Climate change and human responsibility

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Leondros

That is why I believe the targets will not be reached, so we better have a plan B which includes mitigating against climate change and do our best to lower emissions while beating the clock for technology to save us. Humans are pretty good at developing technology when we all work together, look at the COVID vaccine.

This is quite literally what the IPCC recommendations are. Your plan B is the world plan A. Lowering emissions and working on mitigation. Mitigation is, and will be, not optional.

[Mathgod]

@Leondros I can pretty much guarantee that your videos don't address the things that were said in the one I posted.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sure, fine, but the reality is we are going to miss those targets by a long shot. I wouldn't be surprised if global CO2 emissions are higher in 2030 than today.

You’re probably right because people and therefore politicians aren’t willing to do (and don’t really understand) what’s necessary to meet them. We don’t agree that it’s impossible but it’s unlikely in reality. So now what?

I feel like there’s an unstated sentiment among some posters that we can’t make it therefore it’s ridiculous to try, just keep pumping out more fossil fuels. IMO we should say no expansion of oil production, the stuff we need to burn less of. Increase gas production, solely for export to offset coal. Freeze our current domestic hydrocarbon consumption, any new demand to be made up by conservation elsewhere. Reduce the domestic hydrocarbon budget over time by caps or tax, replacement technologies and efficiencies paid for in part by the significantly lower lifecycle costs of electric vehicles, furnaces, etc.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by edslunch

You’re probably right because people and therefore politicians aren’t willing to do (and don’t really understand) what’s necessary to meet them. We don’t agree that it’s impossible but it’s unlikely in reality. So now what?

I feel like there’s an unstated sentiment among some posters that we can’t make it therefore it’s ridiculous to try, just keep pumping out more fossil fuels. IMO we should say no expansion of oil production, the stuff we need to burn less of. Increase gas production, solely for export to offset coal. Freeze our current domestic hydrocarbon consumption, any new demand to be made up by conservation elsewhere. Reduce the domestic hydrocarbon budget over time by caps or tax, replacement technologies and efficiencies paid for in part by the significantly lower lifecycle costs of electric vehicles, furnaces, etc.

*Keep pumping out fossil fuels until alternatives can replace it. I do not share the sentiment not to try, on the contrary, I want to see us to our do the best we possibly can - for my children's sake.

Having said that, the required alternatives do not currently exist nor can our electric grids currently support them even if they did exist. Will we get there? I certainly think we will in the future. Last week I listened to Phillipe Laffont at a conference and some of the portfolio companies he is working with are really exciting - specifically around EVs, batteries and AI. We will get there but the technology is not there currently - probably a decade away minimum from meaningful impact. Until then all we can do is keep driving forward with what we have.

If we were to cap our oil investment now (production virtually is capped because most capital programs are around maintaining production versus growing it) we will run into the problems we are seeing Western Europe. We have an increasing population due to immigration (one of the highest rates per population of any country in the world) and with that comes energy requirements. If I told you tomorrow that to get anywhere it will cost you 10x the amount or to heat your home or deliver groceries? You think inflation is bad now, wait till we price out the middle class from basic necessities.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Leondros

*Keep pumping out fossil fuels until alternatives can replace it. I do not share the sentiment not to try, on the contrary, I want to see us to our do the best we possibly can - for my children's sake.

Having said that, the required alternatives do not currently exist nor can our electric grids currently support them even if they did exist. Will we get there? I certainly think we will in the future. Last week I listened to Phillipe Laffont at a conference and some of the portfolio companies he is working with are really exciting - specifically around EVs, batteries and AI. We will get there but the technology is not there currently - probably a decade away minimum from meaningful impact. Until then all we can do is keep driving forward with what we have.

If we were to cap our oil investment now (production virtually is capped because most capital programs are around maintaining production versus growing it) we will run into the problems we are seeing Western Europe. We have an increasing population due to immigration (one of the highest rates per population of any country in the world) and with that comes energy requirements. If I told you tomorrow that to get anywhere it will cost you 10x the amount or to heat your home or deliver groceries? You think inflation is bad now, wait till we price out the middle class from basic necessities.

If we can’t even cover our own population growth with current emissions, let alone reducing them, then we are well and truly screwed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by b1crunch

I work in a rural town that had many workers who are employed in a coal mine/plant. They're deeply upset with the transition away from coal in this province. They express the exact same things you are expressing about fossil fuels.

