Climate change could kill ice hockey in Canada

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

So you're saying to hell with future generations then because you don't want to sacrifice right now?

I'm often at quite a loss on whether people fully digest the consequences of inaction.

I suppose I could be a smug ass about it like you are. That will really reduce emissions and make a HUGE difference for my kids.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by photon

That may be true but that doesn't have any impact on the discussion on if something should be done, and should be evaluated not in a vacuum, but in the context of what will happen if they don't do anything (to not do so is a variation on the nirvana fallacy).

So (for example) some people suggest to buy local and/or organic food (I'm not saying that's valid or right in every circumstance, it's just an example). The additional cost of buying organic now has to be compared to the future increase in food prices (if any).

Not an easy comparison, but the universe doesn't care how easy something is.



There's tons of choices that an individual can make that helps that would make a huge difference if done in significant numbers, but I'm a pessimist that way and most people will just do what is easiest/cheapest/fastest.

So that's why I'm not necessarily against things like only having CFLs/LED lights available, or goverment standards for fuel economy (so instead of going from 200hp to 300hp in a sedan in 10 years maybe it stays at 200hp but goes from 10 to 7L/100km).

Pushing for more nuclear or retrofitting coal with NG would be a big step too.

Well if that's what it takes, then I'm already eco friendly and caring about future generations.

What I had in mind was more along the lines of carbon-tax in Australia etc., not stuff like buying local beef that doesn't need to be jet-flown from Argentina.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Not sure that's such a good idea given the Earth's decision to shift plates and cause a tsunami, which basically hosed Japan's health anyway. I might be one of the few that finds that ironic though.....

Again this is the nirvana fallacy, comparing nuclear to some magic energy source with zero impact on the environment and population rather than comparing it to the alternatives and their impacts.. compare it to the morbidity and deaths due to coal generation, or due to people having to use dung or wood to cook (tens of thousands of children in India die each year from this), etc.

So the extra 20 to 1000 deaths over the next 100 years due to the accident has to be compared to the deaths if all that electricity had been generated with coal.. that'd be 2000 to 1 million instead. Plus the future impact of global warming on food, land, war, etc (which are difficult to quantify of course).

And that's assuming that risks can't be further mitigated, which they can, in Japan if the generators hadn't been sitting out in the open to be drown it wouldn't have been as big an issue. And the reactors were well beyond their design life, with human decisions to extend rather than retire being a problem.

Plus there are reactor designs that could be far safer, including new ones like LFTR that may be able to be designed to be inherently safe (i.e. they shut down all by themselves if power is lost, through basic physics rather than a shutdown system). Other countries are starting to move on these kinds thankfully.

We'll never have an energy source that has zero impact, but we could have one that has less overall impact.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

So (for example) some people suggest to buy local and/or organic food (I'm not saying that's valid or right in every circumstance, it's just an example). The additional cost of buying organic now has to be compared to the future increase in food prices (if any).

Local or organic food tends to be a lot more expensive. Obviously if someone can find money in their budget they should absolutely buy locally grown food, but what about those people that can't afford it? At the end of the day, making sure the bills are paid becomes a priority over paying more for locally grown produce. And asking those people to start paying more for food, when they can get by paying less is rather ridiculous. Of course somehow I think Tinordi thinks they should still find a way.

There's tons of choices that an individual can make that helps that would make a huge difference if done in significant numbers, but I'm a pessimist that way and most people will just do what is easiest/cheapest/fastest.

Obviously simple things like heating/cooling with a brain, recycling, not leaving the lights on, etc, etc....these are all good choices. But at the end of the day how much difference do they make compared to the big coal plant down the road generating electricity?

So that's why I'm not necessarily against things like only having CFLs/LED lights available, or goverment standards for fuel economy (so instead of going from 200hp to 300hp in a sedan in 10 years maybe it stays at 200hp but goes from 10 to 7L/100km).

Again, these are sensible solutions. Because the cost of lighting your home with LEDs if rather minimal, more people will go for it. With time, LEDs will become more and more popular. I know a few companies who are building additions to their current building and they are considering using LEDs. Despite the additional cost, it pays off in the end. In the future, the price of LEDs will come down.

Pushing for more nuclear or retrofitting coal with NG would be a big step too.

The US had the lowest amount of C02 emissions in 20 years because of the cheap price of NG. Why? Because the private sector came up with a way to make all those reserves easily accessible. It didn't cost taxpayers billions in MORE taxes, nor did it stunt the growth of the economy or make someone lose their job. Hell, it increased growth. This is why so many people are skeptical when people like Tinordi jump on their soapbox and tell everyone they're screwed unless they agree with his smug, arrogant opinion....and CHANGE right now. Which is pretty funny because the only CHANGE Tinordi has talked about is a carbon tax. Not more nuclear, not better fuel emissions, more no-till farming, locally grown produce, cleaner burning coal plants, cleaner burning NG plants, MORE NG plants, LESS coal plants, MORE companies like Tesla, more wind power, more solar power, more investment into renewable energy like wind, hydro and solar to make them more efficient, stricter reclamation regulations in the oil sands, new ways for sewage disposal, continuous push to reduce GHG emissions from oil sands operations, cleaner burning fuel....and I could go on and on and on.

