Cap and Trade and Yes and No

[Bonam]

Therefore, CO2 emissions will be a big part of the electrical generation system for a long time to come. This also means that even if electric cars were competitive with gasoline cars they would not have that much of an impact on emissions if new coal plants need to be built to power them.

Electric cars/trucks would allow for a ~3x reduction in emissions from transportation, even if all the new power plants required to charge them were fossil fuel plants, because gasoline engines average about 20% efficiency in cars (their peak efficiency is typically in the 30-35% range but they spend most of their time operating at conditions well away from peak efficiency). Meanwhile, modern combined cycle power plants reach efficiencies of about 60%.

[TimG]

Electric cars/trucks would allow for a ~3x reduction in emissions from transportation, even if all the new power plants required to charge them were fossil fuel plants, because gasoline engines average about 20% efficiency in cars (their peak efficiency is typically in the 30-35% range but they spend most of their time operating at conditions well away from peak efficiency). Meanwhile, modern combined cycle power plants reach efficiencies of about 60%.

I see your point but trucks, freight trains, boats and planes are not going to run on electricity in the foreseeable future which reduces the scope for emission reductions by electrifying consumer transportation. Also we could still see rising emissions even with these efficiency gains if population continues to increase (Canadian population is expected to double by 2040). Edited April 24, 2015 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Suncor CEO thinks a Carbon Tax is the way to go

The president and CEO of Suncor Energy Inc., Canada’s largest oil company, is willing to pay a carbon tax, but thinks it should apply to both companies and consumers.

“We think climate change is happening,” Steve Williams said at an Ecofiscal Commission event Friday in Calgary. “We think a broad-based carbon price is the right answer.”

[TimG]

We think a broad-based carbon price is the right answer.

It is the right answer as long as it means an end to all other CO2 mitigation scams like renewable mandates/preferential tariffs or carbon credit sales. It will also require that the people pushing for "action" accept that significant CO2 reductions are not going to happen since any politically viable carbon tax will not be high enough to cause significant changes in behavior or technology.

[Mighty AC]

Ideally a Carbon tax would have increases pre-scheduled at regular intervals, long in advance and be made roughly revenue neutral through either income tax reductions or dividends paid out at tax time.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

Ideally a Carbon tax would have increases pre-scheduled at regular intervals, long in advance and be made roughly revenue neutral through either income tax reductions or dividends paid out at tax time.

Except that model is not sustainable if the tax works as the theory says it should because CO2 reductions will reduce government revenue which would have to be offset by increasing taxes.

Also, the dis-proportionality problem limits the size of any tax now or in the future. i.e. some people, through no fault of their own, will have to emit a lot of CO2 which means it is unfair to destroy their livelyhood by policies that have no chance of achieving their stated objective and only exist to satisfy the need for moral preening.

Edited May 26, 2015 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

At one time it was acceptable for manufacturers to simply dump chemical wastes on land or into water bodies. This practice was found to be harmful, regulations were added and some people and businesses faced hardships through no fault of their own. It's unfortunate that progress makes certain business practices nonviable; however, it would be far more unfortunate to stall progress and permit harmful practices for the sake of outmoded operations. Business practices will adapt to the predictable rising costs or die.

[PIK]

And what will it do for the environment, absolutely nothing, but some will fall for it.

[Mighty AC]

And what will it do for the environment, absolutely nothing, but some will fall for it.

You don't think reducing fossil fuel use will benefit the environment? Wow, I don't have the time to combat that kind of ignorance.

[Argus]

And what you're basically saying is "Well, we know we're poisoning the river, but rather that trying to reduce the poison, we should just learn how to live with it."

And what you're suggesting is we wreck our economy in a desperate attempt to help clean up a river we're dumping a can of garbage into every month while a chemical plant up the river pours raw sewage and waste into it every day. In other words, it's pointless for us to even think of how we could clean it up if the chemical plant (otherwise known as Third World Enterprises) isn't doing the same. India is building 600 coal fired power plants. That alone completely and utterly swamps any improvement Canada could possibly make to world C02 emissions.

[Argus]

Luckily governments, who have access to actual science, are not playing silly little games with this and that formula, and actually making attempts to rein in the problem. I still have yet to hear where this dam is going to be built to try and replace the loss of a glacier.

You mean democratic governments responding to the irrational fears of their largely ignorant voting public. Nobody else is doing much of anything, and most third world countries are increasing C02 emissions by quite a bit. I haven't seen any evidence that says Europe's extraordinarily expensive cap and trade scheme has done anything other than shift production to other countries without any rules or standards

[On Guard for Thee]

You mean democratic governments responding to the irrational fears of their largely ignorant voting public. Nobody else is doing much of anything, and most third world countries are increasing C02 emissions by quite a bit. I haven't seen any evidence that says Europe's extraordinarily expensive cap and trade scheme has done anything other than shift production to other countries without any rules or standards

Thats no way to talk about our India and China trading partners. Just look at all that uranium India is buying from us to produce nuclear power.

