The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

The same folks who oppose emissions pricing usually oppose the kind of regulatory intervention that is pitched as the alternative.

What do you think would happen if instead of a carbon tax, the Liberals simply said no more oil and gas exploration, no more pipelines, and we're going to advance the ban on gas car sales to 2030, and ban all natural gas in new builds immediately?

The reality is that every government is trying to find a mix between market guiding mechanisms (carbon tax) and regulations to the point political feasibility.

Should be noted too, the huge rebate in Canada (90% of funds collected in a province rebated to residents under federal backstop) does help mitigate the debates we see on carbon pricing elsewhere (like the yellow vests in France).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by rofina

Technocratic elites misunderstand the nature of the planetary impasse. Carbon pricing works in a world of egotistic agents who respond only economically to price signals—it cannot work in a world where they also form political coalitions to oppose idealistic elite schemes that impose great costs on them. And these coalitions can already be seen, even before the price of carbon on the continent has begun to bite. So, it’s a non-solution because you simply cannot build the political coalition to see it through

Well said, and it's a real problem. You have to convince people who won't be around in 50-100 years, to selflessly vote for great personal sacrifices right now, without any upside (for them), when there are alternatives available that aren't forcing them to do that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well said, and it's a real problem. You have to convince people who won't be around in 50-100 years, to selflessly vote for great personal sacrifices right now, without any upside (for them), when there are alternatives available that aren't forcing them to do that.

The fundamental problem is that this is misunderstood as "great personal sacrifice" or certainly portrayed that way by those for whom inaction is beneficial. A better built home with lower energy bills over the long term is not a sacrifice. A better planned city with more housing options and public transit is hardly "great personal sacrifice". And we're less than a decade out from EVs which are both cheaper to buy operate than gas cars. How would compelling EV adoption beyond that point be great sacrifice?

Also, the future is not nearly as far away as people think. We're now closer to 2050 (the year used in all those predictions for some noticeable warming impacts) than 1990 (the year used as the baseline for many climate policies). And there will be impacts noticeable long before then.

[WarrenC12]

Carbon taxes are the obvious market based solution for reducing emissions. Where you invest that revenue (or any tax revenue) is obviously important, as both governments and users getting their rebate checks.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Carbon taxes are the obvious market based solution for reducing emissions. Where you invest that revenue (or any tax revenue) is obviously important, as both governments and users getting their rebate checks.

I listened to an interview with Catherine McKenna and she said they understood very early on that no carbon tax could work without all the funds rebated and that it needs to be a distinct rebate. Using carbon taxes to offset personal income taxes just wouldn't work politically and it was way too easy for the FUDsters to manipulate and twist into a portrayal of a tax grab.

This is where Stephane Dion's Green Shift failed. He had the right idea. But he massively underestimated how much bad faith Harper would deploy against his idea.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The same folks who oppose emissions pricing usually oppose the kind of regulatory intervention that is pitched as the alternative.

Which is why I enjoy policy tensor. He proposes solutions that are scalable and implementable, not just write whiny pieces about bad policy.

What do you think would happen if instead of a carbon tax, the Liberals simply said no more oil and gas exploration, no more pipelines, and we're going to advance the ban on gas car sales to 2030, and ban all natural gas in new builds immediately?

This is the disconnect; are we in an emergency or not? If we are, and we are actually believing the IPCC reports stating this is a 2030 problem now, not a 2100 problem then we need to act like it.

Western countries should be on a war footing. Big, bold steps. This isn't about winning election next year, its about making bold moves to offset actual civilization ending disaster.

Or its not? And this is just a political tool (not an idea I personally subscribe to.)

The reality is that every government is trying to find a mix between market guiding mechanisms (carbon tax) and regulations to the point political feasibility.

That's fair, perhaps they are. But the rhetoric doesn't match the action, so far, as it pertains to climate change.

COVID showed what level of spending is possible. And what level of government control is possible when needed in an emergency.

Should be noted too, the huge rebate in Canada (90% of funds collected in a province rebated to residents under federal backstop) does help mitigate the debates we see on carbon pricing elsewhere (like the yellow vests in France).

Fair.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I listened to an interview with Catherine McKenna and she said they understood very early on that no carbon tax could work without all the funds rebated and that it needs to be a distinct rebate. Using carbon taxes to offset personal income taxes just wouldn't work politically and it was way too easy for the FUDsters to manipulate and twist into a portrayal of a tax grab.

