The Climate Change Discussion Thread - Page 15

Hackslack · #**281** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

You're giving credit to companies making these innovations or changes, but none to the environment I'm which they exist. If there was no current or future possibility of fossil fuels not being in demand so much, then there would be no reason for companies to develop beyond fossil fuels.

You mentioned carbon capture. Think about how a company monetizes that - it cannot possibly be done at scale without government subsidy, which means carbon pricing.

No, it does not have to be carbon pricing. Case in point, something I’ve suggested, which Trudeau said yesterday, all government generated revenue from the TMX project will be invested into green energy. The same can be used with private capital projects, all government revenue can be invested into green projects, completely diverting any need for CO2 tax. Rather, leveraging CO2 producing project to invest in green energy.

Hackslack · #**282** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are you kidding? Do you not think these companies see the global focus of things like the Paris accord, carbon taxes, cap and trade, etc? It's all creating a market for carbon.

Who's going to pay for that? Libertarians? No, this requires national and international markets (ie. CARBON PRICING).

INTENRATIONAL MARKETS! Great, I’m on board if everyone is one the same playing field. But they are not and never will be. Carbon pricing in Canada alone is a complete waste and do absolutely nothing.

milomilo · #**283** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 5:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack

No, it does not have to be carbon pricing. Case in point, something I’ve suggested, which Trudeau said yesterday, all government generated revenue from the TMX project will be invested into green energy. The same can be used with private capital projects, all government revenue can be invested into green projects, completely diverting any need for CO2 tax. Rather, leveraging CO2 producing project to invest in green energy.

So you do want government subsidy? What is the most logical way to allocate the subsidy? Probably proportionate to the amount of CO2 reduction, right?

WarrenC12 · #**284** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack

No, it does not have to be carbon pricing. Case in point, something I’ve suggested, which Trudeau said yesterday, all government generated revenue from the TMX project will be invested into green energy. The same can be used with private capital projects, all government revenue can be invested into green projects, completely diverting any need for CO2 tax. Rather, leveraging CO2 producing project to invest in green energy.

So that's taking public money and directing towards solving carbon emissions, and taking it away from schools and hospitals? That's better?

Hint: They are both the same thing. Whether you think taxes should be increased, or other services decreased.

WarrenC12 · #**285** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack

INTENRATIONAL MARKETS! Great, I’m on board if everyone is one the same playing field. But they are not and never will be. Carbon pricing in Canada alone is a complete waste and do absolutely nothing.

I'm sure you know that Quebec (and previously Ontario) participated in an international cap and trade market right?

Edit: more detail on markets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissi...rading_systems

Hackslack · #**286** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So that's taking public money and directing towards solving carbon emissions, and taking it away from schools and hospitals? That's better?

Hint: They are both the same thing. Whether you think taxes should be increased, or other services decreased.

No it’s not the same whatsoever... one is completing blocking billion dollar pipeline projects which does more harm to the environment than good, or approving billion dollar pipeline projects and leveraging revenue to green energy.

Block the pipeline and get nothing, or approve the pipeline to help transition to green economy... hmm wtf is the best decision for everyone and the environment.

Hackslack · #**287** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm sure you know that Quebec (and previously Ontario) participated in an international cap and trade market right?

Edit: more detail on markets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissi...rading_systems

Absolutely, and how has that gone for the environment?

milomilo · #**288** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack

No it’s not the same whatsoever... one is completing blocking billion dollar pipeline projects which does more harm to the environment than good, or approving billion dollar pipeline projects and leveraging revenue to green energy.

Block the pipeline and get nothing, or approve the pipeline to help transition to green economy... hmm wtf is the best decision for everyone and the environment.

How is a carbon price equivalent to blocking pipelines?

milomilo · #**289** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Absolutely, and how has that gone for the environment?

The emissions of those provinces decreased.

Hackslack · #**290** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

How is a carbon price equivalent to blocking pipelines?

I’m not saying they are he same. I’m saying Blocking a pipeline is blocking any chance we get from foreign capital that can be invested in green energy. Carbon pricing is taxing the individual, and giving it to other individuals. Makes my for more costly standard of living that does nothing to improve the environment.

Hackslack · #**291** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

The emissions of those provinces decreased.

good for them to feel like they accomplished something, but all they did was just reallocate those emmisons to other parts of the world.

