The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Go advocate the major emitters. You’re wasting your time and energy in Canada, even though f you successfully implement the most efficient way to reduce Canadian emissions, it has close to zero effect. It would be close to the same as having no plan at all. Though I agree it must feel good in the gut knowing what you stand for, but there is a difference between reality and fantasy. I wish it was simply on Canada to reduce its emissions that would consequently reduce the global emissions, but’s it not, rather it may be the exact opposite with implementing a tax, especially on FF producers, and not imports.

Anyway, regardless, the Liberal carbon tax is so low that it does not support their hysteria that there is in fact a Climate Emergency, and if we do not act now the world will end. It sounds a lot like how you are describing the situation, yet, if it really was an emergency, the tax should be significantly higher, Trudeau should stop flying to the West coast as much as he does, and people like you an our governments should really be up in the face of the US and China to get their shit together, instead, China is building hundreds of more coal fired power plants! And not only are we implementing stupid taxes on ourselves to try to reduce our own emissions, we are actually SUPPLYING China the fuel to burn in those coal fired power plants! (Great work BC!)... just goes to show how ridiculous the climate change plan is and how little will be accomplished. Good on our fake feminist PM trying to paint himself as the fighting knight tackling climate change, even if he burnis 10,000 litres of fuel each time he flies to the west coast.

You will have a hard time finding someone to vote for then, as all of the parties support at least trying to reduce emissions.

We are all aware that China and the USA are bigger emitters than us, if you didn't know. And if every Chinese person emitted as much as a Canadian did, the world would be in vastly worse shape with China emitting twice as much. Everyone has work to do.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm not basing this on an apocalyptic video game, just math. By supporting literally zero effort to reduce emissions, your implicit support of increasing CO2 production year over year can only result in ever increasing levels of that gas in the atmosphere unless there is some unknown negative feedback loop. I don't know what limit the planet can take but make the sensible assumption that there is a limit, so it stands to reason we will hit that limit eventually.

Maybe the sensible policy is just to accept the fate that humans are incapable of doing what is necessary to continue existing, that we're screwed whatever we do. But the economic consequences of actually making moderate reductions do not have to be very high at all, so IMO it's entirely sensible to make moderate adjustments now and push for the same elsewhere. Ideally with internationally agreed tariffs.

The limit of “what the planet can take” is quite high. CO2 concentrations at the start of the industrial revolution were unusually low.



The impact on the global climate of making moderate reductions is a number so close to zero that it is basically zero. It is like trying to stop a forest fire with a garden hose, whether you do it or not the result will be the same.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I almost completely agree. My biggest problem with federal conservative politicians and their supporters is actually that their proposed policies will be more expensive to the taxpayer and businesses than the carbon pricing they rail against. For sure on a per ton basis and possibly on an absolute basis too, if the claims that the conservative policy will reduce more CO2 is true.

Is there evidence for this? Last I read, Canada is arguably a net beneficiary on climate change:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/c...nomy-1.3282446

Consider this. In a world which will see a 23% drop in average global income by 2100, Canada will see a 247% increase:

https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climate/map.php

https://web.stanford.edu/~mburke/cli...Miguel2015.pdf

So unfortunately, like the Russians (forecast to see a 419% increase), we have zero incentive to play ball. And worse, we have a standard of living that is completely out of whack with global norms (even among developed nations), with a large part of our non-industrial emissions profile tied to that (large homes, large cars, lots of red meat consumption). And Canadians aren't substantially interested in changing much of their lifestyle.

We will, face a world that is far more unstable. Climate change is consider a threat multiplier. So we'll see more wars and terrorism ramp up. But again, the average Canadian does not care and is not willing to lift a finger. I honestly and sincerely doubt that Canadians would even twitch if India and Pakistan exchanged nukes over water scarcity.

This is why I've argued that instead of trying to get Canadians to change their behaviour with crap like subsidizing EVs, every effort should be made to target large emitters under the government's control. The public sector has plenty of real estate and lots of vehicles in their domain. Substantially cutting their emissions is both easy and a sound investment. We can let Canadians buy EVs and solar panels on their own as the price falls and let them improve insulation whenever gas prices spike.

I will add that there's some irony with our situation in Canada. The more the climate warms, the easier it is for Canadians to cut emissions. Building nice walkable cities and homes that require less heating, is easier when you have shorter and less severe winters. Using electric vehicles is easier with milder winters (less loss of range). So the biggest cuts in emissions will probably come as the climate warms and Canadians naturally scale back emissions intensive activity (like home heating).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You will have a hard time finding someone to vote for then, as all of the parties support at least trying to reduce emissions.

Conservatives in Canada are just as serious about cutting emissions as Donald Trump is on cracking down on white nationalists.

We all know that.

