Just how pointless and stupid our climate reductions efforts are

[I am Groot]

22 hours ago, Aristides said:

The WAC Bennet dam is over 50 years old. Site C is costing over 16 billion.

Maybe we should have invited the Chinese to come build it. It would have been finished years ago at a far lower cost. 

Canada isn't capable of building anything remotely on time or on budget anymore.

In 1952 we built the Trans Mountain Pipeline in eight months. Bang. Done. How long have we been working on the one that's supposed to run alongside it now? Probably ten years of legal fights and paper shuffling alone. And the budget is already gone 400% over estimates.

[I am Groot]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It's not a simple matter but we should recognize that supplying our wants and needs are part of the reason Chinese emissions are high.

Perhaps that was the case once. But now China is rich enough to pump hundreds of billions into a military meant to conquer others, not defend itself. It could have used that for nuclear power instead of weapons systems but preferred to build weapons systems - and coal plants.

[I am Groot]

 

China’s net-zero pledges are starting to look like a fantasy as the emissions of the world’s biggest polluter keep rising

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The purpose of all this isn't to help the environment. The purpose is so Trudeau can have cheers and accolades rained down upon him by a hysterically delighted climate crowd. It's so he can pose and preen and smirk while he's praised for his devotion to lowering CO2 emissions.

Quote

 

I agree with much of  what you say about Trudeau but he is not an excuse.

Quote

Anyone with basic arithmetic skills can see, as you have, that for all the hundreds of billions we're to spend the gains would be virtually undetectable on a world level.

 

Expensive though and we want cheap Chinese stuff and anyone with basic arithmetic skills can see that would make it more expensive.

Quote

Build nuclear power plants instead of nuclear missiles, submarines and aircraft carriers? 

You could say the same about the US which spends three times more than China on defence.

[eyeball]

16 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Perhaps that was the case once. But now China is rich enough to pump hundreds of billions into a military meant to conquer others, not defend itself. It could have used that for nuclear power instead of weapons systems but preferred to build weapons systems - and coal plants.

Yup, we could have placed tariffs and sanctions against trade with China for that, in addition to those that should be in place for human rights abuses against people like the Uyghers. How much kicking and screaming would be put up over that do you think?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

I agree with much of  what you say about Trudeau but he is not an excuse.

But he is.  And this is the thing people need to learn.

You're familiar with the boy who cried wolf i assume?

People tend to address issues and then move on and not care about them as much. The environmental lobby and the liberals got everyone excited about climate change - and then sold carbon tax as the solution!  Yes! that's all we have to do and problem solved! ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS A CLIMATE HATER AND NAZI SCUMBAG!!!!!

And it didn't work. And Trudeau missed his targets.  And turns out those who questioned it weren't actually scumbags for the most part.

So - now we're done with it.  Those who said they 'care about it'  got their chance and picked their 'winner' and in politics that tends to be all you get. They picked a BAD choice - which they should have known given the liberal track record.  Now we're done with that and the concerns are the economy/monetary issues and quality of life and competativeness and all the other things trudeau let slide.

It's a lesson for your type - if you lie, if you make bad choices based on 'muh feels' instead of logic and reason, if you blow your opportunity by being petty and spewing hatred towards others then you will lose your opportunity and go to the back of the line.

Now someone will stand up provincially and federally and say "we can't change climate change today or at all in canada - so we're going to focus on adaption so you all don't die from forest fires" and people will be focused on that and other issues.

[Aristides]

How you feel about JT will have no bearing on the effects of climate change. You don't even know what you will have to adapt too and the longer we do nothing the worse it will get.

[Zeitgeist]

33 minutes ago, Aristides said:

How you feel about JT will have no bearing on the effects of climate change. You don't even know what you will have to adapt to and the longer we do nothing the worse it will get.

The problem is that if the costs of a climate action plan are too high, we actually lose the ability to fight climate change in a sustainable way, because if people are poorer, they have fewer resources and opportunities to become educated, earn better wages, and pay the premium for greener products.  It means we become less innovative and capable of producing the technology that could really transform our economy to become cleaner and more productive.

