Climate change and human responsibility

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

And all you do is stick your head in the sand in the hope that everyone will believe you when you say fossil fuels have to go.



Hint - fossil fuels will still be around 100 years from now. Likely thriving.



What do you think it takes to make those fancy solar panels you think will save the world? Farts and unicorns?

Fossil fuels =/= oil and gas. Plastics and chemicals may continue on indefinitely, but we better not be burning it still in 100 years or we're f'd

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by Julio

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...t-newtab-en-us

Very interesting article, thank you.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Nope. Just pointing out your tendencies.

All you do on this board is rant on and on about how LNG is some kind of panacea to climate change and it would magically solve everything if we shipped it out to the world.

This isn't fair.

I'm in Azure's camp, meaning that the conversation needs to be about the mid-transition. That energy source is absolutely LNG.

Neither Azure, nor I am arguing that net zero is not the ultimate target. The debate is how and at what cost.

Alberta will be off coal by Q2 2024 (Capital Power is behind schedule), well ahead of plan. There are new SAGD projects going into service next year that will dramatically lower the emissions of bitumen extraction. Suncor is repowering some of their sites from essentially burning bunker fuel, to lower intensity gas.

Things are moving in the right direction. It would be helpful if you'd remove your rose coloured glasses and recognize that.

The behaviour you exhibit only emboldens the far right and which is all too supportive of our Premier pulling the stunts that she did in the electricity file.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Julio

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...t-newtab-en-us

VPPs are just one way that "baseload" is not necessarily going to be the same in the future. Yes, there will be predictive loads (hospitals, some industry, etc) but with distributed assets and flexible loads we will see the transition to renewables much easier than now even without large grid storage.

Northern inland climates like Alberta will always be a bit tough because the seasons are quite pronounced and the temperature varies a lot, but for most of the population of the world, responding to price signals will give a lot of flexibility for the grid. Right now grid operators need to run with all kinds of safety margins because it's a bit of a guess work with renewables as you can't turn it up or down when you need to. Add in hundreds of thousands of individual inputs and outputs on the grid with distributed stuff and your begin to see why grid operators and utilities don't like the idea of everyone having solar and a battery. The good news is there are companies using large AI resources to find ways to manage grids with high penetrations of distributed resources like: https://www.camus.energy/ .

As for overloaded distribution with high penetration distributed renewables and storage, this is where we're going to have to start using "smart" assets to manage the lower voltage systems or it's going to be a complete nightmare. It can be done, but it's going to require institutional re-learning. Traditionally, utilities needed to be slow moving and made large infrastructure plans from a top down model. When things become less predictable, you necessarily will have to start being more nimble and using new technologies to control ever more unpredictable power flows. I found this Dutch thread really enlightening (the translated version is pretty good):

https://twitter.com/user/status/1728427333491761474
Holland has some of the highest distributed PV in the world. Better to learn from their growing pains than having to figure it out yourself!

[Dunnyberg]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Looking at emissions for a single year and deciding what's meaningful and what is not is a pretty stupid way at looking at emissions. All it tells you is who emitted the most that year.

CO2 and effects on our climate are cumulative. All the CO2 and GHG emitted since the industrial revolution add up to where we are today. In terms of CO2 emitted since 1850, Canada ranks 10th of all the countries in the world.

Our scope 3 emissions and per capita numbers are also high.

Our emissions matter. We've historically punched way above our weight in our contributions to GHG emissions.

Still less than 2% of the total cumulative CO2 emissions, and shrinking every year.
In fact, the Uk, which started industrializing in 1698, is only 3% of the world's total cumulative emissions. China equals that amount every SEVEN years.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Dunnyberg

Still less than 2% of the total cumulative CO2 emissions, and shrinking every year.
In fact, the Uk, which started industrializing in 1698, is only 3% of the world's total cumulative emissions. China equals that amount every SEVEN years.

That's because China produces most of the consumer goods for the entire world. They make all our stuff, then it has to be shipped from there to here. All those emissions go on their total, but the reason for those emissions is the consumers around the world who demand cheap products.

