The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

If you need to make the last mile trip in a car-centric city, just take an Uber or taxi.

It's frustrating but I think a lot of the transportation limitations we have now are logistics and coordination issues. For example in theory it would be easy enough to have some kind of car sharing or ride sharing on Vancouver Island but it's not reliable or seamless enough so it's better to just take a car if you can. Then because of that the demand for walk-on isn't sufficient to support faster ferries to better locations.

Similarly a lot of the rail issues in Canada may just come down to how the system is managed and not a need for billions of dollars or future technology. There's probably some relatively simple much better system that involves tweaking the schedules, improving signalling, and building some sidings, but there is no way to coordinate all this.

[SpongeG]

this is a good article about what's going on, especially in Europe where numerous energy companies have been declaring bankruptcy.

Green Upheaval
The New Geopolitics of Energy
By Jason Bordoff and Meghan L. O’Sullivan
January/February 2022

It is not hard to understand why people dream of a future defined by clean energy. As greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow and as extreme weather events become more frequent and harmful, the current efforts to move beyond fossil fuels appear woefully inadequate. Adding to the frustration, the geopolitics of oil and gas are alive and well—and as fraught as ever. Europe is in the throes of a full-fledged energy crisis, with staggering electricity prices forcing businesses across the continent to shutter and energy firms to declare bankruptcy, positioning Russian President Vladimir Putin to take advantage of his neighbors’ struggles by leveraging his country’s natural gas reserves.

...

Talk of a smooth transition to clean energy is fanciful: there is no way that the world can avoid major upheavals as it remakes the entire energy system, which is the lifeblood of the global economy and underpins the geopolitical order. Moreover, the conventional wisdom about who will gain and who will lose is frequently off base.

...

A move away from oil and gas will reconfigure the world just as dramatically. But discussions about the shape of a clean energy future too often skip over some important details. For one thing, even when the world achieves net-zero emissions, it will hardly mean the end of fossil fuels. A landmark report published in 2021 by the International Energy Agency (IEA) projected that if the world reached net zero by 2050—as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned is necessary to avoid raising average global temperatures by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and thus prevent the worst impacts of climate change—it would still be using nearly half as much natural gas as today and about one-quarter as much oil. A recent analysis carried out by a team of researchers at Princeton University similarly found that if the United States reached net zero by 2050, it would still be using a total of one-quarter to one-half as much gas and oil as it does today. That would be a vast reduction. But oil and gas producers would continue to enjoy decades of leverage from their geologic troves.

...

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...green-upheaval

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's frustrating but I think a lot of the transportation limitations we have now are logistics and coordination issues. For example in theory it would be easy enough to have some kind of car sharing or ride sharing on Vancouver Island but it's not reliable or seamless enough so it's better to just take a car if you can. Then because of that the demand for walk-on isn't sufficient to support faster ferries to better locations.

Agreed.

When we took that ferry (as tourists), we didn't mind that it took more time and that it was pricier, going to Vancouver Island on foot wasn't an option.

By contrast, I've been a tourist on foot in several parts of Western Europe, it never seemed to be much of a limitation.

Drop me car-less in Paris, Brussels or London, won't be a problem.

Our country was built with the car in mind. That's reality. We can work on changing that, but there are no magic solutions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

this is a good article about what's going on, especially in Europe where numerous energy companies have been declaring bankruptcy.

Green Upheaval
The New Geopolitics of Energy
By Jason Bordoff and Meghan L. O’Sullivan
January/February 2022

....
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...green-upheaval

Highly recommend that Columbia Energy Exchange podcast (hosted by Jason Bordoff) for anybody interested in the geopolitics of climate change. This is something rarely discussed in most public forums, but lots of think tanks, the intelligence community, etc. have all been looking at how the world will be post-oil and the turbulence in the transition along the way.

For example, there's even been speculation that at least part of the Russian antipathy towards American Democrats, is motivated by a desire to slow down the Energy Transition, which would essentially end the Putin oligarchy in Russia (or whoever takes it over after him). Reduced reliance on global oil also changes how we view strategic chokepoints. The Gulf, for example, would be a lot less important, along with relations with various Gulf states. Broadly, a lot of the most troublesome regimes (for the West) rely on oil and gas revenue too: Russia, Iran, Venezuela, etc. And they are just corrupt and incompetent enough that transitioning would be impossible for the. In that context, a global race to deploy renewables is an existential threat to their regimes. Conversely, some regimes understand how renewables can be used to increase energy independence and reduce strategic vulnerabilities. This is exactly what China is doing.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think having a car carrier would completely destroy any time savings of taking a high speed train, especially for such a short distance.

