Climate change and human responsibility

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If we are being realistic and honest based on human behaviour, our only hope is technical solutions that bring costs of green replacements down to the cost of their current equivalents. People are willing to pay slightly more, but that's it. I have no doubt we will eventually get there, but is that 10 years out, or 50, or 100? I don't know. But gradual adaptation to climate change is much more likely than massive societal changes.

We've been preaching forced change for decades, with little progress. I just don't see it happening, and our current technology has a ways to go. Many things have no substitute.

Otherwise we end up like Cuba with everyone holding on to their last ICE car

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

gradually rebuild through zoning and incentives, and then take all the lessons learned for future builds.

The people who should sacrifice first are the ones making all the money from these developments and property hoarding while everyone else pays the social and environmental costs.

Agreed wholeheartedly. But as others have pointed out, any rebuild will take time and will be expensive. We really messed up bigtime with our initial building & development decisions... politicians simply did what was politically expedient for themselves at the time, not caring about the long term ramifications. Neither did the voter, it would seem...

Two policies I believe need to happen now are increasing the carbon tax over time, and putting in place a tax designed specifically to target companies that are hoarding properties en masse. These companies are choking off supply, and driving up the cost for everyone else. It has to stop!

What I won't sacrifice is my job or my child's education, which requires a carbon footprint due to how the system and society is shaped. Make the changes at the top and people will gladly fall in line.

When I talk about sacrificing, I'm specifically talking about paying the carbon tax. Those on modest incomes receive a rebate.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

resentment.

What you've touched on here is a completely unavoidable problem, and there's no point in pretending that it can be avoided. Any time a wealthy person can afford something that someone who isn't as wealthy can't afford, there is going to be some resentment. That's life. The point is we have to reduce carbon-emitting activities as a species, if we are to stand a realistic chance of avoiding the worst case scenarios of climate change. Reducing flights overall is a no-brainer. People need to stop thinking that flying is some kind of god-given right.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If we are being realistic and honest based on human behaviour, our only hope is technical solutions that bring costs of green replacements down to the cost of their current equivalents. People are willing to pay slightly more, but that's it. I have no doubt we will eventually get there, but is that 10 years out, or 50, or 100? I don't know. But gradual adaptation to climate change is much more likely than massive societal changes.

We've been preaching forced change for decades, with little progress. I just don't see it happening, and our current technology has a ways to go. Many things have no substitute.

This kind of tiptoe approach to addressing the problem will likely result in mass floods & droughts, billions of climate refugees, political & social upheaval on a scale the world has never seen before, and soaring cost of living for everyone.

For the technology to move along faster, we have to fund the R&D. That means paying for it via carbon tax.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

-snip-
This kind of tiptoe approach to addressing the problem will likely result in mass floods & droughts, billions of climate refugees, political & social upheaval on a scale the world has never seen before, and soaring cost of living for everyone.

For the technology to move along faster, we have to fund the R&D. That means paying for it via carbon tax.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for that approach, I'm just resigned to the reality of it.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

How much of this is due to the fact thay we spend billions of dollars a year on road improvement and expansions?

The UK spends more on rail (including subways) and public transit then they do on roads.



Even with that spending disparity, 60+% fuel tax and high registration and usage fees, the superiority of the car for the majority of trips still means the car is dominant in the UK and Europe.

And even ignoring passenger vehicles, roads would still be needed because of the high proportion of freight that is carried by truck in Western Europe.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

How does that make sense? Cutting it in half would remove half the pie, but transport is only 1/4. And then you shift those transport emissions to electricity generation emissions, and how are we any further ahead?

I'm anticipating getting close to 100% electric generation being clean which becomes half the pie.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by zamler

I'm anticipating getting close to 100% electric generation being clean which becomes half the pie.

In 10 years? How does that even work? We'll be lucky to reach 20%.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

In 10 years? How does that even work? We'll be lucky to reach 20%.

Don't agree, I think with solar and storage we can get close.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by zamler

Don't agree, I think with solar and storage we can get close.

Not a chance. Run the numbers on how many batteries you need to provide 10 GW for several months through the winter. It's not possible. It's not even possible to store it overnight. Most grid battery systems are a few hours, for a fraction of production capacity. If you can honestly do some calculations to show this is in the realm of reality, I'll take my statement back. But I've seen nothing that indicates you can store that quantity of power. You think you can? Show it.

[BagoPucks]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The most effective way to reduce all of those things is to increase the cost. However, that will mean the affluent will continue to do them while everyone else cuts back. For example, if the cost of flying doubled (bringing it closer in line with the cost before mass budget air travel was born in the 90s), we would see a dramatic reduction in air travel by the middle and working classes, but only moderate reduction by the upper middle class and affluent. Which would foster resentment.

The alternative is rationing (for example, everyone is allowed no more than one flight every two years). But that would require much more heavy-handed intervention by the state.

I think increasing cost is a great idea but I just dont see how humans are going to somehow stop consuming. I think rising debts, increased borrowing to address the increased pricing just shifts the load to debt which in turn isnt going to solving any environmental problems. I am not sure what is the best approach but in my head it is starting to look like all humans need to look within ourselves to find the reason to change the consumption path we are on.

I realise that what I am saying sounds ridiculous. Not to mention all the people who aren't at the point in their state of mind/life to think about the environment and future of the planet. How do we get them closer thinking about the environment?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Not a chance. Run the numbers on how many batteries you need to provide 10 GW for several months through the winter. It's not possible. It's not even possible to store it overnight. Most grid battery systems are a few hours, for a fraction of production capacity. If you can honestly do some calculations to show this is in the realm of reality, I'll take my statement back. But I've seen nothing that indicates you can store that quantity of power. You think you can? Show it.

It's not possible now, in 10 years fully expect the cost of solar to plummet and storage to be much, much better and cheaper. This is based on the last 10 years of progress, even if it slows 50% it is still viable IMO.

Do you have some other solution you see as viable? Seems like in general you pick apart any promising green energy tech. Which is fine I welcome scrutiny but at some point we have to stop talking about climate change and honestly make an attempt to fix our carbon output.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by BagoPucks

I think increasing cost is a great idea but I just dont see how humans are going to somehow stop consuming. I think rising debts, increased borrowing to address the increased pricing just shifts the load to debt which in turn isnt going to solving any environmental problems. I am not sure what is the best approach but in my head it is starting to look like all humans need to look within ourselves to find the reason to change the consumption path we are on.

I realise that what I am saying sounds ridiculous. Not to mention all the people who aren't at the point in their state of mind/life to think about the environment and future of the planet. How do we get them closer thinking about the environment?

It will take a catastrophe event or step change or a series of them that are undeniably related to climate change, but even then good luck.

Otherwise it has to be external forces like legislation or economics. Legislation needs to global and binding else it becomes a political football, so good luck with that.

That leaves economics and business to do the job. Price carbon to the extreme and hope that some of the damage is offset by innovation. Insurers stop insuring things (already happening), investors stop investing in things (already happening), manufacturers stop making co2 producing things (will happen spurred by regulations), etc.

None of it will be easy for the less well off but is there a real alternative? We’ve proven time after time that feel good environmentalism doesn’t stand up to personal economics or convenience.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by zamler

It's not possible now, in 10 years fully expect the cost of solar to plummet and storage to be much, much better and cheaper. This is based on the last 10 years of progress, even if it slows 50% it is still viable IMO.

Do you have some other solution you see as viable? Seems like in general you pick apart any promising green energy tech. Which is fine I welcome scrutiny but at some point we have to stop talking about climate change and honestly make an attempt to fix our carbon output.

Much much cheaper still doesn't get us remotely close. Just a very quick calculation, according to this:
https://www.theenergyfix.com/solar-farms/


by my math we'd need 100km² of solar panels for Alberta to match demand. At $500,000 per acre, that's 122 Billion USD. And that's not including increasing production for EV's and electrical heating. Nor does it include the excess generation you need to charge batteries(you only get peak output for a few hours a day), nor does it include battery costs, which are about a billion dollars per hour of storage(for all Alberta). Imagine trying to charge and store battery power in winter with solar, and these numbers go way up. So you are quickly reaching impossible numbers.

Nuclear is the most obvious one, which is expensive, but at least it's in the sphere of reality. I don't have any other solutions because there aren't any. Short of a massive reduction global population, no answers come close. Which is why I posted what I did earlier. We'll get through this with technological advances, but it's a long way down the road. I'm sorry that the reality is that it's a very difficult problem, and we don't have any magic bullets, let alone band aids right now.