[PepsiFree]

I assume people who don’t believe Canada’s contributions are meaningful also don’t recycle, re-use anything, use their blue or black bins at all, own a fuel efficiency vehicle, ever consider anything like EVs or solar panels, etc.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I assume people who don’t believe Canada’s contributions are meaningful also don’t recycle, re-use anything, use their blue or black bins at all, own a fuel efficiency vehicle, ever consider anything like EVs or solar panels, etc.

We do most of these things. We recycle because it’s easy and can make a local impact at landfills. Changed out most lights for LEDS, and have a hybrid car on the way to try and reduce our bills. Solar makes no sense for us being in an old growth forest that reduces our direct sun.

Still have no illusion that anything we choose to do will make a lick of difference on global warming. Canada can’t fix the problem.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Brendone

We do most of these things. We recycle because it’s easy and can make a local impact at landfills. Changed out most lights for LEDS, and have a hybrid car on the way to try and reduce our bills. Solar makes no sense for us being in an old growth forest that reduces our direct sun.

Still have no illusion that anything we choose to do will make a lick of difference on global warming. Canada can’t fix the problem.

Here's the thing. Non-China countries produce 70% of the emissions. Should they all do nothing because they're not China?

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Here's the thing. Non-China countries produce 70% of the emissions. Should they all do nothing because they're not China?

No, they shouldn’t do nothing, but there’s no point straining people’s budgets to get to the “net zero after party” first when your a bit player (per capita is a pointless number to use if your goal is global reduction). “Yay, Canada is at net zero… wait, why is the world still burning?” We can make reasonable progress on a realistic global timetable without killing ourselves to do it.

If the China, India, Russia, etc aren’t at the party when Canada shows up, it’s accomplished nothing.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Brendone

No, they shouldn’t do nothing, but there’s no point straining people’s budgets to get to the “net zero after party” first when your a bit player (per capita is a pointless number to use if your goal is global reduction). “Yay, Canada is at net zero… wait, why is the world still burning?” We can make reasonable progress on a realistic global timetable without killing ourselves to do it.

If the China, India, Russia, etc aren’t at the party when Canada shows up, it’s accomplished nothing.

So your suggested plan of action is you go first. This is literally what is being discussed at COP every meeting and developing nations all say "you go first". So I guess we put our hands in our pockets and kick rocks until something happens? It's a worldwide negotiation. China is sitting at the same table as everyone else

China built more hydro than any other country and is still building more. China is building nuclear faster than any other country and is responsible for almost half of all nuclear under construction. China is building more renewables than all other countries combined. All at enormous expense. And their emissions are set to start dropping as of 2024.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...ergy%20sources.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...an-energy-boom

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65240094

[jammies]

Successfully reaching net zero first would be immensely valuable to other nations to show that it's possible, and how to do it, and also some of the pitfalls along the way. Canada doesn't need to always be a follower, except in the minds of those whose pessimism and selfishness drive their opinions.

Like any other long-term project, the best time to start is now. Of course there will be economic pain. There can also be economic opportunity if Canada pioneers the technologies that other countries use.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So your suggested plan of action is you go first. This is literally what is being discussed at COP every meeting and developing nations all say "you go first". So I guess we put our hands in our pockets and kick rocks until something happens? It's a worldwide negotiation. China is sitting at the same table as everyone else

China built more hydro than any other country and is still building more. China is building nuclear faster than any other country and is responsible for almost half of all nuclear under construction. China is building more renewables than all other countries combined. All at enormous expense. And their emissions are set to start dropping as of 2024.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...ergy%20sources.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...an-energy-boom

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65240094

No, I’d say we can go at a more moderate pace that aligns with the players that will actually make the difference.

I don’t see the point of putting the environmental boot to Canadians unless we can say it’s going to have a “meaningful” impact. If I thought Canada could actually make the changes that would stop forest fires, reduce storm intensity, etc, then I would be all on board with making extreme changes at personal cost, but we will never have that kind of impact.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by jammies

Successfully reaching net zero first would be immensely valuable to other nations to show that it's possible, and how to do it, and also some of the pitfalls along the way. Canada doesn't need to always be a follower, except in the minds of those whose pessimism and selfishness drive their opinions.