I haven't taken the Auto Train in the US or the Channel Tunnel car train, but my experience from ferries in BC and elsewhere is that if you bring your car onboard, you're adding a minimum of 1 hour of extra travel time between queuing up in the appropriate lane to board, driving your car in and then waiting to unload. Not surprisingly, BC ferries tries its hardest to discourage drive-on traffic with high fares for cars compared to walk-on passengers. I don't blame them. If it wasn't for cars, they could probably make 50% more voyages in the same time on routes like Tsawassen-Swartz Bay, and like 200% more on Gibsons-Horseshoe Bay while operating ships that are 1/3 the size.

And you'd have to place the train station on the outskirts, because these kinds of operations are basically giant parking lots.

If you need to make the last mile trip in a car-centric city, just take an Uber or taxi.

yup that's why I drive. couldn't see it being viable in the near future. just not enough distance, Seattle Vancouver. TO Montreal or Ottawa yes.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Airboy

yup that's why I drive. couldn't see it being viable in the near future. just not enough distance, Seattle Vancouver. TO Montreal or Ottawa yes.

HSR is actually more viable at 300 km distance than at 500 km. In no small part, because it can compete with air travel and create a larger commuter market at the same time. There's not even a need for HSR.
With higher speed conventional rail, any downtown-to-downtown service between Calgary and Edmonton that takes about 2 hrs all but kills flights between the two cities and make Red Deer commutable to both in 1 hr. Business travel between the two cities would substantially change. Same day meetings by rail would become much more common. Connector flights between Edmonton and Calgary could be eliminated with air-rail integration at YYC and YEG.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Connector flights between Edmonton and Calgary could be eliminated with air-rail integration at YYC and YEG.

You would need proper high speed transit from both airports as well. Right now from my office to Red Deer is about 1:45. 00. depends on the traffic. Calgary is 3 hours ish centre to centre.

If both of our downtowns were the centre of economics, Rail from C to C would be great. but a large portion of business between the 2 cities is in the suburban warehouse districts.

Downtowns are mostly Lawyers and IT. Some Engineering. Eng firms like Stantec have the Calgary office east of Deerfoot. My current firm is similarly located in Calgary. Flying is not in the equation anymore, since driving is still pretty good compared to TO or Van. if the weather is bad we do over the web.

Personally, I'd love to see HSR but economically I don't see it for anytime in my future.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Airboy

You would need proper high speed transit from both airports as well. Right now from my office to Red Deer is about 1:45. 00. depends on the traffic. Calgary is 3 hours ish centre to centre.

That's why I said travel times need to be 2 hrs from downtown to downtown.

Originally Posted by Airboy

If both of our downtowns were the centre of economics, Rail from C to C would be great. but a large portion of business between the 2 cities is in the suburban warehouse districts.

This is the good thing with rail. You can add suburban stations. For example, I would assume both YEG and YYC become stations. Both for the air-rail integration and the suburban service with giant parking lots attached and transit feeding in. I assume places like Airdrie and Wetaskiwin might get stops on non-HSR proposals too.

Originally Posted by Airboy

Personally, I'd love to see HSR but economically I don't see it for anytime in my future.

Absent serious funding, probably not. But it would be a good investment for the windfall Alberta is currently getting from oil.

[O-tacular]

Sounds like they are serious about the Calgary to Banff train. Interesting that it would be hydrogen fuelled.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...d=winp1taskbar

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Absent serious funding, probably not. But it would be a good investment for the windfall Alberta is currently getting from oil.

We're too busy shoveling that windfall back into the greedy maw of oil company executives like Murray Edwards.

Top-emitting Alberta oilsands site got government relief from pollution payments, Reuters reports

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ents-1.6277844

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by lio45

Agreed.

When we took that ferry (as tourists), we didn't mind that it took more time and that it was pricier, going to Vancouver Island on foot wasn't an option.

By contrast, I've been a tourist on foot in several parts of Western Europe, it never seemed to be much of a limitation.

Drop me car-less in Paris, Brussels or London, won't be a problem.

Our country was built with the car in mind. That's reality. We can work on changing that, but there are no magic solutions.