But no, its just agree with my carbon tax or we'll all die soon.

Hell, if you JUST want to focus on ONE thing, conventional tilling has, according to Wikipedia, led to the release of 78 billion metric tonnes of carbon that was trapped in the soil.

A bigger focus on no-till farming would make a HUGE difference RIGHT now. And the cost? It can actually benefit the farmer. But hey. CARBON TAX!!@!#!@#!

So excuse me if I take recommendations from people like Tinordi with a HUGE grain of salt. People will never believe the problem is as serious as HE says it is because there is absolutely no scientific evidence that proves it to 100% certainty. And on top of that, the common person in North America cannot make a difference, regardless of what they do. At this point, considering the situation in China(smog so bad they had to shut down coal plants)....regardless of what happens in NA, it won't make much of a difference.

That being said I do agree with most of the solutions you proposed and would find a way to push nuclear especially. Hell of a lot better idea than the CARBON TAX!!#@#!@#@ solution.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well that's exactly why a lot of it has to come from industry, or government regulation of industry.

The best thing for consumers though, is often to be more frugal, which of course helps save money too. Turn off the lights, waste less water, reuse stuff and don't purchase so much. Use more efficient appliances and vehicles. Some of those solutions also help drive industry change as they will cater to the consumer.

But it's also an understanding that if we want to fix the problems, we may have to pay more for power as we update or systems and supplies to more environmentally sound practices. Part of what has spoiled us in the first world is products that are so cheap they are not sustainable. We often put the burden on the developing nations. It will just have to be us being honest to ourselves in how we see ourselves in the system.

Manitoba generates the majority of its power from renewable sources and we pay less than most, so you can't exactly throw out the argument 'we have to pay more for power.' If Alberta and Canada in general invested in nuclear, power could be cheap and abundant.

Burden on developing nations? China emits more and more GHGs every year, while the US is apparently on the decline. What exactly is the Canadian government going to change that? How are we going to force China to focus more on their obvious problem and invest more in green electricity generation, since their coal plants are the biggest problem?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Not sure that's such a good idea given the Earth's decision to shift plates and cause a tsunami, which basically hosed Japan's health anyway. I might be one of the few that finds that ironic though.....

Are we expecting an earthquake in northern Alberta?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Again this is the nirvana fallacy, comparing nuclear to some magic energy source with zero impact on the environment and population rather than comparing it to the alternatives and their impacts.. compare it to the morbidity and deaths due to coal generation, or due to people having to use dung or wood to cook (tens of thousands of children in India die each year from this), etc.

So the extra 20 to 1000 deaths over the next 100 years due to the accident has to be compared to the deaths if all that electricity had been generated with coal.. that'd be 2000 to 1 million instead. Plus the future impact of global warming on food, land, war, etc (which are difficult to quantify of course).

And that's assuming that risks can't be further mitigated, which they can, in Japan if the generators hadn't been sitting out in the open to be drown it wouldn't have been as big an issue. And the reactors were well beyond their design life, with human decisions to extend rather than retire being a problem.

Plus there are reactor designs that could be far safer, including new ones like LFTR that may be able to be designed to be inherently safe (i.e. they shut down all by themselves if power is lost, through basic physics rather than a shutdown system). Other countries are starting to move on these kinds thankfully.

We'll never have an energy source that has zero impact, but we could have one that has less overall impact.

I have always looked at nuclear as a stop-gap solution to help us get through the next 200 years until we have something that has a damn near zero impact.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Local or organic food tends to be a lot more expensive. Obviously if someone can find money in their budget they should absolutely buy locally grown food, but what about those people that can't afford it? At the end of the day, making sure the bills are paid becomes a priority over paying more for locally grown produce. And asking those people to start paying more for food, when they can get by paying less is rather ridiculous.

It doesn't matter if they can't pay more now, physics doesn't care what people are capable of, and if the physics works out that that they either pay more now or pay a LOT more later then that's the way it is. I wasn't arguing that that specific example was true, just that that's the nature of decision that should be made.

As a species and society we aren't there though (i.e. we don't think of those terms, we think of the next few days or weeks or years if we're really lucky), and we might pay a large price as a result.

Originally Posted by Azure

Obviously simple things like heating/cooling with a brain, recycling, not leaving the lights on, etc, etc....these are all good choices. But at the end of the day how much difference do they make compared to the big coal plant down the road generating electricity?

