The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It has money for high speed trains to nowhere,

did you pull all of this out of your ass or something?

Year million riders ±% p.a.
2007 61 —
2008 127 +108.20%
2009 179 +40.94%
2010 290 +62.01%
2011 440 +51.72%
2012 486 +10.45%
2013 672 +38.27%
2014 893 +32.89%
2015 1,161 +30.01%
2016 1,440 +24.03%
2017 1,713 +18.96%
2018 2,001 +16.81%
2019 2,290 +14.44%

That is 2.3 BILLION riders in 2019.

I've been around China on their High speed trains. The stations are extremely crowded, as are the trains.

and meanwhile you are on record stating that people should use as much energy as they see fit.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Canada is the laggard unfortunately.

Indeed. Which is why those tarrifs are going to get really interesting. The Europeans are willing to go toe to toe with the US. We're definitely no leverage small fry on this one.

Originally Posted by milomilo

... so all European tariffs will likely achieve is make things more expensive for Europeans.

And? So do carbon taxes. But there's no way to avoid job losses and carbon leakage to countries that are willing to ignore cutting emissions. It's particularly hard to sell one's own public on carbon taxes too, as they watch jobs shipped to China. So what better excuse is there than to slap tariffs on Chinese imports. The Europeans aren't exactly hiding intent here. They are clear on what they are targeting, including a repatriation of some industry and jobs from Asia.

I'm down for the same too. I absolutely detest the whatboutism of the "But China..." brigade. They are, however, right on the broader point about carbon leakage. Global trade shouldn't be given a pass on externalities, while domestic producers are facing taxes.

Originally Posted by milomilo

By the time the world actually gets on board with this sort of stuff, we'll both have caused more damage to the climate than we should have, but the technology to carry on will be available. It's like the problem of horse shit piling up in cities - humans never solved that problem through policy, because horses were too valuable. They just happened to invent a better horse that doesn't poop.

Maybe. But that doesn't mean that just because they hadn't found the solution, that they applied no controls at all. Also, carbon, unlike horseshit will be biting us in the collective behind for decades if not centuries. So every little bit does help. Even if they environmental return isn't exactly direct.

All that said, I go back to what I said earlier. Before we get wrapped up in all this faux concern over what the Chinese doing, can we at least do the basic shit that is in our own best interest? See my example above. We can't even get developers to put an appropriate plug in the garage for EVs we know are coming (and have mandated by law). But we're worried about what China will do two decades from now?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

did you pull all of this out of your ass or something?

Anything and everything to justify why we shouldn't have similar infrastructure here.

Maybe not trains to nowhere. I would fucking settle for service that cover the 70% of the population that lives in the Quebec-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton corridors, that also covers nearly half our short haul passenger-miles.

Says a lot that he thinks good infrastructure that benefits the vast majority of citizens in that country is a poor investment.

[shreddog]

Simple question - has anyone ever seen a credible analysis of the GHG emission reduction ROI based on infrastructure spend? By that I mean, if we had 100B to spend on infrastructure, where is the biggest bang on GHG emissions? Significant expansion on intra-city public transit, focus on lower GHG producing inter-city personal transportation, focus on inter-city commercial?

I realize that we will take a balanced approach and that the categories are likely not homogeneous enough and that eventually there will be points of diminishing returns, but in Canada today, is the biggest bang expanding a subway, HFR or better long haul trucking?

[rofina]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Simple question - has anyone ever seen a credible analysis of the GHG emission reduction ROI based on infrastructure spend? By that I mean, if we had 100B to spend on infrastructure, where is the biggest bang on GHG emissions? Significant expansion on intra-city public transit, focus on lower GHG producing inter-city personal transportation, focus on inter-city commercial?

I realize that we will take a balanced approach and that the categories are likely not homogeneous enough and that eventually there will be points of diminishing returns, but in Canada today, is the biggest bang expanding a subway, HFR or better long haul trucking?

Based on absolutely nothing but gut feeling;

Highest density area = most people moving = most congestion = public transportation infrastructure is likely best bang for the buck.

Meaning, trains, bikes, less reliance on ICE engines.

Followed by green building - but thats a tough one because to achieve density will never be green, so there has to be some arbitrage there.

Concrete buildings are insanely energy consumptive. Think of the process all the way from digging out the gravel and making the cement mix. To digging out the pit for the tower. Its an insane undertaking.

