Climate change and human responsibility

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Honest question for you since you think the sacrifices are so little: What exactly are the sacrifices that you have in mind?

I said the sacrifices are little compared to the worst case consequence. The worst-case scenario is co-extinction, or the 'extinction domino effect', or in other words, mass extinction of human beings. I'm not saying that is likely at all. But if that's the worst-case scenario, then all climate change actions are pretty trivial in comparison.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies

I said the sacrifices are little compared to the worst case consequence. The worst-case scenario is co-extinction, or the 'extinction domino effect', or in other words, mass extinction of human beings. I'm not saying that is likely at all. But if that's the worst-case scenario, then all climate change actions are pretty trivial in comparison.

You didn't answer the question what are those sacrifices?

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by zamler

You didn't answer the question what are those sacrifices?

How about electing governments who are willing to do something serious about climate change, like meeting our Paris Agreement goals? Or supporting actions that may potentially hurt our own global competitiveness?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies

How about electing governments who are willing to do something serious about climate change, like meeting our Paris Agreement goals? Or supporting actions that may potentially hurt our own global competitiveness?

These are the kind of vague suggestions that end up accomplishing nothing. "do something" yea like WHAT??????????

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by zamler

These are the kind of vague suggestions that end up accomplishing nothing. "do something" yea like WHAT??????????

But I can turn it around on you. Arguing that this accomplishes nothing tells me you're not willing to sacrifice anything. Let me ask you this: do you support the carbon tax? If you do, how much should be the price of carbon increase before the sacrifice is too much?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies

But I can turn it around on you. Arguing that this accomplishes nothing tells me you're not willing to sacrifice anything. Let me ask you this: do you support the carbon tax? If you do, how much should be the price of carbon increase before the sacrifice is too much?

Well, I am not zamler, but I would answer:
No, I don't support carbon tax (which means, I don't have to answer the second question, right?).

So, back at you, which sacrifices are you willing to make personally?

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Well, I am not zamler, but I would answer:
No, I don't support carbon tax (which means, I don't have to answer the second question, right?).

So, back at you, which sacrifices are you willing to make personally?

Well, I'm clearly willing to make more sacrifices than you since you clearly want to be Godot on this matter.

As for what I'm willing to do, climate change is my number one issue when deciding who to vote for. I support the carbon tax despite disliking how it was rolled out (i.e., lack of benchmarks for consumers so they cannot gain credits like industry players do, "free emissions" for industrial facilities who are required to report and those who opt into the CCIR, etc.) because I believe it will reduce emissions and would continue to support higher taxes if we get rid of the "free emissions" loophole, and then even higher taxes if we include benchmarking for major personal energy consumption devices like cars, furnaces, etc.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies

...
As for what I'm willing to do, climate change is my number one issue when deciding who to vote for. I support the carbon tax despite disliking how it was rolled out (i.e., lack of benchmarks for consumers so they cannot gain credits like industry players do, "free emissions" for industrial facilities who are required to report and those who opt into the CCIR, etc.) because I believe it will reduce emissions and would continue to support higher taxes if we get rid of the "free emissions" loophole, and then even higher taxes if we include benchmarking for major personal energy consumption devices like cars, furnaces, etc.

Thank you. All noble goals. So, you are willing to pay more than what you pay now, personally, to the government in a hope that they would take your money and help mitigate the climate change. This is a paraphrase, but please correct me if it isn't.

If you are an average middle-class Canadian, you already pay something like 45% in all taxes out. How much more are you willing to pay for the above?

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Thank you. All noble goals. So, you are willing to pay more than what you pay now, personally, to the government in a hope that they would take your money and help mitigate the climate change. This is a paraphrase, but please correct me if it isn't.

If you are an average middle-class Canadian, you already pay something like 45% in all taxes out. How much more are you willing to pay for the above?

I should remind you that this discussion began by the argument that these sacrifices are trivial compared to a worst-case scenario. Certainly a 45% tax rate is trivial compared to the lives of your children, or your childen's children. What in your mind is the worst-case consequence of climate change? What sacrifices would you make to prevent that potential eventuality?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies

I should remind you that this discussion began by the argument that these sacrifices are trivial compared to a worst-case scenario. Certainly a 45% tax rate is trivial compared to the lives of your children, or your childen's children. What in your mind is the worst-case consequence of climate change? What sacrifices would you make to prevent that potential eventuality?

I've had a brilliant macro-economics professor at Cornell. He used to say: <<Whenever you guys see someone proclaiming something "for the sake of our children!", it probably means that good logic and sound economic sense cannot be used to support the argument. Most of the time, it also means that politicians somewhere want to get some additional billions of tax dollars.>>

As for personal sacrifices, I don't want to make any mandatory personal sacrifices for something that is arbitrary. Over time, issues that once seemed unresolvable tend to get resolved. New scientific discoveries come, new technologies get developed in time etc. I also don't want to make any personal sacrifices knowing that the sacrifices are allocated unevenly and unfairly. Why should I pay carbon tax for myself (driving an efficient vehicle, installing an efficient furnace) and for someone who gets a full refund for driving a stinky old clunker and burning fire wood?

If humans are in fact the primary cause of climate change, then most of the damage comes from SE Asia (China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia), where about half of the world population live and pollute everything around them like there's no tomorrow. What sacrifices are they willing to make and can they even make them without devastation?

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I agree with the above wholeheartedly. So, why not let the scientists debate this in a civilized manner without political interventions, without threats of institutional ostracizing and boycott and, most importantly, without media mob? The information posted by The Fonz is not Facebook crap; it is really happening to scientists that dare to be critical.

Scientists do debate this in a civilized manner. If one reads the papers where science takes place rarely do politics enter into it (unless that's the thing being studied of course).

Science is messy, and full of people who do it run the range just like everywhere else in life; sometimes they're petty and mean, sometimes they're virtuous. Sometimes they let things cloud their judgement, sometimes they like their own ideas far too much, etc.

That's the whole point of science, is to overcome those human tendencies systematically. And it's been proven to work over and over; over time science will track towards better and better understandings. It's not always a straight line, but it self corrects.

Does that mean sometimes things are unfair to some? Sure. But they have the advantage in working in a field where if they're right eventually they'll get recognized.

Every single national scientific organization on the planet accepts that humans are influencing the climate. Of course trying to flip that is going to take significant effort; it should!

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I've had a brilliant macro-economics professor at Cornell. He used to say: <<Whenever you guys see someone proclaiming something "for the sake of our children!", it probably means that good logic and sound economic sense cannot be used to support the argument. Most of the time, it also means that politicians somewhere want to get some additional billions of tax dollars.>>

There are also many brilliant professors who have shown carbon taxes do work in incentivizing people to be more energy efficient.

Over time, issues that once seemed unresolvable tend to get resolved. New scientific discoveries come, new technologies get developed in time etc.

Just so you know, new scientific discoveries in the form of negative man-made feedback loops are inputs in many climate models and some of them still predict co-extinction events even with that consideration.

I also don't want to make any personal sacrifices knowing that the sacrifices are allocated unevenly and unfairly. Why should I pay carbon tax for myself (driving an efficient vehicle, installing an efficient furnace) and for someone who gets a full refund for driving a stinky old clunker and burning fire wood?

Sounds like you're an advocate for benchmarking as well. I mentioned I disliked how the carbon tax was rolled out. This is the main flaw. The carbon tax should be accompanied by benchmark emission intensities. For a car, perhaps it should be equivalent to a compact car gasoline engine, or maybe a half-full diesel city bus. If you own a prius or take the bus every day and emit under that benchmark, you get credits. If you drive a gas guzzler, you have to pay additional carbon tax for every tonne you emit over the benchmark. If you're middle class, that credit would be in the form of a cheque or tax credits, which amounts to cash in your pocket to buy groceries or invest in more fuel efficiency measures to get bigger refunds. If you're wealthy, that credit would be in the form of discounts towards the purchase of zero emission technologies, like solar panels. The problem with the Alberta carbon tax is the lack of real reward/incentive to be fuel efficient.

If humans are in fact the primary cause of climate change, then most of the damage comes from SE Asia (China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia), where about half of the world population live and pollute everything around them like there's no tomorrow. What sacrifices are they willing to make and can they even make them without devastation?

If everyone is acting on climate change, it would no longer be a sacrifice. The concept of Pascal's Wager would argue the correct wager is to make that sacrifice even if nobody else is doing it. And you never know -- that sacrifice could be beneficial, such as a boom in the green technology sector and an increase in employment and wealth.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

If humans are in fact the primary cause of climate change, then most of the damage comes from SE Asia (China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia), where about half of the world population live and pollute everything around them like there's no tomorrow. What sacrifices are they willing to make and can they even make them without devastation?

Does that take into account the centuries of industrial pollution that was emitted by western nations or the goods manufactured in the countries you mention that are bought in the west? What about deforestation and other ecological changes that decreased the planet’s natural ability to absorb or process CO2?

So how exactly do we judge what is fair?

[81MC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I've had a brilliant macro-economics professor at Cornell. He used to say: <<Whenever you guys see someone proclaiming something "for the sake of our children!", it probably means that good logic and sound economic sense cannot be used to support the argument. Most of the time, it also means that politicians somewhere want to get some additional billions of tax dollars.>>

As for personal sacrifices, I don't want to make any mandatory personal sacrifices for something that is arbitrary. Over time, issues that once seemed unresolvable tend to get resolved. New scientific discoveries come, new technologies get developed in time etc. I also don't want to make any personal sacrifices knowing that the sacrifices are allocated unevenly and unfairly. Why should I pay carbon tax for myself (driving an efficient vehicle, installing an efficient furnace) and for someone who gets a full refund for driving a stinky old clunker and burning fire wood?

