Canada Under Pressure to Curb GreenHouse Gases

[WestCoastRunner]

Well, now that the U.S. and China have stepped up to the plate, will Canada (I mean harper) follow suit.

Trudeau has said that he hopes this agreement will 'wake up' Harper and get Canada more involved in addressing environmental concerns.

Perhaps this is Obama's legacy item? I think this could be a game changer!

I apologize. I tried to copy and paste from the cbc article but it's not working!

[WestCoastRunner]

I got a paste to work!

Under the agreement, Obama set a goal to cut U.S. emissions between 26 and 28 per cent by 2025, compared with 2005 levels. Officials have said the U.S. is already on track to meet Obama's earlier goal to lower emissions 17 per cent by 2020, and that the revised goal meant the U.S. would be cutting pollution roughly twice as fast during a five-year period starting in 2020.

China, whose emissions are growing as it builds new coal plants, set a target for its emissions to peak by about 2030 — earlier if possible — with the idea being that its emissions would then start falling. Although that goal still allows China to keep pumping more carbon dioxide for the next 16 years, it marked an unprecedented step for Beijing, which has been reluctant to be boxed in on climate by the global community.

I can only hope that Canada will follow suit, regardless of our next leader.

[sharkman]

Seriously? China promises(actually, no not even a promise. The Chinese president calls it "action goals". Look it up.) to DO NOTHING UNTIL 2030. Obama promises to further damage the US economy with policies that strangle an already weak economy. Good thing he can't get any funding for his stupidity from Congress. And Canada should do anything but laugh at this? Our record is better than China and the U.S. already, They need to catch up with us, not the other way around. Good lord, can we please get some posters on this board with critical thinking skills?

[WestCoastRunner]

Good lord, can we please get some posters on this board with critical thinking skills?

Good lord, can we please get some posters on this board with manners. Why is there this need to ridicule posters on this forum. I just don't get it. I created a topic with the hopes of having polite discussions and instead I get this. What is it with this platform and why do we have such insults towards posters?

Edited November 13, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[WestCoastRunner]

Seriously? China promises(actually, no not even a promise. The Chinese president calls it "action goals". Look it up.) to DO NOTHING UNTIL 2030. Obama promises to further damage the US economy with policies that strangle an already weak economy. Good thing he can't get any funding for his stupidity from Congress. And Canada should do anything but laugh at this? Our record is better than China and the U.S. already, They need to catch up with us, not the other way around. Good lord, can we please get some posters on this board with critical thinking skills?

Regardless of your thoughts. It is a game changer.

[On Guard for Thee]

Seriously? China promises(actually, no not even a promise. The Chinese president calls it "action goals". Look it up.) to DO NOTHING UNTIL 2030. Obama promises to further damage the US economy with policies that strangle an already weak economy. Good thing he can't get any funding for his stupidity from Congress. And Canada should do anything but laugh at this? Our record is better than China and the U.S. already, They need to catch up with us, not the other way around. Good lord, can we please get some posters on this board with critical thinking skills?

That might put you out of business here. China capping it's GHG if they can do it in that time would be monumental. When you say "our record" what tdose that actually mean in the real world. You know, actual numbers and such.

[WestCoastRunner]

This initiative from China will help to raise the prospect of expansion into markets for alternative energies. It's about time we did so!

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-china-agree-to-curb-greenhouse-gas-emissions-1415763692

[TimG]

I can only hope that Canada will follow suit, regardless of our next leader.

What do you mean by follow suit?

China has promised to do nothing other than let its economy evolve normally. Increasing emission free production to 20% of its primary energy consumption is not difficult to do when you include hydro and a rapid build out of nuclear. Are you saying that Canada should follow China's lead and start building nuclear power stations and new hydro dams as fast as possible?

I could get behind China's plan but I don't think that is what you have in mind.

Do you really think Obama's promises to reduce emissions are anything other than hot air intended to appeal to people who don't think that seriously about the issues? The US economy has one bright spot: fossil fuel production - production that has lead to the a dramatic drop in oil prices. Do you really think that congress is going to do anything to constrain that sector over the next 10-15 years because Obama goes out and makes an announcement?