This is where Stephane Dion's Green Shift failed. He had the right idea. But he massively underestimated how much bad faith Harper would deploy against his idea.

Good political move, and now it's here to stay.

BC's Carbon Tax started under Gordon Campbell, a pretty right leaning "Liberal". He framed it as "revenue neutral" and it was accompanied by offsetting personal and corporate income tax cuts. It was good enough for his base. Years later the "revenue neutal" accounting went away, and it was cranked up a bit, but people are ok with it for the most part. I assume it will now escalate in line with the Federal version, but we will see what happens with respect to rebates, as the money coming in will grow more quickly than it has.

[Truenorth00]

Incentives lead to results. Normalizing our gas taxes and carbon taxes in to $/tonne CO2 shows that Canada still has some of the cheapest gas in developed world, and will continue to do so, even after carbon taxes go up to $170/tonne.



Source: https://www.nationalobserver.com/202...onal-gas-taxes

Pricing gas so cheaply has naturally led to Canada having one of thirstiest fleets on the planet:




Source: https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...-age-essential

The net result is negating the massive gains Canadians made cutting emissions from power generation as several provinces cut coal consumption:



Source: https://www.nationalobserver.com/202...onal-gas-taxes

If we want to keep driving huge vehicles, we're going to have to get really aggressive on hybridizing or electrifying them. Or we start building alternatives that substantially reduces miles driven in our heavy vehicles.

[esquire]

^ Thank you for that highly informative post. Sometimes there is nothing like a good chart or three to drive the point home.

[WarrenC12]

Great chart, and it does show that electrifying transportation will make a huge difference.

Thankfully it's more a matter of economics that will solve that problem for us, and have a resulting impact on our oil & gas numbers (thanks to reduced demand).

[Truenorth00]

Uh oh.... Those hippies at S&P Global Platts are going to start monthly reporting on the carbon intensity of major oil fields. I think Alberta will need to buy out Platts to keep these numbers under wraps:



Source: https://twitter.com/climatekeith/sta...035493891?s=20

This is exactly why I wish we talked about all this in the election. Helping Canadian oil and gas cut emissions intensity is crucial to the sectors longevity. Instead, some seem intent on turning this into a test of political and cultural orthodoxy that is only going to accelerate divestment and see the sector diminished much quicker. Even $200/bbl oil in 2022, will be a pyrrhic victory.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What do you think would happen if instead of a carbon tax, the Liberals simply said no more oil and gas exploration, no more pipelines, and we're going to advance the ban on gas car sales to 2030, and ban all natural gas in new builds immediately?

Our economy would collapse overnight and Alberta would violently secede.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Should be noted too, the huge rebate in Canada (90% of funds collected in a province rebated to residents under federal backstop) does help mitigate the debates we see on carbon pricing elsewhere (like the yellow vests in France).

Canada doesn't have a history of violently overthrowing its government, unlike France. But that could very well change if Trudeau goes too far again.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And we're less than a decade out from EVs which are both cheaper to buy operate than gas cars. How would compelling EV adoption beyond that point be great sacrifice?

Contradiction right there. If something is actually better than its alternative, there's no need to compel people to choose it.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Contradiction right there. If something is actually better than its alternative, there's no need to compel people to choose it.

I don't know about that ... ever heard of anti-vaxxers?

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

I don't know about that ... ever heard of anti-vaxxers?

You're comparing medication to cars.

[Hawrylyshyn]

I really wish the government put better infrastructure in for EV -- I feel that one of the biggest issues stopping people from buying them is the inconvenience of charging them. There really aren't that many charging stations around to make this easy for consumers

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by Floppa

You're comparing medication to cars.

The point is that people are stupid. There's no nostalgia reason to not get vaccinated, and it costs exactly $0, and it's less effort than buying an EV.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

The point is that people are stupid. There's no nostalgia reason to not get vaccinated, and it costs exactly $0, and it's less effort than buying an EV.

I'll let you reach your own conclusions

[Floppa]

chevrolet-bolt-gm-tells-owners-park-50-feet-from-other-cars/8355134002/

Detroit — As it seeks a solution to a battery fire risk, General Motors issued yet another safety recommendation Wednesday for Chevrolet Bolt owners: If you're pulling into a parking deck, keep your car at least 50 feet away from other vehicles.