If humans are in fact the primary cause of climate change, then most of the damage comes from SE Asia (China, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia), where about half of the world population live and pollute everything around them like there's no tomorrow. What sacrifices are they willing to make and can they even make them without devastation?

I understand your sentiment. But, I would encourage you to take an honest look at the things you buy and consume, and figure out where 99.9% of it comes from.
It seems to me, everyone’s quick to point out nations with terrible environmental practises, as if it’s an exoneration. The greater question is WHY are these nations polluting so much, and what can WE do about it. Albertans are quick to point out ethical oil, but not so quick to point out ethical consumerism. If you have a legitimate concern about the outputs of some of these nations, consider where your shoes, jeans, shirts, televisions, appliances, car parts etc etc etc all come from. Nothing worse than hearing about “China” this from someone who actively supports the very business models the contribute to the issue at hand.
Not saying you specifically, just a vague observation on one of my pet peeves.

[Fuzz]

One thing we, as a technologically advanced country could do, is help them out with technology. For instance, I was just in Vietnam and the number of scooters there is mind boggling. But 15 years before I was in Thailand, and it was even worse pollution. They have switched from 2 stroke to 4 in that time, and it made a big difference. But the sheer numbers have increased so much that it is probably a wash.



Well what if we helped bridge them into electric scooters? I think that's one area were electrifying makes a huge amount of sense, and have a much greater impact on air quality and global emissions than most anything we can do here. I did see the odd electric scooter there but I think this is the type of change that would allow them to not be held back in their advancement, but be very impactful. Their obviously needs to be technological advancement, but it doesn't seem pie in the sky. And if were were really serious about reducing emissions, maybe some sort of global peering, where a wealthy country "adopts" a poor one, and our carbon tax of some sort goes to a reduction in their emissions by discounting the cost of zero emission scooters. It seems like an easy win for CO2 reductions. Much easier than trying for incremental improvements on our side. Anyway, just one thought...

[Fuzz]

Here's another one, we have advanced combined cycle natural gas power plants. We could agree to replace a countries coal plants with them, financing them, and they agree to buy natural gas from us at a set rate that acts as a payment for those plants(plus the gas) and we subsidize it to some extent. This would really be a win for everyone, our industry, the environment etc...


I think we just need to be creative here.

[tripin_billie]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Here's another one, we have advanced combined cycle natural gas power plants. We could agree to replace a countries coal plants with them, financing them, and they agree to buy natural gas from us at a set rate that acts as a payment for those plants(plus the gas) and we subsidize it to some extent. This would really be a win for everyone, our industry, the environment etc...


I think we just need to be creative here.

Some companies down in the States are doing something similar with solar. They are trading panels and installation of system for the Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs). With the Federal tax credit and DC's SREC prices, I can, and am, installing panels with no cost out of pocket.

I mean, I had wanted to do this for a while, but smart business incentives and public/ private collaboration could really move the dial in ways just like you proposed.

And really, when you are offering options that allow consumers to partake in what are normally cost-prohibitive green-upgrades, you'll get a lot of takers. I know that at least a few of my neighbors jumped on the same plan. All it took was the company to go door to door and explain how the financing works. I was too lazy to do that, they solved the problem.

I'm just hoping more stuff like this comes up. It's small changes, but they can add up.

[Fuzz]

Is that for individual rooftop solar? Because if so I'm not a huge fan of that. Utility scale solar makes way more sense, so the efficiency of dollars spent is wasted by doing this for individuals.

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Here's another one, we have advanced combined cycle natural gas power plants. We could agree to replace a countries coal plants with them, financing them, and they agree to buy natural gas from us at a set rate that acts as a payment for those plants(plus the gas) and we subsidize it to some extent. This would really be a win for everyone, our industry, the environment etc...


I think we just need to be creative here.

Something like this already exists under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is recognized by the Kyoto Protocol. Project developers from developing countries can sell the emission reductions generated by carbon offset or energy efficiency projects in less developed countries. The CDM is not recognized yet by the Paris Agreement so its future is in doubt after 2020. I'm also hearing from project validators and verifiers that there are less CDM projects being developed because of this uncertainty so hopefully an agreement is reached soon.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is that for individual rooftop solar? Because if so I'm not a huge fan of that. Utility scale solar makes way more sense, so the efficiency of dollars spent is wasted by doing this for individuals.

And why is it inefficient to do solar at an individual level? If every house had solar on it, generating the majority of its own needs during a day, then you have achieved utility scale through small scale implementation. The community I live in has solar on about 60% of the homes. I hear nothing but good things from my neighbors about their solar experience, and mine has been phenomenal. In the first year of ownership, my house generated 98% of our electrical energy needs. Since we have become a little more energy conscious we are actually over producing and getting a rebate. Not only was this good economic sense for us, it was also a really good move for us in shrinking our carbon foot print. I have no idea how anyone can say this type of investment is a bad one. Social change starts with small movements, and this is a movement gaining a ton of steam.