I'd almost go the other way and say that the invention of the car was perfect for Canada. I often read comparisons between Canada and European countries on this forum, like how far behind we are for transit and bicycle-centric transportation options, but it seems like a silly comparison as Canada is geographically huge and sparsely populated in comparison to these countries. They have achieved great density and were forced to develop good transit and use other modes of transportation because of huge populations in small countries.

That said, our cities were indeed altered to optimize car use, and we can certainly learn from these countries to improve our city experience, but the car will always be part of Canadian life as long as cars are around, IMHO. There's just too much territory to cover to be able to completely service Canada in its entirety with regular efficient transit options.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Sounds like they are serious about the Calgary to Banff train.

My only concern is how much Banff will need to be altered to accommodate visitors who lack personal vehicles. The town has a few high streets that are very pedestrian-friendly, but how is the local bus service? I assume hotels and tour companies would also need to increase the frequency and number of shuttles to popular destinations like Louise and Sunshine in the winter, and hiking destinations in the summer.

I think these changes would be positive, but I am not sure how quick they will happen which would hamper the financial viability of the train.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'd almost go the other way and say that the invention of the car was perfect for Canada. I often read comparisons between Canada and European countries on this forum, like how far behind we are for transit and bicycle-centric transportation options, but it seems like a silly comparison as Canada is geographically huge and sparsely populated in comparison to these countries. They have achieved great density and were forced to develop good transit and use other modes of transportation because of huge populations in small countries.

That said, our cities were indeed altered to optimize car use, and we can certainly learn from these countries to improve our city experience, but the car will always be part of Canadian life as long as cars are around, IMHO. There's just too much territory to cover to be able to completely service Canada in its entirety with regular efficient transit options.

The invention of the car distracted Canada and the US from continued investment in other modes. Our downtowns were hollowed out to make room for the automobile, and we stopped improving train services there were once the backbone of the country.

There is no reason that Canadian cities could not have been built compactly, allowing residents to rely on walking and public transit, while also constructing strong links between cities to aid in the flow of goods and the mobility of rural residents.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'd almost go the other way and say that the invention of the car was perfect for Canada. I often read comparisons between Canada and European countries on this forum, like how far behind we are for transit and bicycle-centric transportation options, but it seems like a silly comparison as Canada is geographically huge and sparsely populated in comparison to these countries. They have achieved great density and were forced to develop good transit and use other modes of transportation because of huge populations in small countries.

That said, our cities were indeed altered to optimize car use, and we can certainly learn from these countries to improve our city experience, but the car will always be part of Canadian life as long as cars are around, IMHO. There's just too much territory to cover to be able to completely service Canada in its entirety with regular efficient transit options.

What exactly does Canada's vast geography have to do with urban transport? How often do you drive the length of Canada? We might need cars to travel regionally or nationally but there is zero reason to accommodate them locally, which is where the bulk of these issues with car use comes from.

Also, the argument that our cities were built for cars is pure nonsense. Look at photos of any Canadian or American city from the 1930s or earlier. Our cities looked no different than Europe in urban design. They weren't built for the car. They were bulldozed for the car. We turned a lot of beautiful buildings into parking lots and malls from the 1950s onwards. And we're going to be paying for that, for several centuries. We're finally in an era where there is some awareness of urbanism and a movement back to at least rebalancing so that the car is less dominant. That shouldn't be seen as a threat.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What exactly does Canada's vast geography have to do with urban transport? How often do you drive the length of Canada? We might need cars to travel regionally or nationally but there is zero reason to accommodate them locally, which is where the bulk of these issues with car use comes from.

Also, the argument that our cities were built for cars is pure nonsense. Look at photos of any Canadian or American city from the 1930s or earlier. Our cities looked no different than Europe in urban design. They weren't built for the car. They were bulldozed for the car. We turned a lot of beautiful buildings into parking lots and malls from the 1950s onwards. And we're going to be paying for that, for several centuries. We're finally in an era where there is some awareness of urbanism and a movement back to at least rebalancing so that the car is less dominant. That shouldn't be seen as a threat.

I love cars. I love driving. I love the differences in vehicles. Its all enjoyable to me.

That said, I don't think cars belong in cities. Its the wrong tool for the application, more now than ever as the drive for density is ever present.

This is just one of the numerous divides that will continue to create a chasm between urban and suburban/rural dwelling.