The real question is why this is the case. And that's because climate change is not seen as a serious threat to most Canadians. It's a political fad that you discuss entirely from the perspective of which side of the political divide you are on. If you're a Conservative, ignoring externalities is very much part of your political philosophy. They've been doing so since the first neaderthal pissed in the village well. And if you're a Liberal running to hand out cheques at the first available opportunity is very much part of your political philosophy. A Liberal has never come across a political issue that they didn't think could be solved with a handout. The only question here is how do you get the average Canadian to see climate change as a real issue. When you figure that out, you'll see the political parties begin to have serious conversations.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The limit of “what the planet can take” is quite high. CO2 concentrations at the start of the industrial revolution were unusually low.



The impact on the global climate of making moderate reductions is a number so close to zero that it is basically zero. It is like trying to stop a forest fire with a garden hose, whether you do it or not the result will be the same.

The current global CO2 levels are around 410 PPM, which is literally off that chart.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But again, the average Canadian does not care and is not willing to lift a finger. I honestly and sincerely doubt that Canadians would even twitch if India and Pakistan exchanged nukes over water scarcity.

Depends. Could some fallout reach Canada or not?

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You will have a hard time finding someone to vote for then, as all of the parties support at least trying to reduce emissions.

We are all aware that China and the USA are bigger emitters than us, if you didn't know. And if every Chinese person emitted as much as a Canadian did, the world would be in vastly worse shape with China emitting twice as much. Everyone has work to do.

Or we could just import a bunch of those Chinese people to bring our “per capita” down. I imagine that Canadians are tagged as having a poor per capita for the simple fact that we have a vast amount of natural resources that the entire world wants. Instead of saying “if every Chinese person emitted as much as a Canadian did”, I would rather phrase if “China had the natural resource potential that Canada does” the world would be vastly worse shape.

I’ll just take the Canadian way and just say I’m sorry, I’m sorry we are blessed with such vastness of natural resource wealth. I’m sorry that the world is dependant on the natural resources are so fortunate to have in vast quantities. I’m sorry we strive to produce those resources in the most environmentally friendly way. I’m sorry we are by far and wide the most environmentally conscious nation on the globe in producing those resources. I’m sorry that China doesn’t have the ability to produce the natural resources we have in a disgustingly environmentally abusing way.

Tough choice in the federal election. It likely won’t be the party who decided to implement a review of upstream and downstream emissions in deciding whether the energy east pipeline should be built - all to pander to the Quebec nation within this confederation.... it likely won’t be the parties who want to outright block any oil and gas development, thinking that it will actually make the world better off if we do so - that just speaks volumes to their outright stupidly in how they think the world works.

I’ll likely vote for the one who is willing to hold those account who enmit the most ghg and make them pay for those emissions. Unfortunately, the farmers in the prairies have very little option to move away from their support of fossils fuels, which helps feed the entire world (except China these days of course)... unfortunately, here in Alberta, besides Calgary and Edmonton being 3 hrs apart by car, the next closest metropolitan is 11 hrs by car, and the next beyond that is 32 hrs by car. The location which we live speaks volumes to our dependant by on oil and gas.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

Depends. Could some fallout reach Canada or not?

If it did, Canadians would still not care.

[Truenorth00]

I really wouldn't worry too much about cutting back on oil and gas. EVs are coming for them. And it won't even take much. Just a few percent of marketshare with an upward trajectory and investors will re-evaluate their global o&g portfolios.

Most mainstream analysts are already predicting a tipping point in the middle of the next decade.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/

And the first to go will be the high cost projects like the oil sands.

People will argue that this is isn't going to happen. And thats because most people are terrible are seeing non-linear trends. These same folks would never have predicted the iPhone in 1995.

Batteries don't quite follow Moore's law. But they definitely have a trendline and we're insanely close on pack prices becoming competitive with gas vehicles:

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicle...materials-cost

I had the opportunity to do an exchange at a US service academy. Was super interesting to see that in Trump's America, the world's biggest investor in renewables and alternative fuels was the US DoD. The Pentagon considers vehicle electrification as strategically vital as say, space tech research. That same energy put a man on the moon in the era of slide rulers. I have no doubts at all about all the commercial predictions you see about where renewables are going. It's inevitable.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Is there evidence for this?

What I mean is, the Conservative climate plan will be more expensive per ton of CO2 reduced. And at some point I believe they even said it would 'do more'. If that is actually true (though I doubt it), then their climate action plan would also cost Canadians far more than the current policy.

Don't waste much time reading it, but here's the CPC plan:

https://arealplan.ca/ (pdf at the bottom)

It's utter shite, the opposite of sensible policy. Nobody should support it whether they want to reduce emissions or not, and anyone that does support it must be doing so for partisan reasons.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The current global CO2 levels are around 410 PPM, which is literally off that chart.

