The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://energi.media/markham-on-ener...s-not-science/

Not every Boomer. And our friend here has probably turned his brain into Swiss cheese falling down the right wing conspiracy rabbit hole. So it's probably not age with him.

The semantic nitpicker in me can't resist here - technically climate change isn't a threat to the planet at all, its a threat to the biosphere.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://energi.media/markham-on-ener...s-not-science/

Not every Boomer. And our friend here has probably turned his brain into Swiss cheese falling down the right wing conspiracy rabbit hole. So it's probably not age with him.

When they pose the question like that, I would have to say not much of a threat at all. The Earth survived a massive asteroid striking it, which caused severe climate change, so I think the planet is quite capable of withstanding a miniscule couple hundred years of pollution. Some regions of populated areas may become uninhabitable, while other areas (like northern Canada) will be a lot more habitable.

It's been a relatively short time this industrial age, and we are already quickly transitioning to clean energy. I think the planet will recover quite quickly.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by logan5

When they pose the question like that, I would have to say not much of a threat at all. The Earth survived a massive asteroid striking it, which caused severe climate change, so I think the planet is quite capable of withstanding a miniscule couple hundred years of pollution. Some regions of populated areas may become uninhabitable, while other areas (like northern Canada) will be a lot more habitable.

It's been a relatively short time this industrial age, and we are already quickly transitioning to clean energy. I think the planet will recover quite quickly.

It is more useful to note that climate change is a threat (a severe one, at that) to the way humans use the planet and the biosphere. The ability of human civilization to continue to use the planet as we always have is severely impaired, but on planetary time scales (ie. millions of years) the planet itself will be fine. Even the biosphere will be, in time. This isn't the first mass extinction event it's faced.

I think it was George Carlin that said it's never about "saving the planet" it's about saving ourselves. And that's very important, too, obviously.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by niwell

.... Not to mention organizations like the US military.

My real exposure to climate and clean tech was some courses during a military academic exchange with the US (during the Trump years no less). One of my classmates was one of those woke Marines putting solar panels on roofs of the FOBs in Afghanistan to cut back on diesel deliveries targeted by insurgents. I also heard about the woke Special Forces operators with their all electric motorcycles which let them sneak up on the enemy. More recently we have these hippy army guys wanting to hybridize their tanks and APCs to allow for silent watch without the engine running and to accrue improved strategic mobility with reduced fuel logistics requirements. Turns out reducing the consumption of fossil fuels has substantial tactical and strategic advantages beyond just reducing GHGs.

But also reducing GHGs, reduces the potency of climate change that is a threat multiplier in so many dimensions.

Pretty easy for folks to sit on their couch and label it all hippy nonsense when it's not their ass that might have to do a diesel delivery through IED alley or do a RIP to a FOB in a country falling apart because of drought.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by logan5

When they pose the question like that, I would have to say not much of a threat at all.

I agree that the question is badly worded. The third rock from the sun will be fine. However, the average person is a moron and probably can't distinguish between Earth as a rock floating in space and as a biome sustaining human life.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I'm surprised nobody has brought up poor forest management. That's definitely a contributing factor.

So are windstorms. Wind storms can create lots of dead brush which catches fire more easily. Increased temperatures in winter could lead to more wind storms.

Forest management... the Donald Trump argument.

Big wind storms are part of the extreme weather that climate change is making much more common.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by logan5

It's been a relatively short time this industrial age, and we are already quickly transitioning to clean energy. I think the planet will recover quite quickly.

Quickly compared to what? The planet will recover from these carbon emissions on an ice-age like scale. That's little help for humanity.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

My real exposure to climate and clean tech was some courses during a military academic exchange with the US (during the Trump years no less). One of my classmates was one of those woke Marines putting solar panels on roofs of the FOBs in Afghanistan to cut back on diesel deliveries targeted by insurgents. I also heard about the woke Special Forces operators with their all electric motorcycles which let them sneak up on the enemy. More recently we have these hippy army guys wanting to hybridize their tanks and APCs to allow for silent watch without the engine running and to accrue improved strategic mobility with reduced fuel logistics requirements. Turns out reducing the consumption of fossil fuels has substantial tactical and strategic advantages beyond just reducing GHGs.

But also reducing GHGs, reduces the potency of climate change that is a threat multiplier in so many dimensions.

Pretty easy for folks to sit on their couch and label it all hippy nonsense when it's not their ass that might have to do a diesel delivery through IED alley or do a RIP to a FOB in a country falling apart because of drought.

Canadian Coast Guard is just wrapping up a project to decarbonize lighthouses and some communication relay towers they have on mountain tops.

The operational advantages and cost savings were significant. They use to have to fly drums of fuel in with helicopters. No wind and solar provide the bulk of power and the generators kick in only during extreme conditions.

I can easily see how the military wins from reducing demand to cart diesel around.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Big wind storms are part of the extreme weather that climate change is making much more common.

That's literally what I said.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

So are windstorms. Wind storms can create lots of dead brush which catches fire more easily. Increased temperatures in winter could lead to more wind storms.

