deGrasse Tyson & Nye on Climate Change

[troutman]

Interesting. The world should be paying us for absorbing their carbon!

[AltaGuy]

Hey, we worked hard for our carbon neutrality! Leave us alone!

[photon]

What if the methane being released by thawing permafrost offsets that and more?

In principle I don't think I would want secondary effects, feedback loops, etc that impact the global system but happen to fall in one country or another not to count for or against that country alone just by random happenstance of geographical location.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by photon

What if the methane being released by thawing permafrost offsets that and more?

In principle I don't think I would want secondary effects, feedback loops, etc that impact the global system but happen to fall in one country or another not to count for or against that country alone just by random happenstance of geographical location.

Take a country like Brazil. If they protect their rain forests, their is an economic impact for that. Should they not receive some benefit for sacrificing that benefit for the benefit of the rest of the planet? Such as the ability to trade that off for resource development? In which case the carbon market should absolutely take that into account. It's a global balance sheet, and it is not jsut emmisions that have an effect on CO2 concentrations. We should be acknowledging, not ignoring that. But I'm sure that goes wildly against the "green" agendas that care so little about reality.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Take a country like Brazil. If they protect their rain forests, their is an economic impact for that. Should they not receive some benefit for sacrificing that benefit for the benefit of the rest of the planet? Such as the ability to trade that off for resource development? In which case the carbon market should absolutely take that into account. It's a global balance sheet, and it is not jsut emmisions that have an effect on CO2 concentrations. We should be acknowledging, not ignoring that. But I'm sure that goes wildly against the "green" agendas that care so little about reality.

Yeah, because we'll all be happily paying for a massive permafrost melt in Canada in a few decades like Photon said (at 30x the cost for methane). I don't think your criticism of "green" agendas masks your own very well.

[Fuzz]

No, you're right. Throw logic and science away, shut society down.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No, you're right. Throw logic and science away, shut society down.

I didn't even realize I was doing that. Point taken!

[photon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Take a country like Brazil. If they protect their rain forests, their is an economic impact for that. Should they not receive some benefit for sacrificing that benefit for the benefit of the rest of the planet?

Fair point. To some degree sure, but it's not like having the rain forests to being with was under their control. Should the reward for not taking negative actions to protect an existing advantage/benefit/resource be the same as taking positive actions?

Canadians didn't plant all them trees.

With the permafrost example, it's almost completely out of our control and dictated by what the rest of the planet does, it's part of a feedback loop. I don't think Canada should be penalized for that. Imagine if the permafrost methane effect was greater than all of the human produced CO2 in Canada, we can't go to zero!

But I see your point.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But I'm sure that goes wildly against the "green" agendas that care so little about reality.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[Fuzz]

What I'm saying is green agendas often get in the way of helping. Nuclear, which, while it has it's own issues, would really help with CO2 reductions, but for most greens it is a non-starter. An LNG plant exporting cleaner fuel to Asia would help reduce CO2 emmisions by replacing coal. But again, a non-starter for them. No discussions, no science based decisions, just nope nope nope.

[photon]

I see, yeah definitely can happen, the nuclear example is also a pet peeve of mine.

I don't think that's a problem with "greens" though, that's just a problem with the human brain, why we're susceptible to ideologies and have trouble changing our preconceptions. People can't abide uncertainty and many of these things are far too complex to understand without spending a lifetime dedicated to one small chunk let alone understanding the whole.

[Fuzz]

As for the methane/sinks discussion, I see your point, and perhaps we should separate processes beyond our control. So cutting down a forest=bad. Planting a forest=good. There is a net CO2 benefit by not cutting down forests, but there is also an economic impact for making that decision. The same as their is for leaving oil in the ground. Trees and oil are both resources, and both affect the CO2 balance.

Heck, they just discovered global Hydro reservoirs are a bigger source of CO2 emmisions than all of Canada. So, for instance, should the site C dam get a free ride? So you see, I'm saying we need to look at all aspects, see what the net changes are and approach them accordingly.

[Fuzz]

Oh, and the methane "bomb" may not be the issue it is made out to be. Obviously a lot of work to be done on this one.

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...arming-planet/

[photon]

Yup, agree.

I always used to use the example of when they have the Earth Day lights out thing, in Ontario electricity is generally from hydro and heating from fuel oil, so turning off all the lights in an office building and losing the heating effect from those lights resulted in more fuel oil being used, which erg for erg probably is dirtier than hydro. Turning off the lights made it worse

Now with the news about hydro reservoirs I have to rethink my example lol.

[accord1999]

Ontario electricity is primarily nuclear which is also low CO2. But don't worry, many environmentalists hate it too.

[Fuzz]

Ontario had a bunch of coal too, but they killed that off. They could have had some natural gas to help with base load, but blew that royally and now have the highest rates in North America. Which might be a good lesson for Alberta....

https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/f...america-354726

[Knalus]

The big thing that was just touched on by the article about absorption of atmospheric carbon, is the question of what plants and ecosystems do the best job of removing CO2 from the atmosphere? Can we encourage increased absorption and/or protect the best absorption areas?

This issue is probably the single biggest possible way that Alberta in particular can help with CO2 emissions. People have, often, mentioned that our contributions to the global CO2 balance sheet are minuscule, and they are technically correct, but the percent of land area that Alberta has is NOT minuscule. Especially when you can take Alberta's learnings and multiply it by the area of Canada. If we want to be serious about Climate Change, then we should be actually serious about it, and learn everything we can.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Knalus

The big thing that was just touched on by the article about absorption of atmospheric carbon, is the question of what plants and ecosystems do the best job of removing CO2 from the atmosphere? Can we encourage increased absorption and/or protect the best absorption areas?

This issue is probably the single biggest possible way that Alberta in particular can help with CO2 emissions. People have, often, mentioned that our contributions to the global CO2 balance sheet are minuscule, and they are technically correct, but the percent of land area that Alberta has is NOT minuscule. Especially when you can take Alberta's learnings and multiply it by the area of Canada. If we want to be serious about Climate Change, then we should be actually serious about it, and learn everything we can.

Yeah.. but that is all released again with a forest fire or when the tree's decay. So it is not necessarily going increase the amount of carbon absorbed.

I think innovating carbon sinks that can be placed strategically would be better. But that does not solve the Methane issue really.

[Fuzz]

Wood grown specifically for construction can be life cycle managed to keep the CO2 sequestered. Once in place in a home, it's probably stable for 50-100 years. As long as it isn't burned, or left to rot exposed to atmosphere it isn't going to be a hazardous release.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Hes

Yeah.. but that is all released again with a forest fire or when the tree's decay. So it is not necessarily going increase the amount of carbon absorbed.

I think innovating carbon sinks that can be placed strategically would be better. But that does not solve the Methane issue really.

Yeah - but also realize that the biggest increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 100 years have been due to deforestation. A solution doesn't have to be completely and utterly permanent in order to be a solution. In a healthy forest, fires and dying trees get replaced with new growth and new trees. If only 10% of the trees carbon remains in the ground, and new trees are added to the forest, then that's a big win for removal of atmospheric CO2.

Besides, that argument sounds like my argument as to why I don't want to do dishes - they just keep getting dirty again.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Wood grown specifically for construction can be life cycle managed to keep the CO2 sequestered. Once in place in a home, it's probably stable for 50-100 years. As long as it isn't burned, or left to rot exposed to atmosphere it isn't going to be a hazardous release.

Wouldn't it be nice to just build our way out of a climate disaster.