The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[jamincan]

My parents used to have a closed loop geothermal system in their old house and I recall the cost being quite reasonable at the time.

[ssiguy]

This is a key problem with today's EVs...............they are incredibly heavy and hence result in much higher tire erosion. The tires you have on an EV are the same tires that they have on a similar size & make non-EV vehicle but have to bear the wear and tear that naturally comes with having to support a much higher weight.

Of course, due to EVs still be relatively new and the battery technology still being developed to it's fullest, means that in a few years when the vehicles really start showing their mileage, the issue of battery replacement will come up and that will be an extremely high expense.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is a key problem with today's EVs...............they are incredibly heavy and hence result in much higher tire erosion. The tires you have on an EV are the same tires that they have on a similar size & make non-EV vehicle but have to bear the wear and tear that naturally comes with having to support a much higher weight.

Of course, due to EVs still be relatively new and the battery technology still being developed to it's fullest, means that in a few years when the vehicles really start showing their mileage, the issue of battery replacement will come up and that will be an extremely high expense.

No, Teslas tear through tires because of the torque and people flooring it because it's so much fun.

The regen braking is also a bit harder on the back tires because they do the bulk of the stopping, vs. a traditional braking car putting more pressure on the front tires.

Good news is the brake pads last forever.

I would equate a battery replacement on an EV after 300-500k kms in the same category as an engine and/or transmission rebuild on an ICE. It will eventually happen to any car that lasts that long, and some owners will just scrap it at that point.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

No, Teslas tear through tires because of the torque and people flooring it because it's so much fun.

And this is pretty much true of any sport sedan. People who complain about this have never owned a BMW 3, MB C, or Lexus IS.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Of course, due to EVs still be relatively new and the battery technology still being developed to it's fullest, means that in a few years when the vehicles really start showing their mileage, the issue of battery replacement will come up and that will be an extremely high expense.

Battery costs will be half over the 8-10 years that any car bought today would heavily wear down their battery. The cost would be comparable to the replacing the transmission on an ICEV.

And most automakers offer warranties or battery degradation guarantees for at least that long. Realistically, regular drivers would not need a battery change for 15+ years.

[Doady]

The government should consider banning elevators that are not for accessibility purposes. Able-bodied people should be using the stairs instead, and new multi-family housing should be fesigned so that such people can and must use the stairs for each unit. In other words, Canadian cities should start modelling themselves after Montreal instead of Vancouver. Build more low-rise or mid-rise apartment complexes with winding staircases, and no more tall and skinny blue-green glass towers with no insulation.

[digitboy]

Originally Posted by Doady

The government should consider banning elevators that are not for accessibility purposes. Able-bodied people should be using the stairs instead, and new multi-family housing should be fesigned so that such people can and must use the stairs for each unit. In other words, Canadian cities should start modelling themselves after Montreal instead of Vancouver. Build more low-rise or mid-rise apartment complexes with winding staircases, and no more tall and skinny blue-green glass towers with no insulation.

Urban sprawl is the worst model to follow. I would do the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

[MolsonExport]

Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'

"It is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet."

IPCC report key points:

Global surface temperature was 1.09C higher in the decade between 2011-2020 than between 1850-1900.
The past five years have been the hottest on record since 1850
The recent rate of sea level rise has nearly tripled compared with 1901-1971
Human influence is "very likely" (90%) the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea-ice
It is "virtually certain" that hot extremes including heatwaves have become more frequent and more intense since the 1950s, while cold events have become less frequent and less severe

The new report also makes clear that the warming we've experienced to date has made changes to many of our planetary support systems that are irreversible on timescales of centuries to millennia.

The oceans will continue to warm and become more acidic. Mountain and polar glaciers will continue melting for decades or centuries.

"The consequences will continue to get worse for every bit of warming," said Prof Hawkins.

"And for many of these consequences, there's no going back."

When it comes to sea level rise, the scientists have modelled a likely range for different levels of emissions.

However, a rise of around 2m by the end of this century cannot be ruled out - and neither can a 5m rise by 2150.

[O-tacular]

After this summer (and all the smoky summers we've had recently) it's beginning to feel pretty apocalyptic.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

After this summer (and all the smoky summers we've had recently), I'm really beginning to feel like we are locked in to some irreversible Climate deathtrap.

Doomerism is tempting. But wrong. We have technological capacity to substantially cut emissions. It's a question of political willingness on whether we are willing to dedicate the economic resources to do so. And the longer we wait, the steeper the bill and the more drastic the changes required will be.

We need to stop pussyfooting around and go big. We need to ramp up investment in public and active transport, electric vehicle charging infrastructure and home heating electrification. We should be planning to arrive at 2040 with 100% electrified homes and vehicles. And we need to mandate better cities and better homes. No more gas hookups. 100% all electric new homes, 100% 15 min communities in every new subdivision and zero expansion of the urban boundary. All federal funding needs to be conditional on cities complying with these goals. No new homebuyer should be getting a CMHC insurance if their home has a gas hookup after say 2023. On the industrial side, let's work with the oil and gas sector to at least end flaring and methane leaks as quickly as possible.

I've mostly written off conservatives on this file. They don't seem interested in anything but excuses for inaction and deflection. And while the Liberals have been better, they still seem to have so many other priorities over climate change. I always wonder what could have have been accomplished with even half of the money they spent on the CCB going to infrastructure.

[acottawa]

Climate denial of what the actual climate models say is not going to help.