Cross training coal workers to work in a fast growing renewables sector has been extremely successful.

But many might have to move to where the work is going to be.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I really disagree and refuse to say "it's too hard so we can't/won't do it". I'm not saying it's a shoe in or going to be easy, but thankfully we're seeing people start to see what's actually staring us in the face and taking action. Individual actions aren't going to get us there but governmental policies will. The conservatives in Britain may be racist and whatever else, but even they are trying hard to get to net zero by 2050.

As I've said earlier, things are happening fast that most aren't noticing. Who in Alberta knows that they've become the wind/solar capital of Canada? The amount of growth now and what's planned is staggering. China is building more coal power now, but they're also growing renewables at an exponential pace and it's intentional. The UK is seeing massive growth in zero carbon electricity in the last 7 years, imagine what 30 years can do?


I don't believe it's inevitable at all

I don't think you understand.

China IS building a massive amount of solar capacity, and it has done effectively NOTHING to reduce their demand on coal. Now they are going full steam ahead building out more coal capacity. That means from here on out emissions are going to get worse.

At the same time every single developing nation who needs to address their energy demands is going to build coal capacity simply because we all screwed up and didn't make natural gas cheap and readily available, and that includes the resources and infrastructure to build the plants, including signing agreements with the developing world to help them. Who do you think is filling that role right now? China. What do you think China is going to push? Coal.

The way I see it, around 2005 the world needed to shift massively in the direction of natural gas in order to now be at the point where coal usage is significantly reduced, and all developing nations are on the natural gas train. The US managed to cut their emissions 20% since 2005, but at the same time the rest of the world sat on their ass and thought going 'green' was the way out, and overall emissions have increased 51%. If the US is capable of reducing their emissions 20%, all other 1st world nations were as well. How many did? At the same time Europe should have made sure they had their #### together and weren't dependent on Russian gas. For obvious reasons, but also because the transition to natural gas is largely dependent on one big thing. It being cheap. And in order for it to be cheap, every single country which has gas resources, needs to be extracting it.

And lastly, exporting LNG to Asia should have been #1 on our list of things to do since 2001 in order to meet growing demand and help them reduce their emissions. But instead Canada has done what Canada does best. Nothing.

You are right about one thing. If modelling is correct, we are doomed.

The only way out of this was for rich, developed nations to lead the charge, and Canada is one of those countries, if not one of the top 3 countries in the world who should have taken charge. We didn't, and there is no way out of this mess now in the short term.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think you understand.

China IS building a massive amount of solar capacity, and it has done effectively NOTHING to reduce their demand on coal. Now they are going full steam ahead building out more coal capacity. That means from here on out emissions are going to get worse.

At the same time every single developing nation who needs to address their energy demands is going to build coal capacity simply because we all screwed up and didn't make natural gas cheap and readily available, and that includes the resources and infrastructure to build the plants, including signing agreements with the developing world to help them. Who do you think is filling that role right now? China. What do you think China is going to push? Coal.

The way I see it, around 2005 the world needed to shift massively in the direction of natural gas in order to now be at the point where coal usage is significantly reduced, and all developing nations are on the natural gas train. The US managed to cut their emissions 20% since 2005, but at the same time the rest of the world sat on their ass and thought going 'green' was the way out, and overall emissions have increased 51%. If the US is capable of reducing their emissions 20%, all other 1st world nations were as well. How many did? At the same time Europe should have made sure they had their #### together and weren't dependent on Russian gas. For obvious reasons, but also because the transition to natural gas is largely dependent on one big thing. It being cheap. And in order for it to be cheap, every single country which has gas resources, needs to be extracting it.

And lastly, exporting LNG to Asia should have been #1 on our list of things to do since 2001 in order to meet growing demand and help them reduce their emissions. But instead Canada has done what Canada does best. Nothing.

You are right about one thing. If modelling is correct, we are doomed.

The only way out of this was for rich, developed nations to lead the charge, and Canada is one of those countries, if not one of the top 3 countries in the world who should have taken charge. We didn't, and there is no way out of this mess now in the short term.

What do you think I don't understand?

