Trudeau government at pains to explain Pacific Northwest LNG

[?Impact]

natural gas is comprised of typically ~80% methane and releases said methane as its being burnt

Wrong. Burning natural gas (or anything) is a chemical reaction. The methane and oxygen from the air form carbon dioxide and water. If you have complete combustion, then no methane is released. No we don't have 100% efficiency, but generally it is very high.

CH₄ + O₂ = CO₂ + H₂O

Edited September 29, 2016 by ?Impact

[msj]

I answered the Paris question previously: other countries will exceed the targets so why not Canada?

Or, hopefully, Canada will implement a carbon tax, tax the crap out of coal/oil within Canada and move us to electrify transportation.

This may be enough to squeak by. But I would prefer someone like Bonam to do the math. Maybe ?Impact could do it as he seems capable.

Now, do you expect a carbon tax and/or incentives for conservation/electric vehicles?

[TimG]

Or, hopefully, Canada will implement a carbon tax, tax the crap out of coal/oil within Canada and move us to electrify transportation.

Are you familiar with the 'social cost of carbon'? It is an attempt to quantify the future damages from CO2 emissions. Estimating it is a lot of guess work but it is useful because we should not be paying more for CO2 reductions and/or carbon taxes than the cost of the harms. Paying more than the cost of future harms is simply dumb.

The median SCC is 30-50USD. Some estimates go higher but the make a lot of dubious assumptions. We already have a $30CDN carbon tax in BC. It is unlikely that a reasonable carbon tax is going to change behavior.

More importantly, people pay for convenience. People may not be happy paying more for gas but they enjoy the convenience that comes with an ICE vehicle. This further limits any plausible reductions from rationally set carbon taxes. The only thing that will change behavior is new tech that delivers the same benefits for roughly the same cost. We have no idea when than tech will appear. If it does we will rapidly reduce emissions. If it does not then not government policy is going to be enough.

Edited September 29, 2016 by TimG

[BC_chick]

Frankly, I find the 'appeal unqualified authority' as a justification for refusing to discuss these questions to be tiresome. It is a mark of an ideologue that only cares about "climate change" because it is politically useful.

Well no, that's not it. These are people who specialized in areas and spent many years of their lives devoted to a subject.

I'm sure there are lots of people out there who know a lot about our legal system, but at the end of the day, if I need legal advice, I talk to a lawyer.

[TimG]

Well no, that's not it. These are people who specialized in areas and spent many years of their lives devoted to a subject.

So? That does not make them qualified to comment on policy. If they are scientists they know about the science of climate change. Their opinion on policy is worth no more than anyone else who reads and studies the available materials. More importantly. Policy is often about values. For example, experts like James Hanson have said that we need nuclear to meet climate change targets. Does that mean you will support nuclear? If you are willing to ignore "experts" when they say things you don't like then spare me your self serving hypocrisy

I'm sure there are lots of people out there who know a lot about our legal system, but at the end of the day, if I need legal advice, I talk to a lawyer.

Except you are person that insists on going to a car mechanic for legal advice. Edited September 29, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

So? That does not make them qualified to comment on policy.

Who is qualified to comment on policy? The scientists are qualified to comment on the physical implications, and then I would say the rest of the world is equal on policy to the extent they understand the physical implications (which varies, but often is low and very often people ignore them or pretend they are otherwise).

[Derek 2.0]

Wrong.

Uh......no....the largest man made contributor of methane currently in our atmosphere is from the O&G industries.........methane flares around the world disprove your "claim".

ergo.......the less natural gases we refine, the less man will contribute to the ever increasing levels of methane in our atmosphere.

[?Impact]

Uh......no....the largest man made contributor of methane currently in our atmosphere is from the O&G industries.........methane flares around the world disprove your "claim".

ergo.......the less natural gases we refine, the less man will contribute to the ever increasing levels of methane in our atmosphere.

you must have failed high-school chemistry. You realize the reasons for those flares are to ensure the methane does not get released into the atmosphere.