And yes, forest management is absolutely a factor. We'e pretty good at in Canada but strategies need to shift to adapt to the reality of climate change.

Dead brush is used by forestry companies to make low-cost products like particle board, OSB, and cardboard. Although this products are cheap they're made in huge quantities. There's limits on how much deadwood can be harvested as ecosystems need a certain amount of it for habitats (many bird species only nest in deadwood, for example, and many insect species feed on it), but these limits don't account for the increase in deadwood from climate change leading to more windstorms. That was a huge aggravating factor in the wildfires that happened in Eastern Ontario (a region that doesn't normally burn) this year - a big windstorm in 2022 left behind huge volumes (far beyond normal levels) of deadwood that forestry companies were restricted from removing.

If we had reacted to the windstorm by increasing allowances for deadwood harvesting, those wildfires would have been a lot easier to contain.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Quickly compared to what? The planet will recover from these carbon emissions on an ice-age like scale. That's little help for humanity.

Yes, which is a like a blip in time for the planet that's been here 4 billion years and will be here for 4 billion more.

It's really just semantic nitpicking, I'd agree, but the injury here isn't to the planet, it's to us.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by niwell

Even if one believes academic scientists to be “woke activists” or whatever I’m not sure how they account for the actions of rather large insurance companies (and no, I’m not just talking about the Florida issue). This is the number one topic with respect long-term planning at major insurance conferences. Not to mention organizations like the US military.

And no, it doesn’t mean a switch has been flipped and everything is now the fault of climate change. It’s a slow burn - figuratively and literally.

Molson Export would appreciate this one

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Yes, which is a like a blip in time for the planet that's been here 4 billion years and will be here for 4 billion more.

It's really just semantic nitpicking, I'd agree, but the injury here isn't to the planet, it's to us.

Yup, if anyone hasn't figured out yet its a threat to the existence of humanity they must have their head buried in the sand or TV/YouTube tuned to right wing denialist channels.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Molson Export would appreciate this one

"We are...we are...not thirsty!"

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Spit balling at a conference does not mean they accept the chicken littles. Why do banks charge no premium for a 30 year mortgage on coastal properties? Because that risk is nearly non-existent. How about loans for someone buying a 500 acre farm. No problem as if anything crop yields will rise. What about life insurance. Is the risk of death going to rise? No actually cold is far more deadly.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ance-industry/

[logan5]

Surprised to see people actually calling this a extinction level event. Not even close to that in my non expert opinion.

Time for Warren and co to put on the orange jacket and glue themselves to the TCH.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by logan5

Surprised to see people actually calling this a extinction level event. Not even close to that in my non expert opinion.

Time for Warren and co to put on the orange jacket and glue themselves to the TCH.

Extinction level? No. I simply stated that the "recovery" of the planet to what humans have been used to living in for thousands of years will take much longer than some other posters seem to think.

Life will definitely get worse for a lot of people. The amount of land that is uninhabitable will grow. The ability to feed everyone will get harder (and therefore more expensive for those who can afford it). Lots of negatives for sure.

All parts of earth were not perfect for human life, but there was a stability we have built large parts of society around. If you can't see the problem with big disruptions to that, I don't know what to tell you.

[Wigs]

The way things are going, in less than a century societal breakdown could possibly occur unless major worldwide changes are made.

There's 8,100,000,000+ humans currently on Earth and how many Billions live in crushing poverty in 2023?
3/4 or more are probably not living up to our current Canadian standard of living (that's in decline itself).

Our just in time manufacturing and continent wide food supply chains can get disrupted pretty quick.
Let the water wars and hunger games begin
/s (*denotes sarcasm*)

[someone123]

An interesting poll question would be something like "what additional percentage of your lifetime wealth and income would you willingly pay in taxes in order to nullify all negative effects of climate change, assuming a hypothetical 100% effective world government?".

I think it's probably worth something in the ballpark of a single digit %. 0% is unreasonable, and so is 25%. 5% might even be high.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

An interesting poll question would be something like "what additional percentage of your lifetime wealth and income would you willingly pay in taxes in order to nullify all negative effects of climate change, assuming a hypothetical 100% effective world government?".

I think it's probably worth something in the ballpark of a single digit %. 0% is unreasonable, and so is 25%. 5% might even be high.

For the most part though, the actual cost required is single digits of GDP required annually to make the change.

I think a lot more difficult are the lifestyle changes.

[casper]

Originally Posted by someone123

An interesting poll question would be something like "what additional percentage of your lifetime wealth and income would you willingly pay in taxes in order to nullify all negative effects of climate change, assuming a hypothetical 100% effective world government?".

I think it's probably worth something in the ballpark of a single digit %. 0% is unreasonable, and so is 25%. 5% might even be high.

Cost is probably the wrong way of looking at it. Our cost is marginal.

The impact on Canada's GDP is going to be less demand for oil and natural gas. That has been a high value export commodity for Canada. We are seeing the US become self sufficient for energy. We have no choice on this one, the world has already decided they are moving away from oil & gas.

Cars wear out and need to be replaced. The same for transit buses and other vehicles. No one is proposing taking vehicles off the road prematurely.