Like any other long-term project, the best time to start is now. Of course there will be economic pain. There can also be economic opportunity if Canada pioneers the technologies that other countries use.

I really think you’re overestimating our influence. We sit at the kids table. Just look at Indias hostility towards Canada’s assassination accusation vs the US. “Shut up you liars”, vs “oh, we’ll look into that right away!”.

[Izzle]

Here's the problem with going with a "moderate" pace. At some point, the same people saying moderate pace will turnaround and say that "we're past the point of no return, so why should I sacrifice how I live currently?"

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Here's the problem with going with a "moderate" pace. At some point, the same people saying moderate pace will turnaround and say that "we're past the point of no return, so why should I sacrifice how I live currently?"

That assumes people are willing to sacrifice the present for the future. The degree of which people are willing to do that is quite small.

I think that any widespread solutions to energy use will be economic base.

Why are electric cars becoming more and more popular? Because they are cheaper to operate than gas

Why is solar being installed? Because it is cheaper than gas.

The entire process of moving off carbon needs to be economically beneficial to people. The idea that people need to choose to sacrifice to save the world is a non-starter.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by jammies

Successfully reaching net zero first would be immensely valuable to other nations to show that it's possible, and how to do it, and also some of the pitfalls along the way. Canada doesn't need to always be a follower, except in the minds of those whose pessimism and selfishness drive their opinions.

Like any other long-term project, the best time to start is now. Of course there will be economic pain. There can also be economic opportunity if Canada pioneers the technologies that other countries use.

Yeah, being a leader in an emerging market and developing related technology sounds like a stupid ####ing idea because India assassinated a guy here.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Brendone

No, I’d say we can go at a more moderate pace that aligns with the players that will actually make the difference.

I don’t see the point of putting the environmental boot to Canadians unless we can say it’s going to have a “meaningful” impact. If I thought Canada could actually make the changes that would stop forest fires, reduce storm intensity, etc, then I would be all on board with making extreme changes at personal cost, but we will never have that kind of impact.

I guess we should define that, then. What would you say are reasonable steps, and what aren't?

To me, subsidizing what is currently being subsidized makes sense. We do need additional investment to get EV charging infrastructure built, but that's a bit of chicken and egg problem you have to be careful how much and when you subsidize to avoid building unused infrastructure.

Carbon Tax with rebates untethered to consumption is an efficient and effective way to incentivize efficiency and fuel substitution. You can change the scheme to reflect heat pump fixtures colder climates like the prairies while still incentivizing heat pump adoption elsewhere. There's no reason to have gas heating in most areas of the country

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Brendone

I really think you’re overestimating our influence. We sit at the kids table. Just look at Indias hostility towards Canada’s assassination accusation vs the US. “Shut up you liars”, vs “oh, we’ll look into that right away!”.

I remember a time, back in the 1970s, when Canada did lead the world. When some of the big players wanted to study the best methods developed in the world with regard to oil and gas conservation, they came to Calgary, not Houston.

As a country, I think we tend to underestimate ourselves. A lot of it stems from half the country not knowing or caring what the other half is doing, or what they have accomplished.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I assume people who don’t believe Canada’s contributions are meaningful also don’t recycle, re-use anything, use their blue or black bins at all, own a fuel efficiency vehicle, ever consider anything like EVs or solar panels, etc.

I’m one of the most avid reusers, reducers, and recyclers you’d ever meet. I have an electric lawnmower, and every scrap of food waste, every bit of paper and cardboard, and allowable plastic is composted or recycled. When I’m out walking and see cardboard sticking out of a garbage bin (not my own), I’d been know to move it into the compost bin.

Despite this and mostly agreeing with you, I have no illusion that the little bit I do is really meaningful when so many others hardly care and China doesn’t give a sh1t.