The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Lots of ifs and maybes in that article, that's why I didn't bother responding. LNG is very clean burning, and should be the last fossil fuel used, if we have to use anything.

You can stop with the over the top hyperbole insults any time if you want to be taken more seriously.

Take your own advice, hypocrite.

As for the article, the "research" is coming from the same people that you've relied on to knock coal, etc. You're being very selective in what you agree with. Is it a case if it's good for B.C. you're fine with it? Comes across that way.

If you want to be taken seriously stop being a hypocrite and stop claiming to be holier than thou. As for the insults, are you serious?! Dude, you insult people just about more than anyone here. Stop with the condescending attitude as well.

[Hackslack]

https://business.financialpost.com/f...tech-challenge

The energy industry gets a bad rap when it comes to innovation, yet the oilpatch is by far the largest spender on clean tech in Canada, to the tune of $1.4 billion a year.

The oil patch is THE largest spender on clean tech in Canada. Great work Vancouver city council, put your f’n money where your mouth is, those you are trying to sue are the ones actually leading the way in developing green tech... bunch of LOSERS they are

[milomilo]

They are also one of, if not the, largest emitters though. So it stands to reason they would be the ones investing the most in reducing their emissions and is exactly how incentives are supposed to work - there is a profit motive for the companies as it is going to be cheaper for them to improve their environmental credentials than do nothing. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

That's a good article though, I read it just before you posted and it's worth a read by anyone with an interest in this thread.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

The oil patch is THE largest spender on clean tech in Canada. Great work Vancouver city council, put your f’n money where your mouth is, those you are trying to sue are the ones actually leading the way in developing green tech... bunch of LOSERS they are

They are profit maximizing enterprises, like any other business. They are taking big advantage of SR&ED credits:

However, CRA data show a relatively stable number of appeals and claims during the past five years, with between 64 and 75 appeals made annually to the Tax Court of Canada during that period. In the 2018-2019 tax year, companies claimed $3.9 billion in SR&ED tax credits and $3.2 billion was allowed.

I'm not sure why you have such a hate on for the Vancouver City Council. They are putting money and policy direction into mitigating emissions. They are seen as extremely left and environmental in the context of the region.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

They are profit maximizing enterprises, like any other business. They are taking big advantage of SR&ED credits:



I'm not sure why you have such a hate on for the Vancouver City Council. They are putting money and policy direction into mitigating emissions. They are seen as extremely left and environmental in the context of the region.

Any government pulling stunts like declaring climate emergencies or taking legal action against others for climate change culpability deserves scorn. Municipalities are failing their constituents by avoiding their real responsibility which is changing building codes to accommodate climate change.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Doug

Any government pulling stunts like declaring climate emergencies or taking legal action against others for climate change culpability deserves scorn. Municipalities are failing their constituents by avoiding their real responsibility which is changing building codes to accommodate climate change.

Are you implying Vancouver isn't changing building codes to be more sustainable? Because they are.

I don't like "declaring climate emergencies" without resulting action either, but you seem to be picking on certain jurisdictions with no direct knowledge on what they are actually doing.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Blaming singular unusual events on climate change is fucking retarded. There's enough evidence without having to sink to childish correlations.

Of course, what do these folks know, they're just scientists compared to some rando on the internet:

The record-breaking heatwave that struck France and other European nations in June was made at least five – and possibly 100 – times more likely by climate change, scientists have calculated.

Such heatwaves are also about 4C hotter than a century ago, the researchers say. Furthermore, the heatwaves hitting Europe are more frequent and more severe than climate models have predicted.

Last month was the hottest June since 1880, both in Europe and around the world, according to separate data released on Tuesday by the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service. In Europe the temperature was 3C above the June average a century ago, and globally it was more than 1C higher....

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...twave-likelier

[milomilo]

And that relates to the hail storm, how? You seem to be completely immune to rationality, it's all just hysterical nonsense. As I said, saying a wierd (but not that wierd) hail storm proves climate change is just as incorrect as someone saying a cold winter proves that it isn't happening.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by whatnext

at least five – and possibly 100

So pretty preliminary estimates.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So pretty preliminary estimates.

Five times not enough of an impact for you?

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Five times not enough of an impact for you?

A range of 5 - 100 is pretty imprecise and doesn't instill confidence that this is a conclusion. Sounds more like a datapoint that should be part of a larger study.

...or a preliminary estimate...

Which isn't to say that it's not climate change related, but sounds like it is too early to say it is. FWIW, you need more of a trend before you can make that conclusion.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

A range of 5 - 100 is pretty imprecise and doesn't instill confidence that this is a conclusion. Sounds more like a datapoint that should be part of a larger study.