China is a developing nation and needs massive amounts of energy as we use almost 3x as much electricity per capita. That build out isn't going to go on forever. Lots of the coal capacity China is building will not be used either. China has said their coal peak will be 2025, so it's not like this is unexpected or unplanned. We all want them to stop, but the impact on their economy would be much harder than it was for us. Having said that, of course we'd like that sooner. I'm not sure how that diminishes the amazing growth we're seeing in renewables. It's an exponential growth and we're at the beginning, but doubling every 2.5-3 years and the projections keep getting revised up. It's wonderful news and I don't understand why some people want to be so negative. Their 5 year plans get constantly revised up for renewables and they expect 33% of their electricity mix to be at 33% by 2025 even while already adding a million city buses and millions of light duty vehicles to the grid. How is that not good news? Many things can be simultaneously true so I don't know why I don't understand how terrible things are when I'm aware of the facts

[Azure]

You are literally suggesting fossil fuels should be phased out in the next 30 years.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The issue is that phase out of fossil fuels in 30 years is a requirement. If we don't, billions of lives are at stake [I]forever[I], and you can't undo the damage. You keep saying that phasing out fossil fuels will kill more than climate change, but I think there's zero studies to back that up.

The whole point is we have to figure out the way because there is no alternative and that's what we're in the middle of. It's not impossible, you might not be able to see it now, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think you are massively underestimating human ingenuity. There's good strides being made already and I'm quite optimistic we can do it. I really don't think people here are grasping the humanitarian costs of the climate change that's already baked in, nor the absolute devastating effects of >2°. Potentially hundreds of millions or even billions of refugees who cannot live where they were. That alone is bigger than phasing out fossil fuels over 30 years

This shows to me you do not understand.

China, India & others are investing billions into coal, and coal production worldwide is heading towards an all time high, with likely another high point in 2023.

This is quite clearly in direct response to the fact that solar & renewables are clearly not capable of meeting demand in emerging economies, and natural gas is not available to fill the gap.

You simply cannot approach this issue thinking the solution is to phase out fossil fuels. The GOAL is to reduce emissions, and the ONLY way to do that in the next 30 years is to increase natural gas production like frickin' madmen to stop the lunacy happening with coal production in China, India & other countries.

20 years ago it would have been an option to invest into 10-15 year nuclear plant build outs. Not anymore.

What you are not understanding is the western world's stupidity with not allowing natural gas production to go bloody full steam ahead has literally equalled more coal production in the rest of the world, and every project that has been mothballed or shutdown by the greenie purists has just increased coal production even more.

As soon as everything became about being anti-fossil fuel, and not about actually reducing emissions worldwide, it became quite clear that we are pretty much screwed over.

[b1crunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Cross training coal workers to work in a fast growing renewables sector has been extremely successful.

But many might have to move to where the work is going to be.

I'm not saying oil and gas should be phased out, because I honestly am not informed enough on the topic to make a sound argument.


But couldn't what you argued for the coal workers in my town also be true of the oil and gas industry and its workers? (When it does eventually get phased out to some degree in 30/50/100+ years?)

[Azure]

It is like the vehicle argument.

Lots of auto workers have gotten let go over the years as production shifted elsewhere. However if Canada plays its cards right, we should be able to capture a big part of the EV market, which would employ all those people again.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Azure

20 years ago it would have been an option to invest into 10-15 year nuclear plant build outs. Not anymore.

The best time to build nuclear power plants may have been decades ago, but the second best time is still now. Yeah, they take a long time to build, but our global energy needs are not going down, so we might as well get building now. In 10 years, nuclear will still be a more reliable and efficient form of baseload energy than wind/solar.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Table 5

10 years and forever moving forward, nuclear will still be a more reliable and efficient form of baseload energy than wind/solar.

Fyp

[Table 5]

I was trying to remain diplomatic to the renewable crowd, but generally agreed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The best time to build nuclear power plants may have been decades ago, but the second best time is still now. Yeah, they take a long time to build, but our global energy needs are not going down, so we might as well get building now. In 10 years, nuclear will still be a more reliable and efficient form of baseload energy than wind/solar.

That is true, and long-term if done properly nuclear will still be reliable.

My only issue is that 10 years from now solar & wind will be even cheaper.

