# The new climate change report is here!



## prisoner24601 (May 27, 2018)

The latest summary for AR6 can be found here. The good news is that GHG growth has slowed down a bit over the last decade. The bad news is that net emissions are still growing. It can all seem a bit overwhelming but have a look at Section C that identifies 175 things that can be done to get to net zero C02e. Quite a bit of low hanging fruit (low cost and risk) actions and some harder but with bigger payoff of course. The reality is that big change is the result of many small changes. For example - the target is 55 GtCO2e/yr reduction and wind and solar can get us a sustained 10% reduction. Why wouldn't we be all in? Energy efficiency in buildings, converting more industrial processes etc should be no brainers. I feel that focusing immediately on stationary systems like converting electricty grids (supply side) and cities and factories (demand side) while saving precious fossil fuels for harder, mobile things like air travel, long distance hauling etc is a sensible way ahead.

Yes there is lots of uncertainty in these estimates but the point is that we need to eat this elephant one bite at a time.

What do you think?


----------



## geno (Sep 6, 2017)

I think globally the political will is not there to make meaningful reductions (Brazil, India, China for example). In Canada our current gov goes the opposite way and swallows this all hook, line and sinker. Canadians should be prepared for a much lower standard of living than we have seen over the last 20-30 years.
A lot of the proposals in my view are too 'pie in the sky' and will leave us susceptible to food and energy security risks.


----------



## diharv (Apr 19, 2011)

It's a good thing that GHG do not cross borders as our govt seems hell bent on compliance no matter how destructive it will be. The major emitters of the world will laugh at us and keep doing what they are doing. Trudeau has no influence, and can't change the rest of the world, no matter how much he believes he can.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

geno said:


> I think globally the political will is not there to make meaningful reductions (Brazil, India, China for example). In Canada our current gov goes the opposite way and swallows this all hook, line and sinker. Canadians should be prepared for a much lower standard of living than we have seen over the last 20-30 years.
> A lot of the proposals in my view are too 'pie in the sky' and will leave us susceptible to food and energy security risks.


As long as the big emitters don't care, it won't matter.

Secondly, the economy started slowing in 2019, and hit a wall in 2020 with the lockdowns.
in a year or two they'll talk about how all their hard work is paying off, when really it was just killing the economy that stopped emissions, which experts have been saying is the quickest and easiest way to achieve this goal.

Even the EV initiative is more about stopping or limiting auto production than providing EVs. We don't have EV supply, but they act like they don't want to sell the vehicles, it's simply they don't have them. But they're working like crazy to build them.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree the world won't change to stop climate change, so we should continue to collect carbon taxes and put the money into a "mitigation" fund.

All the forecasts are for more extreme weather, extended droughts, rising water levels, heat waves, forest fires........etc, and we should be preparing now.

Our hydro system is shaky. Every storm of any consequence puts out the hydro for a lot of people. We need to "harden" our fragile hydro system.

All hydro lines should be buried and and transformers should be hardened against lightning strikes.

There should be a program to provide alternative energy to every home as a back up system.

Insurance companies are backing away and people are going to be stuck with big expenses, or the government will end up with the costs.

Forget about collecting the carbon taxes and giving the money back in bits and drabs. Keep it.....invest it....and the money will be there when needed.

If we don't plan funding ahead of time, future governments will be continually jumping from one funding crisis to another.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I read that in the US it is impossible to get property insurance for properties along the ocean or in flood zones.

The US government had to take over financial responsibility for the damage and they can't keep up with the costs.

They are still rebuilding in Gulf States from Hurricane Katrina. We can plan ahead for a better outcome.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I read that in the US it is impossible to get property insurance for properties along the ocean or in flood zones.


Not true, it's just really expensive to "insure" an area that is guaranteed to suffer a particular event.



> The US government had to take over financial responsibility for the damage and they can't keep up with the costs.


No, they chose to take over that responsibility.



> They are still rebuilding in Gulf States from Hurricane Katrina. We can plan ahead for a better outcome.


When you live in a hurricane prone area, having hurricanes is normal.
Just like having snow in Canada.
They should plan ahead, either prepare for the hurricane, or move to where they don't have hurricanes.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

prisoner24601 said:


> I feel that focusing immediately on stationary systems like converting electricty grids (supply side) and cities and factories (demand side) while saving precious fossil fuels for harder, mobile things like air travel, long distance hauling etc is a sensible way ahead.


