One American study suggested that doubling urban density brings down carbon dioxide emissions by 48 per cent for travel and 35 per cent for residential use.

Yet we are doing the opposite. The bulk of Canadians live in car-oriented suburbs, and the fastest-growing cities in the country – Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver – continue to build more in their suburbs than nearer to their urban cores. Montreal’s suburbs are growing while the city’s population stagnates.

This isn’t entirely an accident. Provincial governments, to a degree, shape how cities are allowed to grow, says Phil Pothen, a land-use planner who is Ontario environment program manager at Environmental Defence. Mr. Pothen points out that in the Toronto region, Ontario’s provincial Growth Plan is sending 80 per cent of new residents and jobs into car-oriented suburbs.

...

So how to put these pieces together? The federal government has to play the heavy. Local governments effectively control land-use planning. Meanwhile, the federal and provincial governments have the bulk of the responsibility for climate policy – and they don’t have to deal with neighbour-on-neighbour battles. The federal government should be pushing urban municipalities to accept more people, taking the pressure off local elected officials.

In theory, this should be popular. Most of us understand, at some level, that it’s undesirable to pave over green space and agricultural land for new housing and roads. Such development also generates emissions.

Among the major party platforms, the Liberals are gesturing most clearly in this direction. They’ve proposed a “Housing Accelerator Fund” that will send dollars to cities that approve more housing more quickly, and those that “encourage transit-oriented development.” The Conservatives have a plank to tie transit funding to higher density. And the NDP promise to build large quantities of much-needed social housing.

[MolsonExport]

Seems like a no-brainer (And something that has been advocated for decades on this forum), but people want the "right" to drive their 5,374 pound pickup truck to the corner store for a loaf of bread. Tubby citizens. Stroads, stroads, and more stroads. Big box barf ad nauseam. Cookie cutter suburbs that look exactly the same, in every city, in every province. Who gives a shit what your city's population is when 95% of it is comprised of soul-sucking snouthouses and stroads? We never learned a thing from Jane Jacobs.

[ssiguy]

In regards to Vancouver, yes the rebates help as does a lot of recharging infrastructure but the biggest reason was not mentioned in the report...........the price of gas.

Vancouverites pay more for gas for anyone in NA and by a long shot. This makes the savings of switching over to electric more financially advantageous. Of course the problem is that for the vast majority of people, buying an EV is still the domain of the well-off meaning it's the middle/lower income people that end up paying the price.

[Floppa]

I think there's a very simple solution to this problem: suck the carbon out of the air and turn it into a useful product. What are diamonds? Carbon! We can just turn CO2 into diamonds! I'm sure there's a way. Or turn it into carbonate jewelry. Or just get alkaline rocks and react them with carbonic acid to make carbonate paving stones/decorations.

Other than climate change, there's really no reason to stop using fossil fuels. They give us THE MAPS— transportation, heating, electricity, medicine, agriculture, products and sanitation. There's no other fuel in the world that does all of those with the same efficacy as oil and gas. It's just an engineering problem.

[MolsonExport]

Other than climate change, there's really no reason to stop using fossil fuels.

This is about as big a reason as there is for anything, anywhere, at anytime.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Floppa

I think there's a very simple solution to this problem: suck the carbon out of the air and turn it into a useful product. What are diamonds? Carbon! We can just turn CO2 into diamonds! I'm sure there's a way. Or turn it into carbonate jewelry. Or just get alkaline rocks and react them with carbonic acid to make carbonate paving stones/decorations.

If we simply ignore economics, I'm sure this seems like a "very simple solution".

Originally Posted by Floppa

Other than climate change, there's really no reason to stop using fossil fuels. They give us THE MAPS— transportation, heating, electricity, medicine, agriculture, products and sanitation. There's no other fuel in the world that does all of those with the same efficacy as oil and gas. It's just an engineering problem.

Aside from climate change (which is hardly something to handwave away as a minor detail), there's also substantial environmental and health hazards involved in extraction, processing, transport and even retailing of fossil fuels.

Also, you're wrong about the "efficacy" of oil and gas. You're mistaking existing practice and convenience for efficacy. But there's plenty of applications where electricity is more efficient, easier to distribute, cleaner, cheaper and often all those in combination. This will become a lot more obvious in the coming years and decades.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If we simply ignore economics, I'm sure this seems like a "very simple solution".



Aside from climate change (which is hardly something to handwave away as a minor detail), there's also substantial environmental and health hazards involved in extraction, processing, transport and even retailing of fossil fuels.

Also, you're wrong about the "efficacy" of oil and gas. You're mistaking existing practice and convenience for efficacy. But there's plenty of applications where electricity is more efficient, easier to distribute, cleaner, cheaper and often all those in combination. This will become a lot more obvious in the coming years and decades.

Ask people in Quebec/Texas about electric heating

[MolsonExport]

Most Quebeckers are happy with electric heating, as far as I know. It was never a hot button issue when I lived there (the majority of my life).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

This is about as big a reason as there is for anything, anywhere, at anytime.

Agreed. The number of reasons is irrelevant, it's their combined weight that matters.

"Other than the fact it'll likely inflict serious permanent psychological damage to her, there's really no reason to refrain from raping my cute neighbor if I feel like it"

[jamincan]

Electric heating is possibly the most efficient form of heating possible.

[lio45]

Plus it's easy to make it a clean and renewable source.

[hipster duck]

To be a bit morbid, the two best things people can do for the planet are:

1. Don't have kids;
2. Die early

We're really hitting it out of the park with #1, and Obesity and Covid (mostly from unknown long-term effects from people who were infected, not direct deaths) is doing its part for #2, particularly south of the border.

On that subject, can we expect average life expectancy to plateau and actually begin decreasing over the next few decades?