I mentioned that there are many cheap high impact things we can do through our building code and modest tax incentives, but anyone who thinks that we should give up natural gas, nuclear, and hydro is either stupid or ignorant. Shifting out power grid to wind and solar is prohibitively expensive and environmentally catastrophic.  I’ve studied, written articles, lobbied government, and invested personally in green tech.  In order to have wind and solar, you must have fossil fuels as back up.  Only nuclear and hydro are consistent, reliable, and powerful enough to keep our society competitive in terms of economic heft and high living standards, unless you want to return to burning coal.  Natural gas is much better than coal and we have a lot of it.  Let’s be real: It’s in our interest to ship coal and oil to the jurisdictions that have lower emission requirements because they have to get those commodities from somewhere. We might as well take advantage of our resources or other players will benefit at our expense.

So what’s left to play with in terms of greening the economy?  We should do what is reasonably cost effective and believe in our innovative capacity.  Spending more money doesn’t give us significant improvement. Adding regulations and cost makes us less competitive internationally and hurts our living standards. Sensible should be the buzzword.

I generally know what the best answers are based on current research and they’re not silver bullets.  I’ve explained what I know.  Beyond these kinds of measures, we need to focus on adapting and move on to other issues, especially housing affordability and cost of living. Governments need to drop the identity politics and EDI shit as well.  We can’t afford these divisive distractions.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, Aristides said:

How you feel about JT will have no bearing on the effects of climate change.

nothing we do will have any bearing on the effects of climate change. 

Quote

You don't even know what you will have to adapt too and the longer we do nothing the worse it will get.

That's too bad.  People like you should have taken it seriously when you had the chance and not pushed stupid ideas like 'carbon tax' knowing full well it would do nothing.

If you ever get the chance again maybe keep in mind you don't get endless chances.

In the meantime we went down the "climate change" path people wanted - and got nowhere. So you've lost all credibility and now people have limited interest. And seeing as people on the climate side spent such a huge amount of effort attacking and badmouthing anyone who questioned carbon tax or said Canada's climate response would not make a difference - WHO HAVE NOW BEEN PROVEN CORRECT - you can't expect much help from the other side either.

That's what happens when you go with "Muh feels" instead of logic and when you attack everyone who won't follow your agenda as terrible people.

Sorry kiddo - that's the way the world works. You had your chance and you blew it.

[Aristides]

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The problem is that if the costs of a climate action plan are too high, we actually lose the ability to fight climate change in a sustainable way, because if people are poorer, they have fewer resources and opportunities to become educated, earn better wages, and pay the premium for greener products.  It means we become less innovative and capable of producing the technology that could really transform our economy to become cleaner and more productive.

I mentioned that there are many cheap high impact things we can do through our building code and modest tax incentives, but anyone who thinks that we should give up natural gas, nuclear, and hydro is either stupid or ignorant. Shifting out power grid to wind and solar is prohibitively expensive and environmentally catastrophic.  I’ve studied, written articles, lobbied government, and invested personally in green tech.  In order to have wind and solar, you must have fossil fuels as back up.  Only nuclear and hydro are consistent, reliable, and powerful enough to keep our society competitive in terms of economic heft and high living standards, unless you want to return to burning coal.

So what’s left to play with in terms of greening the economy?  We should do what is reasonably cost effective and believe in our innovative capacity.  Spending more money doesn’t give us significant improvement.  Adding regulations and cost makes us less competitive internationally and hurts our living standards.

 I know what the best answers are and they’re not silver bullets.  I’ve explained what I know.  Beyond these kinds of measures, we need to focus on adapting and move on to other issues, especially housing affordability and cost of living.  Governments need to drop the identity politics and EDI shit as well.  We can’t afford these divisive distractions.

You have no idea what the cost of adapting will be. You don't even know what we will have to adapt too. Will we have to build 30 foot dykes to protect the whole lower mainland of BC all the way to Hope because of sea level rise? What about all our other coastal population centres. We can't totally eliminate use of fossil fuels, for one thing, batteries just don't provide enough portable energy to be practical for more than light duty use.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Aristides

[Aristides]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

nothing we do will have any bearing on the effects of climate change. 

That's too bad.  People like you should have taken it seriously when you had the chance and not pushed stupid ideas like 'carbon tax' knowing full well it would do nothing.

If you ever get the chance again maybe keep in mind you don't get endless chances.

In the meantime we went down the "climate change" path people wanted - and got nowhere. So you've lost all credibility and now people have limited interest. And seeing as people on the climate side spent such a huge amount of effort attacking and badmouthing anyone who questioned carbon tax or said Canada's climate response would not make a difference - WHO HAVE NOW BEEN PROVEN CORRECT - you can't expect much help from the other side either.

That's what happens when you go with "Muh feels" instead of logic and when you attack everyone who won't follow your agenda as terrible people.