Could be hugely significant I think. If the coal plant has to produce 50% of the electricity it used to due to increased efficiency of the loads, that's the same as retrofitting it with NG to make it produce the same electricity with 50% of emissions. Both would be even better!

In 2007 in the US using CFLs instead of incandescent saved enough electricity to power Washington, DC for 30 years. Or taking 2 million cars off the road, or like planting 2.85 million trees (in terms if GHG absorption).

So I think doing things on a country wide or global scale can have a big impact. But I agree we still have to think about generation as well as consumption.

Originally Posted by Azure

That being said I do agree with most of the solutions you proposed and would find a way to push nuclear especially. Hell of a lot better idea than the CARBON TAX!!#@#!@#@ solution.

I'm not convinced that a tax on something is that effective in changing behaviour anyway, but I'm not confident enough to comment one way or another.. but I'm not totally against a tax being part of the solution either in the right way.. aren't cars taxed in Europe based on displacement and/or # of cylinders? That's effectively a carbon tax, but one that would make the market place try to innovate around it (do more with less). Or even "cap and trade" I'm not against in principle (seemed to work with ozone depleting substances), there being a stock market or commodity market and they make money for investors is a virtue of a free market economy, but a GHG market is evil somehow...

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I have always looked at nuclear as a stop-gap solution to help us get through the next 200 years until we have something that has a damn near zero impact.

Which would be nice for sure, but if that zero impact thing never comes (fusion energy in 20 years, this time for sure), there's always lots of Thorium!

[Azure]

As for real solutions.

Wind Power is supposed to generate 11% of our electricity needs in Canada by 2020. No reason we can't push that to 15-20% over the next 20 years. Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario have some pretty windy places that can add a lot more capacity. I remember when the first wind mills were put up on Cowley Ridge in 1990. At that time we were talking about KW capacity. Now we're talking about MW capacity from a single windmill. Obviously they are not very efficient(10-20% at best), but in 20 years hopefully that will get better.

Usage of coal plants will drop in HALF from 2015 to 2030, while the usage of NG for electricity will DOUBLE. That is progress not even a carbon tax could create.

Natural Gas as a transportation fuel source is booming with the cheap price of NG, and with increased focus on heavy duty hauling switching to NG. Reduced emissions? Up to 25%. Apparently this is going crazy in the US right now.

Hydro-based generation capacity increases from 75 GW in 2010 to 87 GW in 2035.

Obviously solar isn't doing much, and probably never will in Canada. But the US is pushing it hard.

So its not like we're sitting around doing nothing. Obviously there is a lack of focus on nuclear, but thank the NIMBY crowd for that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

It doesn't matter if they can't pay more now, physics doesn't care what people are capable of, and if the physics works out that that they either pay more now or pay a LOT more later then that's the way it is. I wasn't arguing that that specific example was true, just that that's the nature of decision that should be made.

As a species and society we aren't there though (i.e. we don't think of those terms, we think of the next few days or weeks or years if we're really lucky), and we might pay a large price as a result.

You will never be able to use that argument to convince budget type families to pay more for one of their biggest expenses. I'm not saying I disagree, because locally grown produce is to me EXTREMELY important, and absolutely worth paying more for, but most families won't go for it.

Could be hugely significant I think. If the coal plant has to produce 50% of the electricity it used to due to increased efficiency of the loads, that's the same as retrofitting it with NG to make it produce the same electricity with 50% of emissions. Both would be even better!

In 2007 in the US using CFLs instead of incandescent saved enough electricity to power Washington, DC for 30 years. Or taking 2 million cars off the road, or like planting 2.85 million trees (in terms if GHG absorption).

So I think doing things on a country wide or global scale can have a big impact. But I agree we still have to think about generation as well as consumption.

Well you're talking about a complete city making a change overnight. Won't happen. Over 20 years? Absolutely. Time is apparently something we don't have according to Tinordi. I say we do. So hopefully in 20 years everyone will be using LEDs.

Converting to NG is going to make a huge difference. Canada will also see a noticeable reduction in GHG emissions because we're switching from coal to NG in huge numbers as well.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Manitoba generates the majority of its power from renewable sources and we pay less than most, so you can't exactly throw out the argument 'we have to pay more for power.' If Alberta and Canada in general invested in nuclear, power could be cheap and abundant.

Burden on developing nations? China emits more and more GHGs every year, while the US is apparently on the decline. What exactly is the Canadian government going to change that? How are we going to force China to focus more on their obvious problem and invest more in green electricity generation, since their coal plants are the biggest problem?