[Airboy]

Conversion updates.
TransAlta completes second of three planned Alberta plant conversions to natural gas.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ills-1.6108023

And one from North of 60.
Construction on $60M hydro line to Fort Providence and Kakisa NWT to begin in 2023

Project would 'eliminate the use of diesel' in both communities.

Once built, it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from diesel fuel by 2.75 kilotonnes — which represents 15 per cent of the territory's overall goal to reduce diesel emissions by 18 kilotonnes by 2030.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...kisa-1.6106624

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Simple question - has anyone ever seen a credible analysis of the GHG emission reduction ROI based on infrastructure spend?

The government does have broad sectoral reduction targets in their plans and some targeted spending associated with each reduction. So I guess you could go through the plan and look at that. I don't think they've set out a full climate specific infrastructure spending target/budget per se.

And that's for many reasons. Starting with the fact that GHG Emissions isn't necessarily just an infrastructure problem (though infrastructure can help to be sure). There are just as many demand considerations as there are infrastructure considerations. How do you get people to use the transit or bike paths you build?

Originally Posted by shreddog

By that I mean, if we had 100B to spend on infrastructure, where is the biggest bang on GHG emissions? Significant expansion on intra-city public transit, focus on lower GHG producing inter-city personal transportation, focus on inter-city commercial?

I realize that we will take a balanced approach and that the categories are likely not homogeneous enough and that eventually there will be points of diminishing returns, but in Canada today, is the biggest bang expanding a subway, HFR or better long haul trucking?

The government has actually set out targets for emissions reductions in transport, heating, etc. But to my knowledge there's not necessarily been trade off studies between specific projects. And I'm not sure that's necessarily the best way to go about it either. There's always more benefits to various projects beyond just cutting GHGs. And most large infrastructure projects do look at social consider everything from emissions reductions to increases in productivity from reduced traffic congestion. You can look at the ones that Metrolinx does in Toronto for big projects as an example.

Broadly though, if it's just about transport, local transit is usually going to displace the most emissions just because of the sheer amount of riders. Consider for example, that HFR is supposed to get about 10M riders per year, within 5 years of launch. Ottawa's Confederation Line sees that many riders in less that 2 months. But you have to remember that transport projects have network effects. Someone might keep their car if they regularly travel between Toronto and Ottawa and not take transit. However, the existence of both LRT in Ottawa and HFR between the cities might give them the confidence to ditch their car, or say go from a 2-car family to 1-car. Etc. Capturing that in a a single line item of GHG emissions isn't easy.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What exactly if your viewpoint based on? We now have scientists saying that they may have underestimated the frequency of fire and floods, compared to what they are seeing.

https://news.stanford.edu/2020/03/18...her-predicted/



It's the easiest change to make and somehow even more politically difficult than phasing out gas and diesel cars for reason. It boggles my mind how ridiculously low our construction standards are in Canada, particularly for housing. And at this point, really, there's no reason that we all-electric homes can't be built outside the Arctic. But builders have zero motivation to push this unless there are actual mandates. Especially when they know most homebuyers still care more about granite countertops than the potential massive energy liabilities they are taking on.

There was a project I was interested in near me. The developer asked for community feedback. I suggested they install NEMA 14-50 outlets in all their garages and upgrade service. Doing this at the time of construction is only about $500 more in construction costs, which any prospective buyer (and I'm one) would happily pay. I suggested they could market it as "EV ready". Their PR dude came back telling me that they believe a regular wall outlet is enough. This is exactly why I think we need government mandates on this. They insist on being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Jayman Homes in Calgary has started including solar panels and building net zero houses in suburbia. I believe they also include EV outlets.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Jayman Homes in Calgary has started including solar panels and building net zero houses in suburbia. I believe they also include EV outlets.

Can he come to Ontario and teach a few things to developers here? I get the feeling though that they really won't change until the government forces them to do so.

I've done lots of digging. Wife and I are willing to pay a bit more for a green home if it comes into an area workable for us. But it's impossible to find a developer who does them around here. It's all high end contractors who do custom builds. And I keep asking myself why isn't this the general standard? Doesn't the general public deserve better insulated homes and a place to plug in an EV in their garage?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

did you pull all of this out of your ass or something?