Nuclear is super expensive and a tough sell in the current climate.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The best time to build nuclear power plants may have been decades ago, but the second best time is still now. Yeah, they take a long time to build, but our global energy needs are not going down, so we might as well get building now. In 10 years, nuclear will still be a more reliable and efficient form of baseload energy than wind/solar.

This is all a political issue, nothing more. The military can spin up small (250-500MW reactors for ships and subs quickly without the inane amount of red tape. Military bases are now being converted over to micro-reactors in the 10MW range. These fit on the bed of a semi-tractor trailer and can be run in series, depending on the size of the base and the energy needs. The similar technology is being talked about for domestic use and can be put into play quickly and affordably. This is where the politics comes into play. The tech is there as is the need, but the public has had their brains poisoned by lobbying and fear campaigns resulting in a NIMBY state. We get past that BS and we should be able to roll with nuclear much quicker than many consider.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Azure

That is true, and long-term if done properly nuclear will still be reliable.

My only issue is that 10 years from now solar & wind will be even cheaper.

Nuclear is super expensive and a tough sell in the current climate.

This is where I get frustrated - if we want cheap coal and oil/gas are the answer. But the minute we put a lens of environmental impact into the equation it should alleviate the higher cost. This is going to be a costly process. If people can't get past this fact and are going to protest higher energy costs at every turn we don't stand a chance.

[Azure]

But the NIMBY crowd is not going to move past the supposed fear of what nuclear is, which has driven up the cost by itself.

Lanny is correct. The military has the mandate and political power to run nuclear, and they run it super well & without issue. The fact that we can't do that in the civilian world is not about the 'actual' cost, but because of political stupidity.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Azure

You are literally suggesting fossil fuels should be phased out in the next 30 years.

This shows to me you do not understand.

China, India & others are investing billions into coal, and coal production worldwide is heading towards an all time high, with likely another high point in 2023.

This is quite clearly in direct response to the fact that solar & renewables are clearly not capable of meeting demand in emerging economies, and natural gas is not available to fill the gap.

You simply cannot approach this issue thinking the solution is to phase out fossil fuels. The GOAL is to reduce emissions, and the ONLY way to do that in the next 30 years is to increase natural gas production like frickin' madmen to stop the lunacy happening with coal production in China, India & other countries.

20 years ago it would have been an option to invest into 10-15 year nuclear plant build outs. Not anymore.

What you are not understanding is the western world's stupidity with not allowing natural gas production to go bloody full steam ahead has literally equalled more coal production in the rest of the world, and every project that has been mothballed or shutdown by the greenie purists has just increased coal production even more.

As soon as everything became about being anti-fossil fuel, and not about actually reducing emissions worldwide, it became quite clear that we are pretty much screwed over.

You continue to argue that fossil fuels can't be phased out in 30 years, and that the only option for reducing CO2 emmissions is to try and have NG replace coal worldwide as quickly as possible. However, you haven't proven this to be the case. The billions that are being poured into coal is because those countries anticipate a massive return on their investment in the next 10-15 years. It is not an indictment on how much progress renewables will make over the next 30 years, nor does it mean the world can't be net-zero by 2050.

If we achieve it, nuclear will play an important role. No denying that.

[Leondros]

What a ridiculous piece by Politico... Ranking Putin as the most influential person impact Europe's green agenda. What a joke!

https://www.politico.eu/list/green-2...ladimir-putin/

By invading Ukraine and manipulating energy supplies to undermine European support for Kyiv, Russian President Vladimir Putin has achieved something generations of green campaigners could not — clean energy is now a fundamental matter of European security.

The political response from the EU was swift: Within weeks of the February 24 invasion, a plan was sketched out aimed at unhooking the Continent’s energy ties from Moscow. It leaned on three pillars: cutting oil, gas and coal supplies from Russia; getting gas and other fossil fuels from elsewhere; and massively speeding up the roll out of renewable power and energy saving measures.

“Renewables give us the freedom to choose an energy source that is clean, cheap, reliable, and ours,” EU Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans said less than two weeks after Putin’s tanks rolled in.

Seven months on, a POLITICO survey of data on clean energy, energy savings and policies shows that the first signs of that green surge are appearing. Analysts are in little doubt that the change is structural, permanent and historic.

“We will look back at this situation in 10 years time and see, OK, that was the moment where we really got serious about the green transition and we really had the big green acceleration,” said Simone Tagliapietra, a research fellow at the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel.