Climate change and human responsibility

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

They are 100% globally powered by renewable energy. Working towards 100% of its suppliers at 100%.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/...r-commitments/

That's a nice press release you posted. It still in no way refutes my post. Here's a link to each companies environmental reports for 2018:

https://www.apple.com/environment/pd...eport_2019.pdf

https://www.suncor.com/en-CA/sustain...sustainability


On page 9 of Apple's report they disclose that their carbon footprint was 25.2 million metric tonnes of CO2 in 2018

On page 8 of Suncor's report they disclose their carbon footprint was 22.0 million metric tonnes of CO2 in 2018

There you have it, the largest oil sands company in the world generates less carbon emissions than Apple!

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

No, the decision to power my home will be based solely on reliability of power source and the cost of energy regardless of what Leo does or doesn't do. If that's solar then so be it. If not it won't be.

Then this contradicts your previous statement, saying that normal people would wait for their leaders and heros to do it first, yet you will do it for market forces alone.

Which one are you personally? Celebrity footprint follower or frugal but pro-active green spender?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

You can read the report right here...though you won't will you?

The actual report:
https://www.apple.com/environment/pd...eport_2019.pdf

Here's Suncor's report...going to laugh at that one too?
https://sustainability.suncor.com/en

ok that's too funny, we literally posted the same links at almost the exact same time.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

They are 100% globally powered by renewable energy. Working towards 100% of its suppliers at 100%.

They're 100% globally powered by renewable energy certificates. The same way the CTrain is "100% powered" by wind even when Alberta wind farms can't even produce 80 MW (or <6% of capacity) like right now.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Then this contradicts your previous statement, saying that normal people would wait for their leaders and heros to do it first, yet you will do it for market forces alone.

Which one are you personally? Celebrity footprint follower or frugal but pro-active green spender?

Personally I try to make the best decisions I can within the constraints of my own priorities and personal faculties. I don't know if that makes me a 'normal' person or otherwise.

With regards to celebrities, the whole surface level purpose of them even participating in such conferences is to use their celebrity platform to attempt to persuade people to act for the forces of 'good.' I don't see why it's such a complicated concept that the message can be rendered ineffective with its audience when it's conduits do not personally act in congruence with their message.

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

ok that's too funny, we literally posted the same links at almost the exact same time.

Look at us, internet warriors hahahaha....

Yes, Apple's output is the same, but where the power to operate is generated from differs. Though credit where credit is due - Suncor is working on carbon off-sets which is good.

Suncor 395MW of renewable power generation (working towards 800MW by 2030)

Apple has over 600MW of renewable power generation (working to 4GW by 2020)

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Personally I try to make the best decisions I can within the constraints of my own priorities and personal faculties. I don't know if that makes me a 'normal' person or otherwise.

With regards to celebrities, the whole surface level purpose of them even participating in such conferences is to use their celebrity platform to attempt to persuade people to act for the forces of 'good.' I don't see why it's such a complicated concept that the message can be rendered ineffective with its audience when it's conduits do not personally act in congruence with their message.

You made a point that most people don't do environmental things unless their leaders do it first. That's just untrue on many fronts, including yourself not following that logic as you make decisions within your own "priorities and personal faculties" insinuating you are not swayed by leaders and celebrities. Do you see a dichotomy between people like yourself and "normal" people who follow on environmental stewardship?

[Fuzz]

The far-right leader offered this idea in response to a journalist's question as to whether it was possible to simultaneously spur economic growth, feed the world's hungry and also preserve the environment.

"It's enough to eat a little less. You talk about environmental pollution. It's enough to poop every other day. That will be better for the whole world," said Bolsonaro, who earlier this month sacked the head of a government agency that had reported a major increase in Amazon deforestation.

Uhhh....

Also, this gem.

Bolsonaro, a combative politician frequently denounced for derogatory remarks about women and minority groups, said the rapid rise in populations around the world needed to be addressed.

"When you see how the world's population is increasing by 70 million a year, you need a family planning policy," said the former army officer, declining to use the term "birth control" for fear of an adverse media reaction.

"Don't make me say that, otherwise (the daily) Folha de S. Paolo will run a headline saying I favor birth control," he said.
"But you can see that more educated people have fewer children. I'm an exception to that rule, I have five," he said.

Didn't realize Brazil also had a kook for a leader.


https://news.yahoo.com/poop-less-cle...195014136.html

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

There are about 4 billion average joes. No matter how awesome your instagram is, not everyone can be a celebrity.

Should I post an article every time an average joe drives a car to work and back? Take a plane for a vacation? Take a plane for a work trip? Goes on a cruise? Ahhh, but those don't count. Because they're not celebrities and don't make headlines that distract from the real causes.

Celebrities aren't the problem, the people who share distracting click-bait and low level climate change denying articles are.

Celebrities travelling is insignificant if not hypocritical on their part. What is a problem is the pull they have on the general conscience, which becomes a problem when things get pollical and they end up supporting American Oil companies and the American economy.

Our country is currently in the process of losing our economy in Oil and Gas which will likely destroy us. This has come directly from American Oil companies investing in a bull**** campaign against Canadian Oil, which has been made hugely popular and destructive due to a revolving door of American celebrities supporting them and making "Dirty Canadian Oil: and the "Tar Sands" hugely impactful on the general population.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Us: We shouldn't do anything because 37 million Canadians make up such a small percentage it will have no impact. We need the entire world to get on board before we do anything.

I don't really see how waiting around for everyone else to go first is the best solution to the problem.

Couldn't we be leaders for once?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Couldn't we be leaders for once?

1) No.
2) Why???

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Uhhh....

Also, this gem.

Didn't realize Brazil also had a kook for a leader.

Brazil doesn't seem to have great luck with its Presidents; the previous 3 Presidents of Brazil have been imprisoned for corruption, successfully impeached and arrested on corruption.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I don't really see how waiting around for everyone else to go first is the best solution to the problem.

Couldn't we be leaders for once?

That's the thing though, the UK has already gone ahead. And not only does nobody care, almost nobody even knows about it. And that's the UK, the birth place of the Industrial Revolution and ruler of a once great Empire whose political and legal institutions have been copied around the world.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I don't really see how waiting around for everyone else to go first is the best solution to the problem.

Couldn't we be leaders for once?

Canada should be a leader in implementing effective ways to reduce green house gases and moving to more clean energy BUT this all for not if it doesn't become a leader in helping other nations (who account for 98.5~ percent of the worlds emissions) reduce their carbon footprint. This is a global issue NOT a regional issue.

[Street Pharmacist]

Disruption is coming and greenhouse gas emissions will be decreasing soon and mainly due to economic reasons, not environmental.


Electric cars are faster, more efficient, much longer lasting, and soon both cheaper and more convenient. Once cost parity is reached (likely with 3-4 years), gas powered cars will be obsolete.

Electricity generation will see disruption about the same time. It's already cheaper to build solar capacity with storage than gas/coal, and costs for solar and storage are still plummeting.

If self driving ever takes off, transportation becomes a service and personal ownership will plummet as most people in an urban environment can now subscribe to transportation as a service for one tenth the cost of ownership without losing any loss of convenience.

Disruption doesn't come from a single technological innovation. It often comes after a convergence of several innovations, and they're all happening right now.

I worry a lot about the Canadian economy. This has the potential to be awful for Canada.

[jayswin]

Canada's basically done, imo. The combination of moving away from Oil and automation taking away most jobs will be too much.

Superpowers like the US will be ****ed as well, but they'll hold on longer. They're successfully destroying Canadian Oil so they can continue to hold onto an Oil based economy as long as humanly possible.


The long term order of events in this world is likely going to be

1. Automation, clean energy wipe out most economies

2. Guaranteed minimum income becomes a must regardless of cost

3. Countries that were wiped out earlier and didn't plan for Guaranteed minimum income face major civil unrest


The US is smart, they know there's not much appetite for Guaranteed minimum income in the US so they're going hard on Oil as the world will still need Oil for decades upon decades even if there's a major shift happening.

Canada's doing the dumbest of everything - Slowing Oil production due to activism, not investing heavily in a new direction, not seriously preparing for guaranteed minimum income.

Just directionless and headed for a major fall.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Disruption is coming and greenhouse gas emissions will be decreasing soon and mainly due to economic reasons, not environmental.


Electric cars are faster, more efficient, much longer lasting, and soon both cheaper and more convenient. Once cost parity is reached (likely with 3-4 years), gas powered cars will be obsolete.

Electricity generation will see disruption about the same time. It's already cheaper to build solar capacity with storage than gas/coal, and costs for solar and storage are still plummeting.

If self driving ever takes off, transportation becomes a service and personal ownership will plummet as most people in an urban environment can now subscribe to transportation as a service for one tenth the cost of ownership without losing any loss of convenience.

Disruption doesn't come from a single technological innovation. It often comes after a convergence of several innovations, and they're all happening right now.

I worry a lot about the Canadian economy. This has the potential to be awful for Canada.

Where are you seeing this info? I haven't seen any evidence for this. Tesla, the obvious leaders in this space should be best positioned to achieve that, yet they struggle mightily to get it under 40k US. For an equivalent to a 20k veihcile in gas. And that's the short range Tesla. Everything out there with any decent range is $60k plus. Add to that the more you make the more competition for resources, which drives up prices. Yes, you get some reductions through scale, but I don't think it is enough. 3-4 years sounds incredibly optimistic. 10, ya, maybe. Though gas engines continue to get more efficient as well.

[The Fonz]

Related, but slightly off topic. Does anyone know how much land is lost, globally, to development every year?

I believe it's ~3 million acres in the US alone. I cannot find a global figure though.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Where are you seeing this info? I haven't seen any evidence for this. Tesla, the obvious leaders in this space should be best positioned to achieve that, yet they struggle mightily to get it under 40k US. For an equivalent to a 20k veihcile in gas. And that's the short range Tesla. Everything out there with any decent range is $60k plus. Add to that the more you make the more competition for resources, which drives up prices. Yes, you get some reductions through scale, but I don't think it is enough. 3-4 years sounds incredibly optimistic. 10, ya, maybe. Though gas engines continue to get more efficient as well.

For electric cars, first there's a few things that have to be accepted as fact. Electric cars are more reliable, cheaper to maintain, and more efficient. What they aren't currently, is cheaper or more convenient. Convenience will be achieved as charging speeds are increasing rapidly, and for 99% of people, all charging except for long trips will be done at home overnight anyways.

As for the price, the issue is battery costs. Electric cars are still cars, so all non drive train costs for the structure are the same. So the difference in price is clearly the drive train. Electric motors are cheaper than combustion engines, so the difference is almost entirely batteries. It's hard to find numbers on battery costs that agree exactly, but they all trend exactly the same way. In a cost survey of electric vehicle battery purchasers by Bloomberg we can see the trend clearly. In 2010, assembled battery pack prices were over $1000 per kWh (Model S for example may have a 90 or 100 kWh battery). By 2018 it was $176 in this survey. It's notoriously hard to get manufacturers to discuss price, but GM recently said they're getting battery packs for less than $145 and expect $100 by 2021. You can see what is happening.

Scale is what's driving this and yes, there's more than enough supply of the raw materials available. In fact, metals like lithium, Cobalt, nickel, etc are actually dropping in price despite battery production capacity exploding.

Volkswagen, Toyota, and many other manufacturers are planning to have all electric or hybrid lineups in the next few years with zero all combustion engine models. These aren't expert predictions, this is the industry itself planning to go this way. Reluctantly, Ford is making an electric F-150. Once it's cheaper to produce, why would they continue making gas ones?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Disruption is coming and greenhouse gas emissions will be decreasing soon and mainly due to economic reasons, not environmental.


Electric cars are faster, more efficient, much longer lasting, and soon both cheaper and more convenient. Once cost parity is reached (likely with 3-4 years), gas powered cars will be obsolete.

Electricity generation will see disruption about the same time. It's already cheaper to build solar capacity with storage than gas/coal, and costs for solar and storage are still plummeting.

If self driving ever takes off, transportation becomes a service and personal ownership will plummet as most people in an urban environment can now subscribe to transportation as a service for one tenth the cost of ownership without losing any loss of convenience.

Disruption doesn't come from a single technological innovation. It often comes after a convergence of several innovations, and they're all happening right now.

I worry a lot about the Canadian economy. This has the potential to be awful for Canada.

Right now disruption is coming because our environmentalists are morons. We've effectively destroyed our own industry because of politics and protesters.

When the industry dies to innovation, I would not be sad about it. But that's definitely not what's happening right now.

Worry about the Canadian economy because we have idiots in charge and idiots on the ground. Not because of innovation. Canada is quite innovative (at least for a small country) and I wouldn't worry about us from that perspective at all.