...or a preliminary estimate...

Which isn't to say that it's not climate change related, but sounds like it is too early to say it is. FWIW, you need more of a trend before you can make that conclusion.

Sure, but that's my main problem with a lot of the climate change deniers. They say "more data is needed", meanwhile this is a generational or even longer term issue. It's an excuse to do nothing while they fuck up the planet for human life.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sure, but that's my main problem with a lot of the climate change deniers. They say "more data is needed", meanwhile this is a generational or even longer term issue. It's an excuse to do nothing while they fuck up the planet for human life.

I don't consider myself a denier, not in the least. There are too many things happening collectively for something to not be going on.

But, we do need to be pragmatic about it, and FWIW if we don't have good solid arguments based on good data, then the deniers have more fuel with which to deny...

[MonctonRad]

$14.5M climate change research centre promised for P.E.I.
University proposing master's program in climate change
Kevin Yarr · CBC News · Posted: Jul 05, 2019 10:31 AM AT | Last Updated: an hour ago
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/princ...-bay-1.5201137





Interesting idea. I question though locating this new facility in St Peter's Bay rather than on campus in Charlottetown. I wonder how this will complicate life for students taking the new program, but also requiring courses from other faculties and departments. This might be a little impractical IMHO.

[Airboy]

[QUOTE=WarrenC12;8623660]Are you implying Vancouver isn't changing building codes to be more sustainable? Because they are.

QUOTE]

New National Energy codes are taking effect. so most jurisdictions will be mandated to meet those requirements.

What I have noticed as well is municipalities are the ones actually doing the required changes. Provincial and Federal projects are only just following the energy codes. That is in Alberta BC and Sask, since those are areas I have projects.

Another area we are seeing sustainable buildings being looked at are our First Nations Projects.

I would love to post the City of Edmonton Study of all of there city owned properties. in a nut shell, in order to see further reductions in energy use and make facilities more sustainable they need to address the envelopes of the buildings. It appears mechanically and electrically they are pretty good but if they updated or built facilities with better envelopes they could further reduce their GHG emissions. they are planning to be fully net zero by 2050 on all of their facilities. CoE has about 1000 building from pump houses to large rec centres and garages.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are you implying Vancouver isn't changing building codes to be more sustainable? Because they are.

I don't like "declaring climate emergencies" without resulting action either, but you seem to be picking on certain jurisdictions with no direct knowledge on what they are actually doing.

Building codes aimed at reducing energy usage won't significantly impact climate change. I was thinking of initiatives like restricting development of low lying areas, accumulating rights of way for dykes and floodways, higher capacity drainage, raising streets etc. The Lower Mainland faces particular challenge in that much of it is below sea level.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Lots of ifs and maybes in that article, that's why I didn't bother responding. LNG is very clean burning, and should be the last fossil fuel used, if we have to use anything.

You can stop with the over the top hyperbole insults any time if you want to be taken more seriously.

Fugitive emissions studies around gas production are flawed. Comparisons to coal fail to consider that coal has its own fugitive emissions. Since most coal production has become surface mined, measuring fugitive emissions is challenging. Presumably, reducing fugitive emissions from gas wells should be much easier than doing so for coal.

The lack of LNG infrastructure in North America worsens the fugitive emissions problem. Gas prices are so low that financial incentives to reduce leakage and flaring hardly exist. Again, the environmental activists fail to paint a complete picture.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Doug

Building codes aimed at reducing energy usage won't significantly impact climate change. I was thinking of initiatives like restricting development of low lying areas, accumulating rights of way for dykes and floodways, higher capacity drainage, raising streets etc. The Lower Mainland faces particular challenge in that much of it is below sea level.

The province of BC already has massive ALR zones (agricultural land reserves) which are controversial and blamed for high land prices here.

We have some dykes and levies, and the Fraser River gets dredged to help prevent flooding and allow large boat access.

Policies around sustainability, low energy usage, EV wiring, etc. are all part of the building codes in most municipalities.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Doug

Fugitive emissions studies around gas production are flawed. Comparisons to coal fail to consider that coal has its own fugitive emissions. Since most coal production has become surface mined, measuring fugitive emissions is challenging. Presumably, reducing fugitive emissions from gas wells should be much easier than doing so for coal.

The lack of LNG infrastructure in North America worsens the fugitive emissions problem. Gas prices are so low that financial incentives to reduce leakage and flaring hardly exist. Again, the environmental activists fail to paint a complete picture.

Are you arguing against yourself?

[Doug]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are you arguing against yourself?

Not at all. I'm saying that blaming LNG for increased methane emissions is overly simplistic as is typical of misinformation coming from environmental activists.