Generation companies look at wind and solar as novelty items. They onboard small wind and solar projects as a photo-op.

The carbon tax and net zero mandates are going to convert us to nuclear, not renewables. Unfortunately, it takes 10 years to get certification to operate a nuclear facility and the permit process is equally long. The process requires a big team of engineers, scientists, and lawyers.

Expect energy rates to go up vastly beyond the already high rate of inflation do to the extreme cost of nuclear (which we will be told is competitive but is unlikely to be) and the nuclear generation gestation period that goes well beyond a decade.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think that rather than wind and particularly solar being novelty or greenwashing (like the lonely windmill in the walmart parking lot), they are actually going to drive a lot of other generating capacity to bankruptcy. Solar is already quite cheap and will continue getting cheaper.


----------



## prisoner24601 (May 27, 2018)

TomB16 said:


> Generation companies look at wind and solar as novelty items. They onboard small wind and solar projects as a photo-op.


Or worse yet as revenue killers. The days of the regulated, centralized and monopolistic generation companies operating gas or coal fired plants are numbered. I can see a future with many privately owned and operated generators, transmission and storage companies connected by a smart grid. Blockchain will play a role in transacting between generators and consumers. Nothing like competition to keep prices reasonable. Hydro will continue. Nuclear is a wildcard but may not be cost effective if the demand (revenue) is siphoned off by alternate suppliers.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

diharv said:


> It's a good thing that GHG do not cross borders as our govt seems hell bent on compliance no matter how destructive it will be. The major emitters of the world will laugh at us and keep doing what they are doing. Trudeau has no influence, and can't change the rest of the world, no matter how much he believes he can.


It is so frustrating, that Canadians are being hurt financially to satisfy Trudeau's putting himself on a pedestal to world leaders. Meanwhile they are scoffing at him....and probably us, for allowing it to continue.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I see no public acceptance of nuclear power until the waste product problems are solved. Ontario is still trying to find a place to store their spent fuel rods.

Currently, the highly radioactive spent fuel rods are contained on-site. The Bruce Nuclear Plant is already constructing more buildings to house the waste.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

geno said:


> Canadians should be prepared for a much lower standard of living than we have seen over the last 20-30 years.


If reducing fossil fuel consumption automatically hurts your standard of living, then you are failing to deploy intelligence and innovation.

Successful societies tend to do much better than that under the stress of a changing world, but it takes forward thinking and rolling up one's sleeves to find better ways.

Lazy people who are set in old ways, and refuse to change, may indeed suffer a reduction in standard of living.


----------



## prisoner24601 (May 27, 2018)

sags said:


> I see no public acceptance of nuclear power until the waste product problems are solved. Ontario is still trying to find a place to store their spent fuel rods.
> 
> Currently, the highly radioactive spent fuel rods are contained on-site. The Bruce Nuclear Plant is already constructing more buildings to house the waste.


I agree waste is a massive barrier for current nuclear fission technology. But the recent announcement from the White House on getting to commercial fusion within a decade could change that perception fast. It could be Biden's moonshot moment that I can see not only the US public but worldwide public support for. I remember building models of lunar landers and other space stuff when I was a kid that was a direct result of Kennedy's "man on the moon in a decade" declaration. It was an exciting time and almost unimaginable that man could do this (with much less computing power than in an modern phone). What if the next generation of budding engineers built toy magnetic bottles or something to demonstrate some of the fusion technological advances.









Fact Sheet: Developing a Bold Vision for Commercial Fusion Energy | OSTP | The White House


The Biden-Harris Administration is focused on building a clean energy future that creates good-paying jobs, lowers energy bills, and supports a path toward U.S. energy independence by manufacturing and deploying clean energy for the benefit of all Americans. President Biden is doubling down on...




www.whitehouse.gov


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> I see no public acceptance of nuclear power until the waste product problems are solved. Ontario is still trying to find a place to store their spent fuel rods.
> 
> Currently, the highly radioactive spent fuel rods are contained on-site. The Bruce Nuclear Plant is already constructing more buildings to house the waste.