We should absolutely keep working on progress, but saying that if we just built solar to power Alberta is not realistic.

[zamler]

I'm not talking only about Alberta I'm talking globally. Canada is less than 2% of all emissions and we produce oil.

It would take about 7500 square miles of solar panels to power the entire planet that to me is doable. As for modern nuclear that is never going to happen unfortunately.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Much much cheaper still doesn't get us remotely close. Just a very quick calculation, according to this:
https://www.theenergyfix.com/solar-farms/


by my math we'd need 100km² of solar panels for Alberta to match demand. At $500,000 per acre, that's 122 Billion USD. And that's not including increasing production for EV's and electrical heating. Nor does it include the excess generation you need to charge batteries(you only get peak output for a few hours a day), nor does it include battery costs, which are about a billion dollars per hour of storage(for all Alberta). Imagine trying to charge and store battery power in winter with solar, and these numbers go way up. So you are quickly reaching impossible numbers.

Nuclear is the most obvious one, which is expensive, but at least it's in the sphere of reality. I don't have any other solutions because there aren't any. Short of a massive reduction global population, no answers come close. Which is why I posted what I did earlier. We'll get through this with technological advances, but it's a long way down the road. I'm sorry that the reality is that it's a very difficult problem, and we don't have any magic bullets, let alone band aids right now.

We should absolutely keep working on progress, but saying that if we just built solar to power Alberta is not realistic.

While it's tempting to say "we can't really do nothing because it's hard," the reality is that margins on solar and other renewables are plunging. There will be some hard choices to be made in the next ten years, and yes, it will cost a lot of money, but the downside to allowing our infrastructure and way of life to remain vulnerable to the very high costs associated with future climate change are much much much greater.

There a lot of options beyond power generation that will bring our emissions down, including construction denser, more efficient housing, expanding our public transit network, and investing in carbon sink technology/utilizing simpler methods of carbon capture.

I encourage you to read the recent report from Canada's Institute for Climate Choices on how we get to Net Zero.

https://climatechoices.ca/wp-content...re_FINAL-1.pdf

[peter12]

Originally Posted by zamler

I'm not talking only about Alberta I'm talking globally. Canada is less than 2% of all emissions and we produce oil.

It would take about 7500 square miles of solar panels to power the entire planet that to me is doable. As for modern nuclear that is never going to happen unfortunately.

This is sad and unfortunately, it is the case that the activists that were so right on fossil-fuel driven climate change have also been very wrong on the safety profile of nuclear power.

One only has to look at the difference in emissions between France and Germany to see how amazing nuclear power would be for this planet.

https://environmentalprogress.org/bi...rances-in-2016

[peter12]

It will take a catastrophe event or step change or a series of them that are undeniably related to climate change, but even then good luck.

What do you think has been happening the last ten or so years?

Otherwise it has to be external forces like legislation or economics. Legislation needs to global and binding else it becomes a political football, so good luck with that.

I tend to think the market will be the primary force in solving this problem. Governments need to provide strong regulatory networks, penalize bad behaviour etc.. etc...

That leaves economics and business to do the job. Price carbon to the extreme and hope that some of the damage is offset by innovation. Insurers stop insuring things (already happening), investors stop investing in things (already happening), manufacturers stop making co2 producing things (will happen spurred by regulations), etc.

This will probably be what saves us.

[BagoPucks]

Canada is too divided on too many issues among the provinces to realistically have hope that the politicians will have the backing of enough votes to make meaningful change. Instead there will be half assed vote buying moves that doesn't move the needle much.

That aside I think Canadians need to agree on that this is an issue and how we should solve it. I don't think enough of us are educated enough to have a conversation and not an emotional reaction

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

What do you think has been happening the last ten or so years?



I tend to think the market will be the primary force in solving this problem. Governments need to provide strong regulatory networks, penalize bad behaviour etc.. etc...



This will probably be what saves us.

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.

[peter12]

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.

That is an exaggeration on your part. We are already seeing constituency-level majority support for climate mitigation based on the increasingly apparent consequences.

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

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by peter12

That is an exaggeration on your part. We are already seeing constituency-level majority support for climate mitigation based on the increasingly apparent consequences.

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

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)