Edited November 13, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

What do you mean by follow suit?

Harper can no longer hide in the U.S. shadow.

"Canada’s hiding in the U.S. shadow on climate policy has proved a good strategy to justify inaction. No longer will this be the case. With a bilateral China-U.S. agreement on controlling long-term GHG, pressure will mount for Canada to not only announce new long-term GHG targets, but to prove it is taking action."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canada-cant-hide-any-longer-after-us-china-climate-deal/article21553164/

[On Guard for Thee]

What do you mean by follow suit?

China has promised to do nothing other than let its economy evolve normally. Increasing emission free production to 20% of its primary energy consumption is not difficult to do when you include hydro and a rapid build out of nuclear. Are you saying that Canada should follow China's lead and start building nuclear power stations and new hydro dams as fast as possible?

I could get behind China's plan but I don't think that is what you have in mind.

Do you really think Obama's promises to reduce emissions are anything other than hot air intended to appeal to people who don't think that seriously about the issues? The US economy has one bright spot: fossil fuel production - production that has lead to the a dramatic drop in oil prices. Do you really think that congress is going to do anything to constrain that sector over the next 10-15 years because Obama goes out and makes an announcement?

It has another bright spot. Alternate/renewable energy sources. You must work for Exxon or some such right?

[WestCoastRunner]

It has another bright spot. Alternate/renewable energy sources. You must work for Exxon or some such right?

Exactly, more money spent on alternative energy sources research, which was a promise that the oil companies at one time promised to invest in and never did.

[On Guard for Thee]

Exactly, more money spent on alternative energy sources research, which was a promise that the oil companies at one time promised to invest in and never did.

I know and what I find totally retarded about this issue is that there are those that seem stuck in the concept if that we stop pumping carcinogenic shit into our atmosphere that everybody would be out of a job somehow. Let Exxon/Mobil get into the renewable industry. Let all the people who work there now just change it up a bit. And here is what I tend to find really stupid, is somehow there seems to be ignorance of the fact that, there is a LAST barrel of oil. Do we have to burn the last one before we get a little bit smarter?

[TimG]

It has another bright spot. Alternate/renewable energy sources.

Please provide these numbers:

The net contribution of renewables to the US economy.

The net contribution of fossil fuel production to the US economy;

Renewables are a rounding error compared to fossil fuels.

[TimG]

Exactly, more money spent on alternative energy sources research, which was a promise that the oil companies at one time promised to invest in and never did.

There are no unicorns no matter how much you want them to exist. The same can be said for commercially viable solar and wind. If you care about CO2 emission then start promoting the use of nuclear. If you don't want nuclear then you obviously don't think CO2 is a big issue so why should anyone else care about it? Edited November 13, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Please provide these numbers:

The net contribution of renewables to the US economy.

The net contribution of fossil fuel production to the US economy;

Renewables are a rounding error compared to fossil fuels.

So you are under the impression they will never run out. and that they are doing no environmental damage. With that kind of thinking, Orville and Wilbur would still be frolicking on the beach at Kittyhawk.

[WestCoastRunner]

Please provide these numbers:

The net contribution of renewables to the US economy.

The net contribution of fossil fuel production to the US economy;

Renewables are a rounding error compared to fossil fuels.

Are you arguing against R&D into renewable energy?

According to the University of Delaware: "A well-designed combination of wind and solar power with storage in batteries and fuel cells could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 % of the time by 2030 at costs comparable to today’s electricity expenses.

“The key is to get the right combination of electricity sources and storage and to calculate costs correctly,” says co-author Willett Kempton.

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5929-How-western-oil-giant-BP-broke-its-green-promises

[TimG]

Are you arguing against R&D into renewable energy?

R&D is fine. I only argue against the forced deployment of technologies which are not commercially viable.

According to the University of Delaware: "A well-designed combination of wind and solar power with storage in batteries and fuel cells could fully power a large electric grid 99.9 % of the time by 2030 at costs comparable to today’s electricity expenses.

Wishful thinking.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

The problem is analysed in an important paper by Weißbach et al.1 in terms of energy returned on energy invested, or EROEI – the ratio of the energy produced over the life of a power plant to the energy that was required to build it

...