Nuclear power is popular in Ontario.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

prisoner24601 said:


> I agree waste is a massive barrier for current nuclear fission technology. But the recent announcement from the White House on getting to commercial fusion within a decade could change that perception fast. It could be Biden's moonshot moment that I can see not only the US public but worldwide public support for. I remember building models of lunar landers and other space stuff when I was a kid that was a direct result of Kennedy's "man on the moon in a decade" declaration. It was an exciting time and almost unimaginable that man could do this (with much less computing power than in an modern phone). What if the next generation of budding engineers built toy magnetic bottles or something to demonstrate some of the fusion technological advances.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Biden also said he'd cure cancer in 10 years.

I'm almost 60 and remember as a child we were told that fusion was just a few years away. I'm still waiting.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

andrewf said:


> I think that rather than wind and particularly solar being novelty or greenwashing (like the lonely windmill in the walmart parking lot), they are actually going to drive a lot of other generating capacity to bankruptcy. Solar is already quite cheap and will continue getting cheaper.


As I said in the comment above I'm almost 60. I was promised cheap solar 50 years ago and it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> As I said in the comment above I'm almost 60. I was promised cheap solar 50 years ago and it hasn't happened yet.











Evolution of solar PV module cost by data source, 1970-2020 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA


Evolution of solar PV module cost by data source, 1970-2020 - Chart and data by the International Energy Agency.




www.iea.org




A watt of solar PV went from 2015USD$105 in 1975 to 2015USD$0.20 in 2020. That is a 99.8% price decline.









Solar Industry Research Data | SEIA


Solar industry research data for the United States. Information and graphs about the growth of the solar energy industry.




www.seia.org





Almost all US generating capacity added last year was renewable.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Self promotion articles. They need to be fact checked.

I've been using 100% renewable electricity my entire life...hydro power. It's still cheaper and more reliable than solar. I can't think of any reason to add intermittent and unreliable power.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

Hydro comes with a huge initial capital outlay but once it is done lasts for decades. Manitoba has had some of the lowest utility rates for years. Selling power at peak and then buying back at lower rates is an added bonus. I understand there are environmental concerns around any energy and power generation source but I can't figure out why hydro take a back seat to wind and solar. Like anything, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. We should be using various sources of energy where it makes sense. Another situation where NIMBYism thwarts progress.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Nuclear power is popular in Ontario.


The nuclear waste isn't popular. The government is still looking for some place to dump it, but nobody wants it anywhere near where they live.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The nuclear waste isn't popular. The government is still looking for some place to dump it, but nobody wants it anywhere near where they live.


That is true for every power generation system we have, with the possible exception of solar.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> That is true for every power generation system we have, with the possible exception of solar.


But solar couldn't provide enough power to light a cigar on a sunny day.

If I examine the yearly energy output by fuel type in Ontario, we see that even though solar has destroyed enormous areas of land that could be used to produce food, we see that at best it provides an intermittent 1% of Ontario's power.

The only way forward is nuclear.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> That is true for every power generation system we have, with the possible exception of solar.


Solar panels are a bit of a looming disposal problem as well. We will need to gear up a whole industry to recover the less benign components to be recycled into new panels.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> The nuclear waste isn't popular. The government is still looking for some place to dump it, but nobody wants it anywhere near where they live.


Is there any sort of waste that is popular? How is the popularity of coal ash?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Solar panels are a bit of a looming disposal problem as well. We will need to gear up a whole industry to recover the less benign components to be recycled into new panels.


So are wind turbine blades, being composites they're basically disposable
And figure out lithium mining, or the alternative battery technologies. I'm hoping that they come up with a cheap robust stationary battery solution.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> But solar couldn't provide enough power to light a cigar on a sunny day.
> 
> If I examine the yearly energy output by fuel type in Ontario, we see that even though solar has destroyed enormous areas of land that could be used to produce food, we see that at best it provides an intermittent 1% of Ontario's power.
> 
> ...


I am generally supportive of nuclear as well, though I am hoping SMRs will provide better cost and safety profile.

You seem to have missed the caveat about excluding embedded generation. Ontario has about 2 GW of embedded solar generation:




__





Distribution-Connected Generation







www.ieso.ca


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> So are wind turbine blades, being composites they're basically disposable
> And figure out lithium mining, or the alternative battery technologies. I'm hoping that they come up with a cheap robust stationary battery solution.


I think the concerns around lithium are overblown. Lithium can be recycled--shall we disregard the harm caused by O&G extraction?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I think the concerns around lithium are overblown. Lithium can be recycled--shall we disregard the harm caused by O&G extraction?