Sorry kiddo - that's the way the world works. You had your chance and you blew it.

I've never pushed a carbon tax. I have said many times that it is a lazy person's solution.

I don't think you are terrible, I just think you are wrong, about some things. You are the one who resorted to name calling.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Aristides

[Legato]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You have no idea what the cost of adapting will be. You don't even know what we will have to adapt too. Will we have to build 30 foot dykes to protect the whole lower mainland of BC all the way to Hope because of sea level rise? What about all our other coastal population centres. We can't totally eliminate use of fossil fuels, for one thing, batteries just don't provide enough portable energy to be practical for more than light duty use.

What sea level rise?

[Zeitgeist]

28 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You have no idea what the cost of adapting will be. You don't even know what we will have to adapt too. Will we have to build 30 foot dykes to protect the whole lower mainland of BC all the way to Hope because of sea level rise? We can't totally eliminate use of fossil fuels, for one thing, batteries just don't provide enough portable energy to be practical for more than light duty use.

No, we open shipping channels in Arctic waters (Northwest Passage) and mine and ship as many natural resources as possible.

We expand agriculture farther north.

We build affordable dykes etc. where it’s reasonable to do so and abandon some settlements, building new more resilient communities farther inland.

We make all new roofs solar (enshrined in building code) and incentivize retrofitting roofs through tax credits. We incorporate geothermal, deep water cooling, and small nuclear in new developments. We can also incentivize better insulating and sealing homes.

We dig out inland waterways and canal systems to reduce water levels, while providing beautiful new housing developments on the water (storm water overflow ponds disguised as natural lakes).

Paint buildings and streets while.  Use green roofs and make sidewalks pourous.  Only use LED lighting. Plant millions of trees but ensure that replanted forests contain the ingredients of a diverse, resilient natural forest. Manage forests with more responsive, larger scale forest fire fighting systems.

There’s so much cheap sensible positive greening we can do without lowering living standards and weakening the power grid.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[Aristides]

11 minutes ago, Legato said:

What sea level rise?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wmo-report-2023-1.6817900

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I've never pushed a carbon tax. I have said many times that it is a lazy person's solution.

 

Too bad - that's what the  Holy Church of Climate Change decided on and that's what we got.  Didn't work - next issue.

 

Quote

I don't think you are terrible, I just think you are wrong, about some things. You are the one who resorted to name calling.

You lied in your discussions with me, were dishonest with me in your debate, made statements that you had not researched enough to know were false.  Buddy - that is by far and away more insulting to me than any name you could come up with.

 

[Aristides]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

No, we open shipping channels in Arctic waters (Northwest Passage) and mine and ship as many natural resources as possible.

We expand agriculture farther north.

We build affordable dykes etc. where it’s reasonable to do so and abandon some settlements, building new more resilient communities farther inland.

We make all new roofs solar (enshrined in building code) and incentivize retrofitting roofs through tax credits. We incorporate geothermal, deep water cooling, and small nuclear in new developments. We can also incentivize better insulating and sealing homes.

We dig out inland waterways and canal systems to reduce water levels, while providing beautiful new housing developments on the water (storm water overflow ponds disguised as natural lakes).

Paint buildings and streets while.  Use green roofs and make sidewalks pourous.  Only use LED lighting.

There’s so much cheap sensible positive greening we can do without lowering living standards and weakening the power grid.

It would mean abandoning much of the BC lower mainland and Fraser Valley and the severing of road an rail lines from the port of Vancouver and the rest of Canada.

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Too bad - that's what the  Holy Church of Climate Change decided on and that's what we got.  Didn't work - next issue.

 

You lied in your discussions with me, were dishonest with me in your debate, made statements that you had not researched enough to know were false.  Buddy - that is by far and away more insulting to me than any name you could come up with.

 

I researched my claim more than you did yours. I pointed out the holes in your references.

[Zeitgeist]

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It would mean abandoning much of the BC lower mainland and Fraser Valley and the severing of road a rail lines from the port of Vancouver and the rest of Canada.

I would build inland waterways and modest dykes.  Make the inland waterways look like natural beautiful features. In Ontario they could be used to help irrigate crops, power hydro systems, and create leisure opportunities (lakes, fishing, paddling, housing on the water, etc.).

Edited August 15, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

It would mean abandoning much of the BC lower mainland and Fraser Valley and the severing of road an rail lines from the port of Vancouver and the rest of Canada.