[bush_cheney2004]

The economics of the matter are far more significant than infighting by tree huggers and politicians. Petronas and partners are in no big hurry to complete this project, as others languish in Canada as well.

Given the low LNG prices, Petronas would look to re-evaluate its options with the Canadian project, he said, adding there was unlikely to be much appetite for long-term LNG supplies for new projects.

Asian spot LNG prices LNG-AS have dropped by some 70 percent since 2014. Energy consultancy FGE has forecast the supply glut to peak at around 23 million tonnes a year by 2020 and persist through 2023.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-petronas-lng-idUSKCN11X2GH

[BC_chick]

I answered the Paris question previously: other countries will exceed the targets so why not Canada?

Or, hopefully, Canada will implement a carbon tax, tax the crap out of coal/oil within Canada and move us to electrify transportation.

This may be enough to squeak by. But I would prefer someone like Bonam to do the math. Maybe ?Impact could do it as he seems capable.

Now, do you expect a carbon tax and/or incentives for conservation/electric vehicles?

In a province of 4.5 million, it's naive to think we could get 1.5 million gas vehicles off the road. Even if it was doable, the price tag for the incentive, using the the current rate of $5000, it would cost $7,500,000,000 which takes a large chunk out of that $36 billion investment.

So in the best case scenario, we offset the GHG's but we go back on our agreements with FN's and mess up the ecosystem of the Salmon for $20 billion.

I don't know, I'd rather we focus on renewables all together.

[Derek 2.0]

you must have failed high-school chemistry. You realize the reasons for those flares are to ensure the methane does not get released into the atmosphere.

Yes.........and do you realize there would be no need for said flares absent a refining capacity? No LNG plant on BC's North Coast equates to no increase in the release of methane along BC's North Coast......

[TimG]

I would say the rest of the world is equal on policy to the extent they understand the physical implications

Policy is not just about the physical implications. It is about economics, technology, human behavior and politics. I would say there is no single person qualified to comment on all aspects of policy. More importantly, a big part of policy choices are values and when it comes to values everyone is qualified to comment.

[TimG]

I don't know, I'd rather we focus on renewables all together.

You are not qualified to have an opinion on whether renewables are a viable alternative.

[?Impact]

Yes.........and do you realize there would be no need for said flares absent a refining capacity? No LNG plant on BC's North Coast equates to no increase in the release of methane along BC's North Coast......

Yes, that is the argument for moving to renewable energy. I'm all for leaving it in the ground. All hydrocarbons release methane during the mining/drilling, transportation, and even some due to incomplete combustion. While natural gas has the highest methane content, the infrastructure is designed to capture it. Coal mining for example releases huge amounts of methane with almost zero capture. Crude drilling used to release a lot of methane, but it has been getting better at capture. Location is irrelevant. If we are offsetting coal with LNG, the net methane released should be lower.

Edited September 29, 2016 by ?Impact

[msj]

In a province of 4.5 million, it's naive to think we could get 1.5 million gas vehicles off the road. Even if it was doable, the price tag for the incentive, using the the current rate of $5000, it would cost $7,500,000,000 which takes a large chunk out of that $36 billion investment.

.

BC currently has 3.6 million registered vehicles.

What will it be in 2050?

More?

Less thanks to autonomous vehicles (after all, why own a vehicle if you can rent it and save 50% + per year)?

Turn most of those vehicles into electric by that time and I think we will more than offset PNWLNG.

As for the incentives costing lots - that will be one price to pay for reducing GHG so whether we get the PNWLNG or not I suspect that those incentives will be available.

But we'll see.

[BC_chick]

You are not qualified to have an opinion on whether renewables are a viable alternative.

Because agreeing with the experts on a subject and deviating from them are exactly the same thing. Sure.

No, TimG, that's not how it goes. If 97% of accountants believe a generally accepted accounting principle and 3% don't, then Joe Blow who sides with the 3% is the one lacking the qualification to question the 97% who are experts in their field.