Lithium mining is very toxic, but don't worry, we only do it in poor countries


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Lithium mining is very toxic, but don't worry, we only do it in poor countries


It is not necessarily so. 

Would you be surprised to discover the oil & gas extraction can also be severely ecologically damaging? Have you seen lately what is going on in the Niger delta?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> It is not necessarily so.
> 
> Would you be surprised to discover the oil & gas extraction can also be severely ecologically damaging? Have you seen lately what is going on in the Niger delta?


No, but a quick Google suggests maybe it would a better idea to use Canadian oil which is far cleaner.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Why would we want to import ecological damage from other countries ?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> No, but a quick Google suggests maybe it would a better idea to use Canadian oil which is far cleaner.


I'd rather use EVs, as the point emissions aren't 10 ft in front of my face.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

andrewf said:


> I'd rather use EVs, as the point emissions aren't 10 ft in front of my face.


Someone else can suffer, but as long as it's not you that's okay.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Why would we want to import ecological damage from other countries ?


As good global citizens we should work to minimize environmental damage globally.

If the activity being performed in Nigeria could be performed in Canada with less environmental damage, we should move that activity here for the betterment of the world.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

MrMatt said:


> As good global citizens we should work to minimize environmental damage globally.
> 
> If the activity being performed in Nigeria could be performed in Canada with less environmental damage, we should move that activity here for the betterment of the world.


Virtually all mining and drilling is less damaging environmentally in first world countries. It's also far safer for the workers and provides them benefits that are not available in other parts of the world.

People that prefer to import oil and gas and from third world countries are naïve fools.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> People that prefer to import oil and gas and from third world countries are naïve fools.


More like ignorant sociopaths.
People like sags don't even see a problem.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> Someone else can suffer, but as long as it's not you that's okay.


Sure, spin away. Do other people not suffer as a result of burning fossil fuels? 

People complaining about environmental impact of mining for battery materials are largely concern trolling. They don't actually care, they want to keep coal rolling their 6L diesel pickups (or their paycheques are dependent on same).


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

andrewf said:


> Sure, spin away. Do other people not suffer as a result of burning fossil fuels?


Yes they do. They also live a decade or two longer because of them. If fossil fuel use stopped today, in 6-12 months every single tree on the planet would be cut down for heat and cooking.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Sure, spin away. Do other people not suffer as a result of burning fossil fuels?
> 
> People complaining about environmental impact of mining for battery materials are largely concern trolling. They don't actually care, they want to keep coal rolling their 6L diesel pickups (or their paycheques are dependent on same).


Well I work in the electric industry today, I drive a small car with a <2L engine. I don't really fit the mold of your imagined opponent do I?

The thing is burning fossil fuels isn't perfect, but neither is massive pollution from the alternatives. 
If we do EITHER, we should try to do it in the most responsible manner possible.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> The thing is burning fossil fuels isn't perfect, but neither is massive pollution from the alternatives.
> If we do EITHER, we should try to do it in the most responsible manner possible.


Right, let's take a breather before we destroy our economy to evaluate where we are going. There's no smog over our cities any more since we have mandated car manufacturers to reduce pollution from internal combustion vehicles. I understand passenger vehicles are 98% cleaner from tailpipe pollutants compared to the 1960s, and lead has been eliminated from our fuel, and sulfur levels are more than 90% lower than they were prior to these regulations. We've also done a great job on reducing water pollution levels over the last few decades.

Do we really need to destroy our economy now over this obsession over the weather?

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> As good global citizens we should work to minimize environmental damage globally.
> 
> If the activity being performed in Nigeria could be performed in Canada with less environmental damage, we should move that activity here for the betterment of the world.


The Alberta tar sands are an ecological disaster and what do Albertans have to show for it ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The Alberta tar sands are an ecological disaster and what do Albertans have to show for it ?


1. The oil sands aren't an ecological disaster.
2. Quebec has about a quarter trillion dollars of that Alberta oil money to show for it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Well I work in the electric industry today, I drive a small car with a <2L engine. I don't really fit the mold of your imagined opponent do I?
> 
> The thing is burning fossil fuels isn't perfect, but neither is massive pollution from the alternatives.
> If we do EITHER, we should try to do it in the most responsible manner possible.