There is a minimum EROEI, greater than 1, that is required for an energy source to be able to run society. An energy system must produce a surplus large enough to sustain things like food production, hospitals, and universities to train the engineers to build the plant, transport, construction, and all the elements of the civilization in which it is embedded

...

Adding storage greatly reduces the EROEI (the “buffered” values in the figure). Wind “firmed” with storage, with an EROEI of 3.9, joins solar PV and biomass as an unviable energy source. CSP becomes marginal (EROEI ~9) with pumped storage, so is probably not viable with molten salt thermal storage.

...

This is a rather unsettling conclusion if we are looking to renewable energy for a transition to a low carbon energy system: we cannot use energy storage to overcome the variability of solar and wind power.

As I said: if you want to reduce CO2 emissions then nuclear is the ONLY viable option at this time. If you refuse to consider nuclear then you obviously don't care that much about CO2. Which makes me wonder: if you are not willing to compromise by getting over your aversion to nuclear then why should other people compromise when it comes to things that are important to them?

Edited November 13, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Boy did Harper get caught with his pants down here. The US and China have actually worked out a plan, and Harper just keeps defunding science.

[WestCoastRunner]

R&D is fine. I only argue against the forced deployment of technologies which are not commercially viable.

Wishful thinking.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

The problem is that the major oil companies reduced their R&D initiatives because of the demand for high paying jobs in the oil sector and especially with the governments pandering to these demands for jobs. It is an easy win for the oil companies. Without leadership, there will be no R&D in renewable energy.

[TimG]

The problem is that the major oil companies reduced their R&D initiatives because of the demand for high paying jobs in the oil sector and especially with the governments pandering to these demands for jobs. It is an easy win for the oil companies. Without leadership, there will be no R&D in renewable energy.

Conspiracy theories now? I suppose you think that 9/11 was an inside job and the US government is hiding a spaceship in area 51.

There are high paying jobs in the oil industry because it is sector that is commercially viable without subsidies. The sector produces an essential product that we cannot live without. If someone came up with a commercially viable alternative the world would adopt it and the oil companies would be SOL. History is littered with the relics of formerly dominate companies that were made obsolete by technology.

Why don't you answer the question: if you are not willing to compromise by getting over your aversion to nuclear then why should other people compromise when it comes to things that are important to them?

Edited November 13, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

I get all that. We still need leadership to promote R&D for alternative energy.

[WestCoastRunner]

Tim: I don't get the nastiness in your posts. Did I mention conspiracy theories?

[TimG]

Did I mention conspiracy theories?

You claimed that oil companies conspired to reduce R&D spending in renewables. That is a conspiracy theory. Oil companies reduced spending on renewables R&D because be become clear that it was a commercial dead end and it made no sense to continue.

Besides it is not the job of oil companies to 'lead the research into R&D'. It is their job to produce the best return on capital for their owners which could include investments in alternative energy if they are commericially viable.

Edited November 13, 2014 by TimG

[Shady]

Good lord, can we please get some posters on this board with manners. Why is there this need to ridicule posters on this forum. I just don't get it. I created a topic with the hopes of having polite discussions and instead I get this. What is it with this platform and why do we have such insults towards posters?

If you're going to create a topic, be prepared to face the facts related to said topic. Obama's deal punishes America's economy, while rewards Chinas. It's a great recipe for shipping jobs overseas, and hamstringing American manufacturing. America contributes 15% of greenhouse gases, and has to start cutting immediately to reach it's "goal" by 2025. China on the otherhand, contributes 24% of greenhouse gases, and has until 2030 to increase it's greenhouse gases without cutting a single carbon molecule, and then maybe by then will start to do something. And you think that this type of deal should be copied and implemented by Canada? Are you insane? Do you care about the middle class even a bit? Do you care about Canada's manufacturing and energy industries even a bit? This is utter insanity.

Thank God you people are in the far fringes of Canadian society.

[TimG]

I get all that. We still need leadership to promote R&D for alternative energy.

No one disagrees with that. What is your point?