Climate change and human responsibility

[GGG]

Originally Posted by edslunch

What has been happening in the past ten years as far as the public is concerned is a series of increasingly unusual and destructive weather events that are not conclusively tied to climate change and are not shockingly, terrifyingly impactful to most individuals. They should be tied and should be terrifying already if someone is paying attention but I’m talking a complete collapse of a society or ecosystem or a massive death wave (sadly needs to be in a developed country), a season that doesn’t come, permanent water rationing... something biblical in scale. Something 70% people can’t deny or ignore.

And yet there is still opposition to geo-engineering solutions from the people most concerned with climate catastrophe.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That won't convince much of Alberta to act.

Act how? Which provincial example should we follow.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That won't convince much of Alberta to act. In Canada we are always a Conservative federal government from grinding climate action to a stop (and a Liberal government to go as slow as humanly possible).

Their current plan which is a big step forward for them - halts carbon tax increases and ties us to US policy (which will stop as soon as the Republicans get control over anything)

Alberta is quickly becoming the only outlier on this issue and they will continue to be punished politically.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by peter12

We had a heat wave here in BC that killed 800 people - how is that not a disaster by our current standards?

It's 570 heat related deaths:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-570-1.6122316

A tragedy but most of the deaths were elderly with underlying health conditions, that even if there was no heat wave were likely to die when it got cold again. Cold weather directly and indirectly (by weakening the body and causing more indoor activities that makes the spread of respiratory diseases easier) kill 1000+ Canadians every week every winter.



The easiest solution to the heat wave problem is adaption, in the form of $300-$400 window or portable ACs that can cool a small living space or bedroom.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by GGG

And yet there is still opposition to geo-engineering solutions from the people most concerned with climate catastrophe.

Probably because their goal is not business-as-usual, a higher energy lifestyle for everyone, but de-industrialization and de-population.

[Flames0910]

The easiest solution to the heat wave problem is adaption, in the form of $300-$400 window or portable ACs that can cool a small living space or bedroom.

I guess it’s a good thing this year’s heat wave was
a) the worst it will ever get,
b) the only consequence of climate change so far, and
c) just led to some sweatier than normal days

Because it definitely didn’t #### with air quality, ruin countless crops, melt our glaciers (water supply), boil our fish stocks, or do anything a portable air conditioner can’t handle.

Maybe we should try looking at the root problem rather than applying a bandaid?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

Maybe we should try looking at the root problem rather than applying a bandaid?

The root problem is you (and me).

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by zamler

The root problem is you (and me).

The root problem is our behaviour not our very existence.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by zamler

Act how? Which provincial example should we follow.

You are right - I should have included Ontario (while we have Ford), Saskatchewan, Manitoba and anyone else who sued to be excluded from having to implement strong carbon pricing.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by zamler

The root problem is you (and me).

We've seen during Covid that many people won't alter their behaviour for any length of time unless they are incentivized to do it.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

The root problem is our behaviour not our very existence.

They cannot be separated. If we had not used carbon energy there is no way our population would be at the level it is. The modern era would not exist.

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

We've seen during Covid that many people won't alter their behaviour for any length of time unless they are incentivized to do it.

True, but our economic engine means pollution.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

We've seen during Covid that many people won't alter their behaviour for any length of time unless they are incentivized to do it.

Or disincentivized. There is plenty we can do already.

[Mr.Coffee]

There is no energy source capable of being harnessed by humans that does not have an environmental impact. None.

To think that fossil fuels are exclusively the problem (they are a problem, of course) is so ridiculous it defies logic.

Populations and human behaviours drive environmental impacts. That’s just a fact. Sorry, but it’s true.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

The root problem is our behaviour not our very existence.

Yes it is, in these numbers.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

There is no energy source capable of being harnessed by humans that does not have an environmental impact. None.

Unfortunately true. Humans exist outside the balance of nature to an extreme degree, if anything is capable of convincing me people are not native to this planet that would be it.

To think that fossil fuels are exclusively the problem (they are a problem, of course) is so ridiculous it defies logic.

Populations and human behaviours drive environmental impacts. That’s just a fact. Sorry, but it’s true.

Best we can do is create as much as possible a closed loop energy infrastructure, recycle expired energy generation and storage into new product. I'm confident we can become far cleaner than oil doing this, but not in the time frame the apparent scientific consensus says we need to.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

There is no energy source capable of being harnessed by humans that does not have an environmental impact. None.

To think that fossil fuels are exclusively the problem (they are a problem, of course) is so ridiculous it defies logic.

Populations and human behaviours drive environmental impacts. That’s just a fact. Sorry, but it’s true.

Yes but fossil fuels are the MAIN problem - right now anyway.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

Because it definitely didn’t #### with air quality, ruin countless crops, melt our glaciers (water supply), boil our fish stocks, or do anything a portable air conditioner can’t handle.

What about last year, when there were barely any fires in Canada, Western Canada only had a few hot days, and Canada had the largest field crop harvest on record? Climate has never been the exact same weather every year.

Maybe we should try looking at the root problem rather than applying a bandaid?

Modern civilization runs on huge amounts of energy, mostly provided by oil, coal and natural gas and nothing will change that in the short-term or even middle-term. If the immediate concern is the elderly suffering due to heat, the easiest solution is AC.

[peter12]

Ah the denialists. Not surprising.

[zamler]

[#-3]

Originally Posted by nik-

Power to charge EV's needs to be generated. It's not X% less petrol cars = X% less GHG

This is a little bit unsourced. Moreso hearsay from a trusted individual, but;

I understand that road vehicles are roughly 25% of GHG emissions, and that EVs are roughly 1/3 GHG intensive over their entire lifecycle removing all gar vehicles is an opportunity that represents roughly 15%-20% total emissions reduction.

Obviously there is no path to zero some very basic processes like tiling soil for farms have emissions...simply put we are going to keep doing somethings, what we need is an equilibrium where natural or artificial carbon negative processes offset whatever emissions are still happening. So cutting ~1/6th is a big deal on the path to that.