You should be couching your concerns about resource extraction generally in those terms, and not merely concern trolling about EVs because batteries have inputs. Lifecycle analysis shows that EV batteries recoup their energy investment quickly. Focusing on EV inputs to the exclusion of all other resource extraction is disingenuous.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> Right, let's take a breather before we destroy our economy to evaluate where we are going. There's no smog over our cities any more since we have mandated car manufacturers to reduce pollution from internal combustion vehicles. I understand passenger vehicles are 98% cleaner from tailpipe pollutants compared to the 1960s, and lead has been eliminated from our fuel, and sulfur levels are more than 90% lower than they were prior to these regulations. We've also done a great job on reducing water pollution levels over the last few decades.
> 
> Do we really need to destroy our economy now over this obsession over the weather?
> 
> ltr


There is still huge pollution in cities from vehicles. PM2.5 has huge negative and immediate health effects on everyone, and particularly children. Burning stuff is literally killing people and making our children dumber. We have made progress, but there is much yet to be done. If you want further evidence, cast your mind back to April 2020 when pollution levels in many major cities dramatically improved due to lower mobility and shuttered industry.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> There is still huge pollution in cities from vehicles. PM2.5 has huge negative and immediate health effects on everyone, and particularly children. Burning stuff is literally killing people and making our children dumber. We have made progress, but there is much yet to be done. If you want further evidence, cast your mind back to April 2020 when pollution levels in many major cities dramatically improved due to lower mobility and shuttered industry.


I agree, if we destroy our economy it would be "good for the environment".
We've known this for decades, 20 years ago there was a huge controversy when a Laurier prof said the quickest way to achieve the green movements goals was to shut down the global economy, which would of course cause significant human suffering.
We did that for COVID, and guess what... significant drops in pollution and increase in human suffering.

The problem is the lack of balance and anti science policy. The single minded attack on CO2 at the expense of pretty much every other aspect of environmental policy, let alone other areas, is problematic.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

If going green is so important, then how come most of those in favour of alternative technology still drive ICE vehicles and heat their homes with fossil fuels?

Lead by example. If you can prove it works others will follow.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Ok, I'll dump my trash on your lawn and let you lead by example by picking it up.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

andrewf said:


> Ok, I'll dump my trash on your lawn and let you lead by example by picking it up.


Of course you won't lead by example. You will stomp your feet and demand everyone else do something but you'll never take the initiative.

So, I'll just keep driving my 290 HP ICE car and heating my house with fossil fuels until the holier than thou greens prove that there is a viable alternative.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> Of course you won't lead by example. You will stomp your feet and demand everyone else do something but you'll never take the initiative.
> 
> So, I'll just keep driving my 290 HP ICE car and heating my house with fossil fuels until the holier than thou greens prove that there is a viable alternative.


Ok, you do that, and I'll dump my trash on your lawn. I assume you think we should have zero prohibitions on littering?


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

andrewf said:


> Ok, you do that, and I'll dump my trash on your lawn. I assume you think we should have zero prohibitions on littering?


Why would you think that?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Ok, you do that, and I'll dump my trash on your lawn. I assume you think we should have zero prohibitions on littering?


Why would you assume that?

You raised the Nigerian Delta problems, and I suggested moving that type of activity to a jurisdiction with stronger environmental protections, specifically because of those better environmental protections. The idea that I'd be okay with littering is ridiculous.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> Why would you think that?


By your logic, we should let people litter if they want to. People who think we shouldn't have trash everywhere should just stop making any garbage and leave the rest of us alone to drop **** where we like.

These are collective action problems. Saying that one person should just stop doing the bad thing if they think we should all stop doing the bad thing is not a valid argument. You think it is fine to force everyone to cooperate to reduce litter (under penalty of fine), which is logically equivalent to thinking that everyone should cooperate to reduce the amount of burning **** that happens, because noxious pollutants make everyone sick. Telling one person to stop burning stuff when that won't make a material difference is just adding insult to injury.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

andrewf said:


> By your logic, we should let people litter if they want to. People who think we shouldn't have trash everywhere should just stop making any garbage and leave the rest of us alone to drop **** where we like.
> 
> These are collective action problems. Saying that one person should just stop doing the bad thing if they think we should all stop doing the bad thing is not a valid argument. You think it is fine to force everyone to cooperate to reduce litter (under penalty of fine), which is logically equivalent to thinking that everyone should cooperate to reduce the amount of burning **** that happens, because noxious pollutants make everyone sick. Telling one person to stop burning stuff when that won't make a material difference is just adding insult to injury.