I just mean if international standards are created and enforced. Kinda tying it into being able to buy 12 tube socks for 2 dollars. The only reason we can get them so cheap is because it's built with slave labour. Perhaps it's time for us to realize we don't have to have a new phone every 2 years or a new TV every 6, or eat so much meat or buy so many socks. Just take better care of the ones we have. We are in effect avoiding our responsibilities. So eventually the same thing might go for energy, the reason it is so cheap is because we are avoiding our environmental responsibilities right now.

As far as nuclear power goes, I think a lot of the realistic thinking environmentalists to believe this is a route that needs to be explored. It's mostly the alarmists and reactionary ones that want it completely gone. I do think there is a future for it. We need to build even better safe guards, and finally figure out what to do wit the waste, a problem that in the 50's they thought we'd have solved by now, but I think it should be part of the plan.

[Mr.Coffee]

I think that if oil and gas companies were smart, and some are, they'd see the writing on the wall and start pouring a lot more money into R&D (and some, in fact, are walking this talk as I mentioned).

Imagine if oil and gas companies considered themselves as energy companies.

Diversification makes sense in this instance, in the long term, and particularly in North America. There will be a lucrative market in the mid-long term when energy substitutes become more economically feasible, and then you can brand and leverage your company as good guys.

Again, some companies appear to be doing this (Exxon, Shell). Strikes me that branching out from oil and gas exclusively makes sense and would be a natural capitalist progression with the added bonus that you can claim you are a decent corporate citizen.

[Daradon]

Imagine if oil and gas companies considered themselves as energy companies.

Basically verbatim of what I have been saying for years. Not saying you got it from me, just that I think it's a really important idea.

[Badger Bob]

From Jan. 9, 2009:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146091530566335.html

The chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp. for the first time called on Congress to enact a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions in order to fight global warming.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well you're talking about a complete city making a change overnight. Won't happen. Over 20 years? Absolutely.

No I meant that the change the US made in 2007 to CFLs (i.e. the people that did use CFLs in 2007 across the country compared to if those CFLs had been incandescent). So in just one year (2007) the country saved 30 years of Washington DC's total annual energy demand.

Originally Posted by Azure

Time is apparently something we don't have according to Tinordi. I say we do. So hopefully in 20 years everyone will be using LEDs.

Well I don't know if I necessarily disagree with him... Determining the cause of an observed phenomenon is one thing, projecting the consequences into the future is another, but I'm not sure if we're not already past a tipping point or if not if we will be able to change enough to avoid one.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Puppet Guy

I've always thought that street hockey is really the definitive Canadian sport anyways - not everyone knows how to skate, and everybody's played street hockey at least once.

What? This totally blows my image of "you people".

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Time is apparently something we don't have according to Tinordi. I say we do.

Based on your extensive scientific research or...a huntch?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Based on your extensive scientific research or...a huntch?

Azure's state is summarized in point four:



Flame of Liberty and Badger Bob are probably point 5.

Polak is probably point 3.

We're all archetypes!

[Tinordi]

Whole article is here, well worth the read:

http://grist.org/article/why-climate...-how-it-could/

1. Abstractness and cognitive complexity: Climate change is tough to understand. It “requires cold, cognitively demanding and ultimately relatively less motivating, moral reasoning.” People underestimate this. Very little that arrives in our worldview through a purely intellectual route ends up stirring the viscera.

2. The blamelessness of unintentional action: Nobody is heating the atmosphere on purpose. It is seen as an unintended side effect of other activities. And people treat intentional harms much more severely than they do unintentional harms. So “understanding climate change as an unintentional phenomenon with no single villain may decrease motivation to right past wrongs.”

3. Guilty bias: We’re all somewhat to blame for climate change. To avoid feeling guilt, shame, and regret over that, “individuals often engage in biased cognitive processes to minimize perceptions of their own complicity,” especially when “individuals and communities feel incapable of meaningfully responding behaviourally.”

4. Uncertainty breeds wishful thinking: It’s not clear exactly how climate change will play out, and “uncertainty about future outcomes generally increases self-oriented behaviour and … promotes optimistic biases.” When scientists communicate the probabilistic nature of climate impacts (for instance, through analogies like “loading the climate dice”), “recent research shows that individuals often misinterpret the intended messages … and tend to do so over-optimistically.”

5. Moral tribalism: Messaging about climate has tended to focus on liberal values (harms and unfairness) and disregard conservative values (loyalty, respect for authority, and purity/sanctity). As a result, many conservatives “have been left not just uninvolved in action on climate change, but morally hostile to it.”

6. Long time horizons and far away places: Victims of climate change are viewed as far away in space or time. “The consequence of this spatial and temporal distance is that victims of climate change are likely to be seen, at best, as relatively less similar to oneself than are nearby contemporaries, and at worst, as out-group members.” Climate victims are seen as Other, and you know how we tend to treat the Other.