The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Or we stick to the subject of the thread and can focus on the fact that 13 of 15 councillors voted in favour of declaring a climate emergency, instead of making up a story that Chu was a rapist (I know what you intended, but making up false claims is not right)

Calgary city council voting to declare a Climate emergency is 100% on topic for the thread. Sean Chu admitted to sexually assaulting a minor while on duty as a cop. That's fact. Maybe it wasn't full on sex but forcing a teenager to perform sexual acts is pretty much in the same category as rape in my books. Not sure why you're focusing on that rather than the article in question. The point of my post was not about Chu. Just because I made a quip about how predictable it is that he voted that way considering his terrible track record (both as a private citizen and a city councilor) doesn't negate the main subject matter.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

These floods aren’t too surprising, especially in Merritt and Princeton. Both areas had large fires this summer which means a lot of quick runoff in a big rain event like this.

Also both towns are in flood plains in relatively narrow valleys next to the Coast Mountains, so this isn’t exactly unheard of either.

The most damaging part of this is having the south coast cut off from the rest of the country. Reminds me of when Canada was cut in two a couple years ago with the bridge washout in eastern Ontario.

1990 there were similar rains and flooding. I remember going out to Seattle for a race and driving out. as we passed an area it would get washed out an hour later. Lower mainland was quite flooded when we came back 2 days later. and highway 1 and 5 were both closed then as well.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Lots of people pointing to the various clearcutting and soil preparation of the TMX near different highway washouts in BC. Correlation doesn't equal causation of course, but the optics couldn't be worse IMO.

Some bad luck for sure. The #5 was engineered in the 80s, everything else decades before. There is some damage but it's recoverable. Rough luck for Merritt though. Early in the day the authorities there were saying don't run your taps or flush your toilet, the system can't handle it and will overflow into your home. I don't know the specifics but perhaps they were already in a precarious drainage situation.

Closer to home there was a runaway barge that got stuck on a downtown Vancouver beach:
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/stra...of-a-collision

The ~90 year old Burrard Bridge was closed to traffic as a precaution. They are going to tow the barge away today. I don't know why it is taking so long.

A lot of those areas also had fires this year so there was nothing to trap the water. even if this was a major rain event.

[Hackslack]

The lower mainland is built on a delta, correct? The landslides, and sedimentation of the Fraser river, over time of course is how the area came to be… that said, isn’t there a real fear, or risk, that if there was a significant earthquake the damage would be catastrophic to the level of the Christchurch earthquake from 10 hrs ago, or was it the Haiti earthquake from10 years ago, that basically liquified the ground as it shook.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

The lower mainland is built on a delta, correct? The landslides, and sedimentation of the Fraser river, over time of course is how the area came to be… that said, isn’t there a real fear, or risk, that if there was a significant earthquake the damage would be catastrophic to the level of the Christchurch earthquake from 10 hrs ago, or was it the Haiti earthquake from10 years ago, that basically liquified the ground as it shook.

It is a mixed bag. A lot of the Lower Mainland is on silt and in a floodplain. But most of the population of metro Vancouver is not, and a lot of the flood-prone areas are farms. The Fraser Valley has had many major floods but flood control infrastructure has been developed over time.

There is a risk of a very big earthquake (magnitude 8+, worse than Haiti or Christchurch). If it happens there will be tons of damage but it's thought to be an event that's only likely once every 500 years or so.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is a mixed bag. A lot of the Lower Mainland is on silt and in a floodplain. But most of the population of metro Vancouver is not, and a lot of the flood-prone areas are farms. The Fraser Valley has had many major floods but flood control infrastructure has been developed over time.

There is a risk of a very big earthquake (magnitude 8+, worse than Haiti or Christchurch). If it happens there will be tons of damage but it's thought to be an event that's only likely once every 500 years or so.

Thanks for that info!

[MolsonExport]

Richmond and Delta are mostly on the floodplain, but most of the rest of greater Vancouver is not (unless you count Abbotsford, which is very much so).

Fair bit of flooding happening in Richmond: https://www.richmond-news.com/local-...chmond-4758482

[MolsonExport]

Washed out section of Coquihalla Highway near Hope:

socastsrm

If you regularly travel between the interior and the lower mainland, it is really going to suck for many months.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Richmond and Delta are mostly on the floodplain, but most of the rest of greater Vancouver is not (unless you count Abbotsford, which is very much so).