That's not my logic, and littering has nothing to do with fossil fuel use.

It's not one person...it's millions in Canada who want to go green. Yet the vast majority of them are doing absolutely nothing except demand that someone else to pay for it. Until they put their money where their mouth is, it's just empty words.

If it's that important to you, pay your own way. Show us that it's viable and we'll follow. But if all you do is talk then I'm not interested.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> By your logic, we should let people litter if they want to. People who think we shouldn't have trash everywhere should just stop making any garbage and leave the rest of us alone to drop **** where we like.
> 
> These are collective action problems. Saying that one person should just stop doing the bad thing if they think we should all stop doing the bad thing is not a valid argument. You think it is fine to force everyone to cooperate to reduce litter (under penalty of fine), which is logically equivalent to thinking that everyone should cooperate to reduce the amount of burning **** that happens, because noxious pollutants make everyone sick. *Telling one person to stop burning stuff when that won't make a material difference is just adding insult to injury.*


That's exactly my point why we should increase Oil & Gas production in Canada, as it will actually make things better.
I'm glad we agree.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> That's exactly my point why we should increase Oil & Gas production in Canada, as it will actually make things better.
> I'm glad we agree.


I don't really oppose oil & gas production in Canada. As long as we're moving toward a world where consumption is dropping to zero. Because O&G is a sunset industry with large negative externalities, I strongly oppose public subsidies for investment or operations.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I don't really oppose oil & gas production in Canada. As long as we're moving toward a world where consumption is dropping to zero. Because O&G is a sunset industry with large negative externalities, I strongly oppose public subsidies for investment or operations.


I strongly oppose public subsidies for anything that isn't clearly in the public interest.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

Interesting article on the hidden costs of green energy:

" Producing one ton of rare earth metals releases up to 420,000 cubic feet of toxic gases, 2,600 cubic feet of acidic wastewater, and a ton of radioactive waste. The resulting black sludge is piped into a foul, lifeless lake. Numerous local people suffer from severe skin and respiratory diseases, children are born with soft bones, and cancer rates have soared."

"The world’s top producer of cobalt is the Democratic Republic of Congo, where some 40,000 children as young as four toil with their parents for less than $2 a day up to 12 hours a day. Many die in cave-ins, or more slowly from constant exposure to toxic, radioactive mud, dust, water and air that puts dangerous levels of cobalt, lead, uranium and other heavy metals into their bodies."

The California Democrats voted down a bill that would prevent child labour from being used:

"In 2019, California Assembly Bill 735 proposed that the state certify that “zero emission” electric vehicles sold there are free of any materials or components that involve child labor. Democrats voted it down."

The staggering human costs of "renewable" energy - CFACT


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> Interesting article on the hidden costs of green energy:
> 
> " Producing one ton of rare earth metals releases up to 420,000 cubic feet of toxic gases, 2,600 cubic feet of acidic wastewater, and a ton of radioactive waste. The resulting black sludge is piped into a foul, lifeless lake. Numerous local people suffer from severe skin and respiratory diseases, children are born with soft bones, and cancer rates have soared."
> 
> ...


Cobalt is a key catalyst in the refining of gasoline. We really should stop burning the stuff and use cobalt-free EVs like the majority of the ones Tesla makes using LFP battery chemistry. Good point.'

You shoudl also smash the computer you are using, which is made with rare earth metals.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

duplicate


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

andrewf said:


> Cobalt is a key catalyst in the refining of gasoline. We really should stop burning the stuff. Good point.


Why don't you address the concerns in the article instead of deflecting?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> Why don't you address the concerns in the article instead of deflecting?


I'll use Matt's argument that we should be finding alternative sources of rare earths from China. I would put the onus on China for poor environmental regulations. North America has many rare earth resources (rare earths are not that rare) but extraction in an environmentally responsible way is expensive. China has pursued a strategy of trying to corner the market on these resources.

I think you're concern trolling. You don't care about rare earths or cobalt, you are just opposed to EV adoption. I am pretty concerned about the fine particles of soot that me, you, your grandkids and my nephews inhale, penetrate the blood brain barrier and get lodged in brains. PM2.5 greatly increases the risk of heart disease and heart attacks (leading cause of death), and children who go to school near busy roads have significantly diminished intellectual capability.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

I'm not against EV adoption. They currently don't meet my requirements but when they do I may buy one, as long as the concerns about rare earth metals and battery production are addressed.