Year million riders ±% p.a.
2007 61 —
2008 127 +108.20%
2009 179 +40.94%
2010 290 +62.01%
2011 440 +51.72%
2012 486 +10.45%
2013 672 +38.27%
2014 893 +32.89%
2015 1,161 +30.01%
2016 1,440 +24.03%
2017 1,713 +18.96%
2018 2,001 +16.81%
2019 2,290 +14.44%

That is 2.3 BILLION riders in 2019.

I've been around China on their High speed trains. The stations are extremely crowded, as are the trains.

and meanwhile you are on record stating that people should use as much energy as they see fit.

You really need better briefing material from the 50 cent army headquarters.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/chin...ys-to-nowhere/

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You really need better briefing material from the 50 cent army headquarters.

China successfully debt-trapping Laos isn't an example of bad infrastructure policy - it's an example of smart foreign policy on behalf of China.

Implying that Molson, or anyone else on this forum that might disagree with your views, is operating on behalf of China is incredibly disrespectful, IMO.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by JHikka

China successfully debt-trapping Laos isn't an example of bad infrastructure policy - it's an example of smart foreign policy on behalf of China.

Implying that Molson, or anyone else on this forum that might disagree with your views, is operating on behalf of China is incredibly disrespectful, IMO.

Not only that. His original assertion was that the Chinese were buildings "railways to nowhere" at home. Called out with actual ridership data, he deflects to a project in....Laos and Indonesia?

Anything and everything to avoid admitting that, "But China..." is a shitty climate policy.

Real desperation in suggesting ME is a member of the "50 cent brigade". All because he cited rail network ridership stats...

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not only that. His original assertion was that the Chinese were buildings "railways to nowhere" at home. Called out with actual ridership data, he deflects to a project in....Laos and Indonesia?

Anything and everything to avoid admitting that, "But China..." is a shitty climate policy.

Real desperation in suggesting ME is a member of the "50 cent brigade". All because he cited rail network ridership stats...

At no point did I say that all railways that China was building were to nowhere. If someone says the U.S. wastes money on bridges to nowhere it does not mean that every single bridge is to nowhere. Some of them are to somewhere many are to nowhere. Most of the useful lines that connect major population centres in China were built some time ago. Like any infrastructure there are diminishing returns, and since we are talking about climate there are also enormous amounts of coal-powered electricity, steel, concrete, etc. required for these lines that carry few passengers.

I was listing a number of megaprojects that China is sinking money into rather than addressing its enormous use of coal. The reason why I made the point is because CCP apologists on this thread keep saying that China is a poor developing country that cannot afford to replace its coal reactors (or at least slow down construction of new ones), yet I believe China's vast budget for questionable mega projects begs to differ.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JHikka

China successfully debt-trapping Laos isn't an example of bad infrastructure policy - it's an example of smart foreign policy on behalf of China.

Whether or not it is good foreign policy, it is still money that China has at its disposal.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Whether or not it is good foreign policy, it is still money that China has at its disposal.

Gish gallop to a new talking point.

Cool. I don't think anybody disagrees that China should be pressured. I've said several times on here, that I'm down to join the Europeans and tariff them.

Now. You ready to move on? Or are you just going to continue insisting that climate change is all about China and that no other country needs to cut emissions?

Also, do you routinely label others you disagree with as "CCP apologists" or only when trying to push inaction on climate?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Whether or not it is good foreign policy, it is still money that China has at its disposal.

Originally Posted by accord1999

I support that people should be allowed to use energy based on their conscience and budget to enjoy life as they see fit.

.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

and meanwhile you are on record stating that people should use as much energy as they see fit.

FYI, that's not the same person ...

[Hackslack]

At least 70% of vehicle sales must be ZEVs to achieve Ottawa's emissions plan: report

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/at-least...port-1.1630972

What are the chances we get to 70% by 2030? Zero emissions vehicle sales comprised 3.5% of total vehicle sales in 2020

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

At least 70% of vehicle sales must be ZEVs to achieve Ottawa's emissions plan: report

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/at-least...port-1.1630972

What are the chances we get to 70% by 2030? Zero emissions vehicle sales comprised 3.5% of total vehicle sales in 2020

Hard to say, but very possible given the current price and volume trends.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

What are the chances we get to 70% by 2030?

Zero.

I expect 30-50% of sales to be ZEVs, by 2030.