Spending 100s of billions on virtue signalling that will have a rounding error effect on the climate is not only pointless but will use up resources that could be much better spent on adaption.

People can stick their heads in the sand all they want, but it doesn’t change the reality or the cold hard math. Barring a completely unforeseen technology that completely changes everything (and maybe there is a carbon Norman Borlaug out there somewhere), catastrophic climate change is happening. If it isn’t too late already (and with the feedback mechanisms that have been triggered already there is a fair amount of evidence it is), it will be to late by the time electric cars become widespread in the 2040s, or China phases out coal in the 2050s or world population peaks in the 2060s. We we need to take a hard look at actual projections from actual climate and start developing a mitigation strategy, which will cost hundreds of billions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Climate denial of what the actual climate models say is not going to help.

Indeed. So maybe you should pay attention to the scientists when they say adapting for 2-2.5°C will be far less painful than adapting to a 3-4°C world.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Spending 100s of billions on virtue signalling that will have a rounding error effect on the climate is not only pointless but will use up resources that could be much better spent on adaption.

We can cut emissions now collectively or spend multiples of the cost of mitigation over the long run on adaptation for an even worse net outcome. It's quite the assumption to say adaptation will be cheap and easy when the scientific consensus says otherwise.

We should do our bit. And also push/help developing countries to cut their emissions. We might well need a modern day climate version of the Marshall Plan to do this.

If the argument is, "But China....", fine let's have a carbon tariff trade war with them. It'll help bring our emissions down too. I'm all for it.

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Climate denial of what the actual climate models say is not going to help.

Spending 100s of billions on virtue signalling that will have a rounding error effect on the climate is not only pointless but will use up resources that could be much better spent on adaption.

People can stick their heads in the sand all they want, but it doesn’t change the reality or the cold hard math. Barring a completely unforeseen technology that completely changes everything (and maybe there is a carbon Norman Borlaug out there somewhere), catastrophic climate change is happening. If it isn’t too late already (and with the feedback mechanisms that have been triggered already there is a fair amount of evidence it is), it will be to late by the time electric cars become widespread in the 2040s, or China phases out coal in the 2050s or world population peaks in the 2060s. We we need to take a hard look at actual projections from actual climate and start developing a mitigation strategy, which will cost hundreds of billions.

I agree. We need to invest considerably in carbon capture and storage. Also we must invest in accelerating the development of Gen IV nuclear reactors. Hopefully we can also find a place to store all that CO2 and radioactive waste (maybe in the same desert shithole we deport all the anti-vax incel CHUDs to).

Perhaps we use the nuclear energy to turn the CO2 into biofuels? Or just find a way of separating the C from the O2, as solid carbon seems much easier to deal with than the gas.

Green energy isn't all that greeen. Hydro and geothermal are true renewable energies that actually provide consistent output suitable for the modern industrial world. Wind turbines and solar panels aren't all that recyclable and end up in the landfill for the most part.

It's not just climate I'm worried about. There is an obscene amount of plastic packaging in literally EVERY time we buy, and governments need to step in and stop that. Plastic recycling was always a meme, and most of what goes in your blue bin winds up in the landfill with the windmills.

[Truenorth00]

What the new UN report warning of climate impacts means for Canadians
...
In northern North America, which includes most of Canada, the report found that "temperature increases are projected to be very large compared to the global average, particularly in the winter."

"Heat waves, and changes in fire weather — that is the frequency or the likelihood of getting the combination of dry, hot conditions that lead to wildfires like the ones we're seeing this year — those increase along with temperature," said Greg Flato, senior research scientist with Environment and Climate Change Canada and vice-chair of the IPCC group that authored the report.

"The higher the temperature gets, the more frequent, and the more severe these heat waves will become and the more frequent and more severe the fire weather conditions will become."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ipcc...nada-1.6134879

[Floppa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/ipcc...nada-1.6134879

Sounds like we need carbon capture and storage.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Sounds like we need carbon capture and storage.

Trees do that.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Trees do that.

Not very well.

We don't need a policy of carbon capture, we just need to pay people a set price for every ton of carbon they permanently lock away.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not very well.

Mature trees don't. Young trees do. But overall, you're right that trees aren't the magic bullet people think they are.

Originally Posted by milomilo

We don't need a policy of carbon capture, we just need to pay people a set price for every ton of carbon they permanently lock away.

Can we at least save this discussion for after we actually make serious efforts to cut emissions?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Floppa

Sounds like we need carbon capture and storage.

The more you emit, the more you have to capture. And capturing is more expensive than cutting emissions. So how about focus on the part first. Maybe in a decade, after we've done all the easy stuff, we can talk about carbon capture.

[ssiguy]

Our climate crisis is indeed urgent but I disagree with this idea that we have to stop using fossil fuels. To use the analogy of a car..........the fuel isn't the problem and neither is the engine but rather the tailpipe.

The source of power doesn't matter but rather what we do with the emissions. There is NOTHING wrong with using fossil fuels as an energy source. They are naturally created commodities and Mother Nature doesn't make mistakes. The issue is not the kind or even amount of emissions they produce but rather what what we do with those emissions.

Currently we have taken trillions of tons of natural commodities found underneath the ground and then stuck it in the air. What we should be doing, until at least weaning ourselves off fossil fuels as it an expensive process, is taking those fossil fuels, using their energy, and then sticking it back in the ground where it belongs.

To expect the world {and especially poorer countries which make up the bulk of the planet's population} to be able to afford to transform their economies away from fossil fuels over the next 30 years is simply absurd.

If you have lemons, make lemonade.