Fair bit of flooding happening in Richmond: https://www.richmond-news.com/local-...chmond-4758482

Saw photos around Chilliwack with flooded fields.

As for major earthquakes I think qualification will cause the most damage.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Washed out section of Coquihalla Highway near Hope:

socastsrm

If you regularly travel between the interior and the lower mainland, it is really going to suck for many months.

Figure crews are there already today.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's great when taxpayer funded propaganda for the oil and gas sector finally make it into the public discourse on climate change. We know that those tax dollars are finally making an impact.

Two things I always wonder with the "But China ..." crowd.

1) Do they understand how relative size works? China is almost 3x the size of the EU. So their absolute numbers are always going to be big.

2) What's their plan to convince China to tie its energy security to imported natural gas while routinely resorting to rhetoric suggesting they want to challenge Chinese interests? Can't be a China hawk and exporter to China on such a critical commodity.

So you are denying the amount of coal plants being built by China because of the source?

Who cares about their absolute size? They're still building a huge amount of polluting coalfired power plants, well in excess of any other nation.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Who cares about their absolute size? They're still building a huge amount of polluting coalfired power plants, well in excess of any other nation.

Absolute emissions are what matter for climate change, not emissions per capita. It does not matter if a ton of CO2 came from a country of 1 million or 100 million people.

Population and development are also somewhat controllable by countries. For example our federal government wants to grow Canada's population fairly rapidly. If we double our population then cut our per capita emissions to half that is no better for the climate than keeping a stable population and per capita emissions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So you are denying the amount of coal plants being built by China because of the source?

No. And don't know why you think that.

Originally Posted by whatnext

Who cares about their absolute size? They're still building a huge amount of polluting coalfired power plants, well in excess of any other nation.

Per capita figures are very much relevant in negotiations. Attacking them solely for having a large aggregate number is basically attacking them solely for having a large population. Should be obvious why they'll turn around and just dismiss any such argument.

As for building coal plants. It's not just them. Look at how much the rest of Asia is building too. They really don't have a choice, other than living in poverty though, once the developed world welched on the pledge to provide $100B in annual financing for alternative energy financing made in Copenhagen in 2009.

In any event, I go back to the original question I asked. Conservatives are usually extremely excited to push natural gas as a transition to fuel to get many of these countries off coal. They are willing to put taxpayer dollars towards propaganda to that effect. The same folks are also China hawks, who want to decouple from China economically, and dramatically ramp up geostrategic competition with China. So again, I ask, why exactly would China put their energy security in our hands? Ditto, for India, Indonesia, etc.

[MolsonExport]

So if my neighbor, who lives alone, generates 10 garbage bags of waste per week, and the family across the street, which has 6 kids + two adults, generates the same waste, they are both equally at fault?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

So if my neighbor, who lives alone, generates 10 garbage bags of waste per week, and the family across the street, which has 6 kids + two adults, generates the same waste, they are both equally at fault?

They will both fill the landfill at the same rate, for a while. You can decide which of those garbage bags are virtuous responsible garbage and which are evil I guess. Though if those 6 kids go on to have a similar lifestyle, in the end the family with more kids will generate far more garbage.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

So if my neighbor, who lives alone, generates 10 garbage bags of waste per week, and the family across the street, which has 6 kids + two adults, generates the same waste, they are both equally at fault?

I think it's pretty obvious that the "But China...." crowd is pushing crocodile tears as cover for avoiding any constructive climate policy domestically.

It's just somewhat amusing that their narrative runs counter to their interest in also selling China more fossil fuels.

[q12]

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think it's pretty obvious that the "But China...." crowd is pushing crocodile tears as cover for avoiding any constructive climate policy domestically.

It's just somewhat amusing that their narrative runs counter to their interest in also selling China more fossil fuels.

Utter hypocrisy. Just like when they willfully ignore the fact that the entire western world has outsourced its manufacturing to China for its cheap labour and lax environmental laws.

[MolsonExport]

some supreme Jawagordian logic on display here.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Utter hypocrisy. Just like when they willfully ignore the fact that the entire western world has outsourced its manufacturing to China for its cheap labour and lax environmental laws.

I don't think the West is to blame for China's emissions. It's not a helpless sweatshop economy like Honduras where Western corporations run the plants and exploit local people and resources purely for their own interests. The CPC and China's business elite obviously had almost all of the agency in shaping how China developed.