Eau Claire · #**292** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 6:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Might want to check your reading comprehension again, this is in the short article, hard to miss:

Quote:

On average, the Arctic is warming two to three times faster than the rest of the world with climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.

So, this is how you're convincing me more and more that you're a fake. That line has nothing to do with the pictures or information in the article, and they never claimed that it did. Ice has melted in the spring since the beginning of time, and short hot spells in spring are very common as well. The CBC, as is their wont in recent years, is trying to trick the casual reader into making an association by putting the two together, when they themselves have made none. You, however, have picked out this line and are holding it up as proof of something even the CBC didn't connect it to. Which is pretty lame so say the least.

WarrenC12 · #**293** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 6:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack

No it’s not the same whatsoever... one is completing blocking billion dollar pipeline projects which does more harm to the environment than good, or approving billion dollar pipeline projects and leveraging revenue to green energy.

Block the pipeline and get nothing, or approve the pipeline to help transition to green economy... hmm wtf is the best decision for everyone and the environment.

What is blocking pipelines? We're talking about carbon taxes, government subsidies for green projects, and innovation.

WarrenC12 · #**294** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hackslack

good for them to feel like they accomplished something, but all they did was just reallocate those emmisons to other parts of the world.

Prove that.

California's emission standards for vehicles have pushed the entire industry.

Eau Claire · #**295** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 6:44 PM**

Taxes are neither inherently good nor bad. Remember that you can’t have a democracy without taxes. The question is, what is a good tax and what is a bad tax? Or taken a step further, which jobs are best handled by the private sector, and which are best handled by the government? So you have to think about it and come up with an argument for why something should be done one way or the other, or a combination of both. W.r.t. a gas tax, you wouldn’t want it to be onerous, because stifling the economy is not good for people or the environment. We need a healthy economy to pay for the innovation that will solve the environmental problems. However, a modest and appropriately applied gas tax could be a very good thing. It could help grow an industry or industries here – i.e. new nuclear, both kinds of carbon capture, various CO2 utilization technologies – that could pay us back, and a little bit of altruistic charity is not a bad thing either. This is part of who we are as people and what we value. A small carbon tax at the pumps in order to fund carbon farming in third world countries, for example, is something I think most people would accept. I don’t think Notley’s carbon tax was really a big issue in Alberta, for another example. I think people were just so frustrated by the pipeline issue that they voted for the tough talking Kenny hoping that he’d be able to do something different to get things going.

milomilo · #**296** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 11:36 PM**

So the Cons released their climate plan, and as suspected it's a hodge podge of poorly thought out subsidies to a handful of causes, with pseudo carbon taxes on large emitters. Precisely the opposite of what a business friendly government that believes in the free market should do. The Conservatives are not conservative - this plan indicates they prefer a larger, more authoritarian government with more red tape.

lio45 · #**297** Posted **Jun 20, 2019, 12:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eau Claire

Any chemists here? Here's another potential way to use CO2.

I'm a physicist, which is even better than a chemist (that's well known

), but you're hell-bent on ignoring me so I'm not going to waste any time analyzing anything to give you my opinion.

milomilo · #**298** Posted **Jun 20, 2019, 12:56 AM**

I have a chemistry degree, I'd hesitate to call myself a chemist though (not that it stops other so called experts misusing their titles...).

Chemistry, physics, it's not the science that is the problem. It's the economics - all the solutions cost money. I'm pretty sure the horse I'm beating is a bloody mess on the ground by now, but we need a mechanism to pay for those solutions otherwise they are useless.

Eau Claire · #**299** Posted **Jun 21, 2019, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

I have a chemistry degree, I'd hesitate to call myself a chemist though (not that it stops other so called experts misusing their titles...).

Chemistry, physics, it's not the science that is the problem. It's the economics - all the solutions cost money. I'm pretty sure the horse I'm beating is a bloody mess on the ground by now, but we need a mechanism to pay for those solutions otherwise they are useless.

I think that's part of my question. How much of a subsidy would it take to make this a viable industry?

Eau Claire · #**300** Posted **Jun 21, 2019, 6:32 PM**

This is probably a small one, but it shows the diversity of ideas that are out there.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...lity-1.5169542
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/winds...ness-1.5072665