A customer's concern about the safety of leaving their electric vehicle in a parking garage led the automaker to provide the additional guidance to owners of the Bolts, all of which GM has recalled, spokesman Dan Flores said.

A 2019 Chevy Bolt electric vehicle caught fire at a home in Cherokee County, Georgia, on Monday, Sept. 13, according to Bloomberg.
"In an effort to reduce potential damage to structures and nearby vehicles in the rare event of a potential fire, we recommend parking on the top floor or on an open-air deck and park 50 feet or more away from another vehicle," Flores said in a statement. "Additionally, we still request you do not leave your vehicle charging unattended, even if you are using a charging station in a parking deck."

Bloomberg first reported the latest Bolt customer recommendation Wednesday. GM previously told Bolt owners to only charge the battery to 90%, charge more frequently and avoid depleting the battery below about 70 miles of remaining range. They also should park the vehicle outside.

GM recently had to recall every Chevrolet Bolt EV and Bolt EUV — more than 141,000 — after the batteries caught fire in a handful of the electric vehicles. GM and battery supplier LG Energy Solution are working to understand how two "rare" battery defects believed to be the cause of the fires occurred. The automaker has confirmed 12 Bolt battery fires, up from 10 when it issued its latest recall last month.

"We are aware of 12 GM confirmed battery fires that have been investigated involving Bolt EVs vehicles in the previous and new recall population," Flores said. "There have been three reports of injuries. We continue to share data with NHTSA."

The recall of GM's only electric products on the market comes as the automaker is vying to become a leading EV maker.

Your stories live here.
Fuel your hometown passion and plug into the stories that define it.
Create Account
But the automaker is not producing any EVs right now. It's halted production of the Bolts until it feels confident again in LG's supply.

GM says the battery fires are the result of two "rare" manufacturing defects" a torn anode tab and a folded separator found together in the cells. The battery cells were made at two LG facilities — one in Korea and the other in Holland, Michigan. Battery packs are assembled at an LG facility in Hazel Park.

"We're still working with LG around the clock to resolve the issue," Flores said. "Both companies understand the urgency to move as quickly as possible, but, again, the most important thing here is we have to get this right."

LG Energy Solution President Denise Gray, who was a keynote speaker Wednesday at The Battery Show in Novi, only told reporters after her speech: "Right now our teams are working so hard together in order to work through all of this and I'm sure at a later time, as the information comes out they'll make sure it's available to you."

The Detroit automaker estimates the recall will cost $1.8 billion and is working with LG to sort out how much of the bill the supplier will front.

GM CFO Paul Jacobson said during RBC’s Global Industrials Conference last Friday that GM is "engaged in high-level conversations with them about how we handle the financial accountability. We do expect that we will get reimbursement for that."

Cherokee County Fire and Emergency Services personnel put out a Chevrolet Bolt fire on Sept. 13.
Though it is still working out the fix for the defects, GM says it will replace defective battery modules for Bolt customers.

"The number one focus right now obviously is to get the production line fixed, the manufacturing process cleaned up and get back into cell production and ultimately get a path for these vehicles to be repaired and ... do what's right for our customers," Jacobson said at the conference.

Meanwhile, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently told The Detroit News it “currently does not have any open investigations into fires alleged with LG batteries outside of GM” but added that it’s “in touch with LG to identify other vehicles that may be impacted.”

khall@detroitnews.com

Twitter: @bykaleahall

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Uh oh.... Those hippies at S&P Global Platts are going to start monthly reporting on the carbon intensity of major oil fields. I think Alberta will need to buy out Platts to keep these numbers under wraps:



Source: https://twitter.com/climatekeith/sta...035493891?s=20

This is exactly why I wish we talked about all this in the election. Helping Canadian oil and gas cut emissions intensity is crucial to the sectors longevity. Instead, some seem intent on turning this into a test of political and cultural orthodoxy that is only going to accelerate divestment and see the sector diminished much quicker. Even $200/bbl oil in 2022, will be a pyrrhic victory.

Cold Lake is an almost 50 year old facility with unusually high carbon emissions. An odd choice for S&P for the only Canadian site.

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ng-2021-06-28/