No it wouldn't.

Quote

I researched my claim more than you did yours. I pointed out the holes in your references.

ROFLMAO - you absolutely did NEITHER!  You were 100 percent WRONG about there being no place to build more dams,  you were 100 percent WRONG about there being no more hydro capacity, you were 100 percent WRONG about there being any kind of problem with running electrical lines, you were about 90 percent wrong about it being an environmental issue.

You didn't do a scrap of research and your "holes' were just you failing to understand what you were reading and i had to take the time to explain it to you and correct you on that.

Meanwhile you argue that big polluters like canada need to lead the way or we can' expect small polluters like china to get their act together

Again - dishonesty and lies. I can tolerate someone being wrong - that's quite understandable.  But you go beyond that.

And as i've said numerous times now  - that's how you behave and yet you expect anyone to take you seriously/?

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yup, we could have placed tariffs and sanctions against trade with China for that, in addition to those that should be in place for human rights abuses against people like the Uyghers. How much kicking and screaming would be put up over that do you think?

The problem is that China has a lot of power now, and a lot of ways to punish others who irritate it. It could, for example, restrict the export of chemicals needed to make our pharmaceuticals or restrict the export of the pharmaceuticals themselves. That would cause havoc in North America and Europe. Not to mention deaths.

Punishing China requires the time to take back production of things like that so if they throw a tantrum we aren't too badly hurt.

[Aristides]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No it wouldn't.

ROFLMAO - you absolutely did NEITHER!  You were 100 percent WRONG about there being no place to build more dams,  you were 100 percent WRONG about there being no more hydro capacity, you were 100 percent WRONG about there being any kind of problem with running electrical lines, you were about 90 percent wrong about it being an environmental issue.

You didn't do a scrap of research and your "holes' were just you failing to understand what you were reading and i had to take the time to explain it to you and correct you on that.

Meanwhile you argue that big polluters like canada need to lead the way or we can' expect small polluters like china to get their act together

Again - dishonesty and lies. I can tolerate someone being wrong - that's quite understandable.  But you go beyond that.

And as i've said numerous times now  - that's how you behave and yet you expect anyone to take you seriously/?

I never said there were no places to build dams or increase hydro capacity. I challenged you to name rivers we can dam and you provided basically nothing. I also debunked your claim that there are thousands of practical sites for run of river. 

The longer we do nothing to mitigate the causes, the more severe the consequences and the less time we will have to adapt to them. That should be obvious even to you.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Aristides

[herbie]

We're talking about climate reduction efforts here in Canada.

China has nothing to do with that. Nothing, S.F.A. to do with efforts in Canada. So STFU about China, you're not discussing the issue only distracting from it. Which seems to be a standard practice, but China but China but China but China.....

Why no talk about the Holy Conservative Concept of Privatization where we could all be like Alberta and a handful of power countries would just tell us how to do things? Wahh costs too much, wahhh to fast, bawww not cost efficient, OMG it will cost you more cuz we weren't gonna raise our rates to line our pockets over that 15 year period we nee to milk you for 30....

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

We're talking about climate reduction efforts here in Canada.

China has nothing to do with that.

Oh i see - so you're dumb enough to think that if china raises the rate of climate change - it'll ONLY affect china!  it won't affect us here!!  Because climate change only affects the country that caused it!!!  Gotcha.

You have to be 7 different kinds of stupid to believe that.  And that's the whole point, because of china and india et al there is NOTHING we can do here that will impact climate change.  Other than hopefully develop some amazing tech that will allow the big polluters to stop polluting.

 

To think that anything we do happens in isolation of what other people are doing would require a level of intelligence that usually results from shoving a crayon too far up your nose.

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The problem is that China has a lot of power now

That's why I said could have, as in decades ago, back when people were predicting this would happen. Back when right wingers accused you of trying to destroy capitalism for predicting it.

NOW you decide to get all woke about it. This is just like climate change where adapting will cost way more than acting would have when you had the chance.

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

That's why I said could have, as in decades ago, back when people were predicting this would happen. Back when right wingers accused you of trying to destroy capitalism for predicting it

 

China would still have had a lot of power either way. Sorry - you don't understand how economics works. But a market that big is going to exert an impact.

The fact that you said something wrong a long time ago doesnt' make it right now

 

[Legato]

39 minutes ago, Aristides said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wmo-report-2023-1.6817900

You should quote that to all the climate alarmists who buy property on coastlines..