Why don't you let me know when you stop all fossil fuel transportation and heat your home entirely without fossil fuels. Otherwise you're all talk no action. Lead by example.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HappilyRetired said:


> I'm not against EV adoption. They currently don't meet my requirements but when they do I may buy one, as long as the concerns about rare earth metals and battery production are addressed.
> 
> Why don't you let me know when you stop all fossil fuel transportation and heat your home entirely without fossil fuels. Otherwise you're all talk no action. Lead by example.


Let me know when you stop using all products containing rare earths and batteries, otherwise you're all talk and no action. Lead by example.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> I'm not against EV adoption. They currently don't meet my requirements but when they do I may buy one, as long as the concerns about rare earth metals and battery production are addressed.
> 
> Why don't you let me know when you stop all fossil fuel transportation and heat your home entirely without fossil fuels. Otherwise you're all talk no action. Lead by example.


I think for the right use case, even with the horrible environmental damage, EV's are appropriate.
Taxis, delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, city busses.

For private vehicles with little usage, I don't think they're worth it, yet.


----------



## geno (Sep 6, 2017)

james4beach said:


> If reducing fossil fuel consumption automatically hurts your standard of living, then you are failing to deploy intelligence and innovation.
> 
> Successful societies tend to do much better than that under the stress of a changing world, but it takes forward thinking and rolling up one's sleeves to find better ways.
> 
> Lazy people who are set in old ways, and refuse to change, may indeed suffer a reduction in standard of living.


Didn't say reducing fossil fuels is the direct cause for a lower standard of living. It's a fact of geography and climate for Canadians. We need energy to heat our homes, electric vehicles aren't going to be viable in most parts of the country for decades, food will need to be grown and transported. What are we doing in this country? Taxing those things. We will be paying $8/GJ in taxes alone by 2030 for natural gas, what do you think the price of gas or diesel will be. We need utility companies to build up our electrical infrastructure, and that will allow them to jack up rates and distribution fees. Farmers are going to need fuel and fossil fuel based fertilizer for years to come. If you are well off, it is a minor inconvenience when your utility and grocery bills rise a few hundred bucks a month. But for the nearly half of people living pay check to pay check, that will be a disaster, lowering the quality of life for millions.

Don't get me wrong, innovation will come. There are many exciting ideas and technologies that may bring about immense change. Getting them to scale is going to take time and resources.

Don't be so arrogant.


----------



## prisoner24601 (May 27, 2018)

Lot's of thoughtful comments that are mainly about future forms of energy supply which is at least half the equation. How about the demand side? In manufacturing, lean techniques are often used to reduce waste (muda) in industrial processes to increase profitability. This is largely untapped in the green transition at least from what I can see in Canada so far. Buildings and building codes are but one example. In the 90's I had a big house in Calgary with two furnaces and it cost a pittance to heat due to low natural gas prices. But the price in terms of pollution I created was very high - over 200 GJ per year for a 50-100 year lifetime of the house. I built the house new but the technology and regulations at the time were such that energy efficiency was at best a 3rd tier consideration - 2x6 walls and R20 as I recall was a selling feature if you can believe it. My current home clocks at 41 GJ per year without solar and with solar it is net positive. The big savings is a reduction of waste heat due to better building envelope, orientation and systems- basically more insulation and better air barrier, windows etc.. The point is that this is simple stuff that makes a big difference over time. It's amazing that in Canada of all places we should allow poorly constructed new builds to continue.


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

MrMatt said:


> I think for the right use case, even with the horrible environmental damage, EV's are appropriate.
> Taxis, delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, city busses.
> 
> For private vehicles with little usage, I don't think they're worth it, yet.


They are worth it to me. My hydro company isn't price gouging and it's amongst the cleanest energy in the world.

Oil and gas is so 20th century.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

The inconvenient truth of climate policy is that EVs, solar panels, and windmills are insufficient to meet Paris climate objectives and it isn't even close. Those are important tools, but hanging your hat on EV/solar/wind is a fantasy. A 40-45% drop in emissions by 2030 is the target. That is 7.5 years away and emissions have not yet dropped. More likely, 2022 will be a record high for carbon emissions in the world. Just coal production and consumption in 2021, the worst carbon polluter of all, was the highest ever in history. So the problem is getting worse despite record EV, solar panel, and windmill production around the world. The problem would be even worse than it is now without these solutions, but that doesn't take away that the world is still heading in the wrong direction.