Joe Blow who believes the 97% is correct is just better at discerning qualified advice.

[TimG]

Because agreeing with the experts on a subject and deviating from them are exactly the same thing. Sure.

BZzzt. Wrong answer. You expressed an opinion on policy yet you have absolutely no qualifications that would allow you express an informed opinion. Your hypocrisy is quite ridiculous.

If 97% of accountants believe a generally accepted accounting principle

The 97% consensus argument that climate activists toss around is a wonderful example of how uninformed most climate activists are. Do you even know what the 97% consensus is about? Do you realize that the 97% consensus is only on the narrow question of whether humans are affecting climate. When you look at more meaningful questions like whether CO2 induced warming is a threat that 97% drops to 80%. While 80% is high I don't call that an 'overwhelming consensus'.

More importantly, the question of what to do about said threat is not a question climate scientists are qualified to answer. So it is quite absurd for you to dismiss opinions on what to do that you disagree with as 'ignoring the experts'. It is hypocritical for you to dismiss other people's opinions because they are 'unqualified' while you express your own that you are completely unqualified to express.

Edited September 29, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

How do you figure?

Smallc was making a sarcastic quip about Consevative talking points.

[poochy]

Because agreeing with the experts on a subject and deviating from them are exactly the same thing. Sure.

No, TimG, that's not how it goes. If 97% of accountants believe a generally accepted accounting principle and 3% don't, then Joe Blow who sides with the 3% is the one lacking the qualification to question the 97% who are experts in their field.

Joe Blow who believes the 97% is correct is just better at discerning qualified advice.

That 97% number has been debunked so many times only the most uninformed ideologue isn't too embarassed to mention it.

Edited September 29, 2016 by poochy

[BC_chick]

That 97% number has been debunked so many times only the most uninformed ideologue isn't too embarassed to mention it.

Shoot who to believe: NASA or TimG and Poochy?

Big decision.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Smallc]

Given the post fact world we live in, I'm going with Tim and Poochy.

[Argus]

Look Tim, no offence, but when it comes to climate-change, I believe climate-change scientists over anonymous internet posters. No hard feelings, k?

Can you tell me something about how much education in economics climate change scientists have?

Because this is not an environmental or scientific question. It is an economic question.

[Argus]

Well no, that's not it. These are people who specialized in areas and spent many years of their lives devoted to a subject.

The subject of how climates change has ZERO to do with how to balance economic and environmental interests.

Look, it's pretty simple. The Liberals are smart enough (unlike environmentalits) to understand that if they turn down every mining and energy proposal because it will increase emissions the economy will go into a tailspin and that will be it for them and their cushy jobs. You and the other naive, earnest people who believe the environment is the most important thing in our lives are overwhelmingly outnumbered by people who care more about their jobs and the economy. So you don't get to sweep all their objections aside and make us all wear grass skirts and live in caves.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Argus

[BC_chick]

Can you tell me something about how much education in economics climate change scientists have?

Because this is not an environmental or scientific question. It is an economic question.

You're getting into an area on which I've already given my opinion. For the third or fourth time - the issue of economy and environment did not spring out of nowhere. Trudeau knew there is a fine balance when he made the environmental commitments that he did. I think he was a phony for doing that.

Poochy and TimG are denying the claim that scientists pretty much unanimously believe CC is human caused. That's a different discussion all together.

[Argus]

You're getting into an area on which I've already given my opinion. For the third or fourth time - the issue of economy and environment did not spring out of nowhere. Trudeau knew there is a fine balance when he made the environmental commitments that he did. I think he was a phony for doing that.

Trudeau a phony? This surprises you?

Poochy and TimG are denying the claim that scientists pretty much unanimously believe CC is human caused. That's a different discussion all together.

That's not what I'm reading. I'm reading their denial is based on whether all climate scientists agree on how to address the issue and their competence in addressing it given their lack of training or credentials in economics or public policy initiatives.