The lines are drawn with something as simple as cars even.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by rofina

I love cars. I love driving. I love the differences in vehicles. Its all enjoyable to me.

That said, I don't think cars belong in cities. Its the wrong tool for the application, more now than ever as the drive for density is ever present.

This is just one of the numerous divides that will continue to create a chasm between urban and suburban/rural dwelling.

The lines are drawn with something as simple as cars even.

I actually do like cars. I just can't believe how much people fall for the marketing and have internalized the romantic notion of driving down the open road, when the reality is that 99% of drivers on any given day are simply driving to work stuck in traffic.

If you love cars, you should want walkable neighborhoods and a convertible to drive down country roads on the weekend. Not some CUV to get groceries from Walmart.

[Hackslack]

The dependence of the car is because of the boomer generation in NA, on a continent that didn’t have to rebuild itself after WW II. The vehicle I presume was the hottest item to have to not only have in the boomer generations desired suburbs, but to travel the country on newly built interstate freeways, which served as somewhat propaganda to highlight the freedoms of capitalism, compared to communism, in the day of the Cold War… and the legacy simply lives on.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I actually do like cars. I just can't believe how much people fall for the marketing and have internalized the romantic notion of driving down the open road, when the reality is that 99% of drivers on any given day are simply driving to work stuck in traffic.

If you love cars, you should want walkable neighborhoods and a convertible to drive down country roads on the weekend. Not some CUV to get groceries from Walmart.

Precisely this. Definitely on the same page.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

The dependence of the car is because of the boomer generation in NA, on a continent that didn’t have to rebuild itself after WW II. The vehicle I presume was the hottest item to have to not only have in the boomer generations desired suburbs, but to travel the country on newly built interstate freeways, which served as somewhat propaganda to highlight the freedoms of capitalism, compared to communism, in the day of the Cold War… and the legacy simply lives on.

Look I'm all for putting blame where blame is due, but Boomers were infants and toddlers when the Interstate Highway System and Suburban flight started. The blame lays squarely on the Greatest and Silent generations who moved their boomer kids to the suburbs.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by CivicBlues

Look I'm all for putting blame where blame is due, but Boomers were infants and toddlers when the Interstate Highway System and Suburban flight started. The blame lays squarely on the Greatest and Silent generations who moved their boomer kids to the suburbs.

I was just trying to point to root causes as to why I believe we have a society so dependent on the personal vehicle, definitely not looking to blame anyone or particular thing. I agree with you though that it not the boomer generation itself for have so many brothers and sisters.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

The dependence of the car is because of the boomer generation in NA, on a continent that didn’t have to rebuild itself after WW II. The vehicle I presume was the hottest item to have to not only have in the boomer generations desired suburbs, but to travel the country on newly built interstate freeways, which served as somewhat propaganda to highlight the freedoms of capitalism, compared to communism, in the day of the Cold War… and the legacy simply lives on.

This isn't a generational thing. Sothebys just came out with a survey showing 70% of Generation Z would prefer to own a single family home given the opportunity. That generally means the suburbs.

Generation Z Primed to Enter Housing Market Despite Affordability Concerns
December 08, 2021 05:55 ET | Source: Sotheby's International Realty Canada

-75% of urban Canadian Generation Z adults are likely to buy and own a primary residence in their lifetime; 1 in 10 (11%) already own their home.
-82% are worried that they will not be able to buy in their community of choice due to rising real estate prices.
-70% would want to buy a single family home in their peak earning years if budget were not a consideration.
-50% have already given up on the traditional dream of owning a single family home.
-The top financial barrier for Generation Z when saving money for a down payment is paying for current living expenses, cited by 28%.

TORONTO, Dec. 08, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- According to a new generational trends report released today by Mustel Group and Sotheby’s International Realty Canada, the Canadian real estate market is set to absorb an influx in demand as the next generation of homebuyers, Generation Z, is primed for first-time home ownership despite challenges with housing affordability.

Survey results revealed that 75% of urban Generation Z adults are likely to buy and own a primary residence in their lifetime, with 49% stating that they are “very likely” to do so; in fact, 11% already own their home. Despite high demand, 82% of those who have not yet purchased their first home are worried that they will not be able to do so in their community of choice because of rising housing prices, with 38% indicating that they are “very worried”. The top financial barrier to saving money for a down payment is paying for current living expenses, which was cited by 28%....

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-r...-Concerns.html