Look around and try and figure what it will take to drop total carbon emissions by 45% in 7 years. I can imagine some possibilities. Even dropping emissions by half that amount, which would be a complete failure of carbon policy, and I would argue, is also a complete fantasy even if every single policy is fully implemented. Even in Canada, there is no way we will meet half of the target.

Climate policy is a wreck. It won't meet the target. It's not even close. I'm not saying climate change is not a worthwhile objective. I'm saying the policies to get there are not working.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

doctrine said:


> The inconvenient truth of climate policy is that EVs, solar panels, and windmills are insufficient to meet Paris climate objectives and it isn't even close.
> 
> Climate policy is a wreck. It won't meet the target. It's not even close. I'm not saying climate change is not a worthwhile objective. I'm saying the policies to get there are not working.


1. It's not "climate policy", it's CO2 emissions policy.
2. The objectives aren't really about CO2, that's just cover to push other objectives. Wealth redistribution is a big obvious one.
By putting limits in Canada, but not in China, the jobs move to China
Within Canada a lot of it is to simply take more Alberta money and give it to other provinces (ie Quebec)


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

It's always been about wealth distribution. The people in charge have said so on several occasions. Climate is just the tool they are using to dupe the masses.

Anyone who thinks that this is about the temperature is a fool.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

HappilyRetired said:


> It's always been about wealth distribution. The people in charge have said so on several occasions. Climate is just the tool they are using to dupe the masses.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that this is about the temperature is a fool.


Well, it's not about the carbon emissions, because the world is pumping out more carbon, not less, despite 26 consecutive UN annual meetings where we said it would be the case.

I prefer to believe in incompetence, ignorance, and "make the next person make the hard decisions", than a grand conspiracy to redistribute wealth. No one wants to be the politician that actually makes the hard decisions. I'm not sure the population will accept the hard decisions, either, if it came down to it. Actually, I'm sure they wouldn't. Not 45% cuts in 7 years. Not even 25%.

Everyone likes being told what they want to hear. They want to hear there is a plan and the world will be saved. And politicians are telling them this, while hurting them as little as possible to keep their jobs. This is repeating everywhere at the same time, so its not unique to Canada.


----------



## HappilyRetired (Nov 14, 2021)

doctrine said:


> Well, it's not about the carbon emissions, because the world is pumping out more carbon, not less, despite 26 consecutive UN annual meetings where we said it would be the case.


You'd think they would lead by example and have Zoom meetings instead of everyone flying there in private jets to lecture the masses.

Or, that maybe they would tell China to stop building new coal plants on weekly basis.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

I have heard about environmental initiatives and emissions targets most of my life. I have yet to hear of a target date that covers an election cycle. Numerous accords have been signed by the developed world which have never been met and the corrective action that is taken is to set new targets for a future date. A lot of what was stated upthread has merit. I think everybody wants to take environmental action as long as it is not too impactful. Another example of NIMBYism contributing to the problem thinly veiled as a solution. 

As an aside, has anybody calculated the total carbon footprint difference of supplementing solar panels including manufacturing, disposal and replacement? I am genuinely interested but am always hearing that efficiency has not quite reached it's tipping point. If someone out there could provide me some links it would be greatly appreciated.

I have witnessed lots of water cooler discussion about this as well as the environmental cost of EV. It often creates visions of seacans of recycling being shipped to 3rd world countries as solutions to recycling programs. Perhaps I have become jaded and i continue to reduce, reuse and recycle. I think there are always opportunities to do better but we can easily rely on optics.

As an aside, @prisoner24601, speaking of R20 and 2X6 wall construction I remember reviewing the R2000 construction guidelines a lifetime ago as part of my trade apprenticeship. Fast forward to LEEDs certification with great environmental protocols to reduce waste in theory. However, I know of several LEEDs projects where construction waste (drywall scraps, wiring, and previous demo materials, were thrown into the walls or hidden elsewhere in the building to reduce the amount of waste headed to the landfill. This is the adult equivalent of a child cleaning up their room and shoving everything under the bed or closet.


----------