[Mighty AC]

In just 4 months China has reduced it's CO2 emissions by the equivalent of all CO2 emissions produced by the entire UK. Despite being the world's largest economy their coal use has fallen by 8% and they have recently closed approximately 1,000 coal mines. They are adding renewable capacity faster than anywhere else in the world and over the next 15 years will create more green electrical capacity than all forms of US electrical generation combined.

The US is reducing emissions, Mexico is reducing emissions, the EU has and continues to reduce emissions and China is reducing them faster than any other nation. The idea that Canada would be at a disadvantage with respect to its trading partners is pure fiction.

[eyeball]

Canada's real disadvantage is that Ottawa has gambled on putting most of our economic eggs into fossil fuel production.

My guess is that they imagined cynicism would win the day and that no one else would live up to their commitments either.

[Mighty AC]

As it turns out even India is proceeding with plans to reduce emissions faster than Canada. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6278

Aside recently agreeing to quantify the reduction of emissions and participate in global efforts, India will also add 20 GW of solar power over the next 5 years and 200 GW by 2050. The most ambitious solar plan in the world at present. India also plans to reforest 800,000 hectares per year and invest in efficiency efforts and standards.

[dre]

This also means that even if electric cars were competitive with gasoline cars they would not have that much of an impact on emissions if new coal plants need to be built to power them.

That depends on how modern the designs for those coal plants are. Also, North America has a glut of increasingly cheap natural gas, and electric cars powered by electricity from modern gas plants produce quite a bit less CO2 than a car with an ICE.

[TimG]

At one time it was acceptable for manufacturers to simply dump chemical wastes on land or into water bodies. This practice was found to be harmful

Except there is zero evidence that CO2 is *harmful*. There is a hypothetical concern based on climate models which predicted much warming than actually occurred but no ACTUAL evidence of harm. If there was actual evidence of harm your argument would be relevant. As it is it is red herring. Edited May 26, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

That depends on how modern the designs for those coal plants are. Also, North America has a glut of increasingly cheap natural gas, and electric cars powered by electricity from modern gas plants produce quite a bit less CO2 than a car with an ICE.

A car can be powered by natural gas directly which is more efficient that converting to electricity, storing in a battery and then using it to power a car.

[TimG]

In just 4 months China has reduced it's CO2 emissions by the equivalent of all CO2 emissions produced by the entire UK.

Which is more evidence of the irrelevance of Canada when it comes to these emissions questions. China and India have stated clearly that they do not give a damn about climate change - they only care about reducing real pollution and and economic growth. If reducing real pollution has the side benefit of reducing CO2 then they will do it but they will NEVER adopt any policies that sacrifice economic growth to reduce CO2 emissions . Neither should Canada. Edited May 26, 2015 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Except there is zero evidence that CO2 is *harmful*. There is a hypothetical concern based on dubious climate models but NO actual evidence of harm. If there was actual evidence of harm your argument would be relevant. As it is it is red herring.

This statement is at odds with the views of the vast majority of expects in the field. You are a conspiracy theorist and your opinion here is akin to that of a 9/11 truther. Unfortunately, when you are that out of touch discussing these ideas with you become a waste of time.

[bush_cheney2004]

Atmospheric CO₂ has existed on earth at far higher partial pressures in the past. No need to hit the panic button.

[On Guard for Thee]

Which is more evidence of the irrelevance of Canada when it comes to these emissions questions. China and India have stated clearly that they do not give a damn about climate change - they only care about reducing real pollution and and economic growth. If reducing real pollution has the side benefit of reducing CO2 then they will do it but they will NEVER adopt any policies that sacrifice economic growth to reduce CO2 emissions . Neither should Canada.

Umm...not according to the Indian PM.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-india-agree-to-major-uranium-supply-deal/article23967494/

[On Guard for Thee]

Atmospheric CO₂ has existed on earth at far higher partial pressures in the past. No need to hit the panic button.

Of course. Just not while we were here.

[TimG]

Umm...not according to the Indian PM.

Please paste a quote from that article that shows the Indian PM believes that India should sacrifice economic growth in order to reduce CO2 emissions. I won't hold my breath... Edited May 26, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Please paste a quote from that article that shows the Indian PM believes that India should sacrifice economic growth in order to reduce CO2 emissions. I won't hold my breath...

It quite clearly states he is doing it due to concern over global warming and plus it will very likely boost economic growth. Saves digging up all that expensive coal. And if you had ever been to India you might know all about holding your breath anywhere downwind of a coal plant.