Anyone who looks at that chart and thinks a vertical blue line at year 0 won't eventually lead to extremely undesirable outcomes is impressively stubborn.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Anyone who looks at that chart and thinks a vertical blue line at year 0 won't eventually lead to extremely undesirable outcomes is impressively stubborn.

And just to be sure everyone's on the same page as you and I and CanSpice: not the vertical blue line we see in that graph, but rather, one that goes straight up at x=0 to y=410 with a slope of infinity.

[milomilo]

Yeah, literally vertical, and beyond 410. Maybe the science is wrong and the planet can take more than thought. But how high can it go? 1000? 10000? If we accept there is some limit, then we must hit it eventually, and it is then insane to say we shouldn't at least try to reduce our output.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yeah, literally vertical, and beyond 410. Maybe the science is wrong and the planet can take more than thought. But how high can it go? 1000? 10000? If we accept there is some limit, then we must hit it eventually, and it is then insane to say we shouldn't at least try to reduce our output.

It depends what you mean by “can”. Concentrations were in the thousands in dinosaur days. Even in more recent geologic time when the earth supported a diverse ecosystem concentrations went as high as 1600.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It depends what you mean by “can”. Concentrations were in the thousands in dinosaur days. Even in more recent geologic time when the earth supported a diverse ecosystem concentrations went as high as 1600.

Yep and there were tropical plants in the arctic. I'm sure we'll be fine when that happens, right?

[Airboy]

https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/201...ort-warns.html

City of Edmonton is targeting 2050 for carbon neutrality.

Based on some of the meetings I have been in. there is an ambitious plan for retro fitting older building that the city owns.

A very thorough study was done on 1000 city buildings, that looked at not just energy consumption but why some buildings that were older were more efficient.

Mechanical system now are pretty efficient so there was not much wiggle room there. It is looking like the city will be addressing the building envelops now.

What are other cities plans.?

[rbt]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It depends what you mean by “can”. Concentrations were in the thousands in dinosaur days. Even in more recent geologic time when the earth supported a diverse ecosystem concentrations went as high as 1600.

Right, it's not about saving the planet. The planet will shrug off nearly anything with enough time (as you've shown millions of years make a big difference).

It's about preserving the planet in a low-risk state for human survival. The lowest risk state is one that humans have experienced and excelled within; basically the last thousand years.

It's the same reason business owners like legal stability and predictability; it has the least surprise on their operations. Humans will do best over the next few generations with the fewest big surprises over the next few decades/centuries. Big surprises like when Frank Silver wrote "Yes! We Have No Bananas" due to the sudden world wide disappearance of the only commercially grown banana at that time (Big Mike). All kinds of ground fungus and viral species we've not had to deal with are being selected for temporary survival of ground temperatures much closer to that of the human body than in the past; think ring-worm type infections of internal organs rather than just a blemish on the cooler skin.

I don't have kids and my sister (who does) says business as usual; so I guess bring on the environmental surprises.

[TorontoDrew]

Andrew Sheer, Doug Ford and their sheep, nothing to see here.

Toronto - 17 by Curtis Simmons, on Flickr

[240glt]

Originally Posted by Airboy

https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/201...ort-warns.html

City of Edmonton is targeting 2050 for carbon neutrality.

Based on some of the meetings I have been in. there is an ambitious plan for retro fitting older building that the city owns.

A very thorough study was done on 1000 city buildings, that looked at not just energy consumption but why some buildings that were older were more efficient.

Mechanical system now are pretty efficient so there was not much wiggle room there. It is looking like the city will be addressing the building envelops now.

What are other cities plans.?

The city will almost certainly fail to meet it's emissions reductions targets it seems

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...nsition-update

One of the problems is the flawed metrics they're using to determine EkWh, or more specifically not looking at that metric at all. More importantly they're not attempting to normalize data based on a larger sample set that compares how other buildings perform in other climates. At first blush it seems silly to look at buildings outside the region in order to create targets for buildings within the region but given Edmonton's climate and lack of comparators, looking at other buildings and normalizing the data is critical to actually understanding how buildings are actually performing.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by 240glt

The city will almost certainly fail to meet it's emissions reductions targets it seems

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...nsition-update

One of the problems is the flawed metrics they're using to determine EkWh, or more specifically not looking at that metric at all. More importantly they're not attempting to normalize data based on a larger sample set that compares how other buildings perform in other climates. At first blush it seems silly to look at buildings outside the region in order to create targets for buildings within the region but given Edmonton's climate and lack of comparators, looking at other buildings and normalizing the data is critical to actually understanding how buildings are actually performing.

I wished I could find the report that was presented at an ASHRAE meeting but. A lot of information in the report section.

I agree meeting the goals is lofty. but they have a goal.

Not many cities with our climate to compare to. Scandinavian cities are the closest.
https://www.edmonton.ca/city_governm...ransition.aspx