Just how pointless and stupid our climate reductions efforts are

[Boges]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Irrelevant.  It' wasn't a crisis.

Supposedly climate change is a serious crisis.

I guess how serious is subjective, which is why there can't be a consensus on what to do. 

The point about comparing to industrialization is that developing nations are finally being able to use methods that rich nations have used for decades to build their wealth. It's a tough ask to tell them to stay in poverty for the sake of the environment. 

Therefore it's the rich nations that need to take the lead on pivoting to Green Energy. 

 

Quote

 

Sure - great stuff. I'm all for less pollution and more green as the tech matures and becomes a viable replacement.

But - at the end of the day either we have a climate crisis or we don't. If we do then we need the big polluters to stop polluting or NOTHING we do will help and if we don't then fine, what's the rush. Lets get it done over time as tech matures

 

I don't see a lot of rushing. Carbon taxes are incremental. The war in Ukraine is raising the cost of living more than any Carbon Tax. 

No one is being told their furnaces or ICE vehicles are being seized, we are still in early stages of development on this. Lots of progress has already been made. 

 

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, Boges said:

It's such a childish sentiment. 

People in the developed world, looking at people in the developing world trying to rise above poverty and claiming that "If they can pollute, why can't we"!

and that's a childish simplification.  If the goal is to limit emissions to avoid a runaway greenhouse effect, then waiting for 5-6 Billion people to pull themselves out of poverty via coalfire burning will make a joke of it.  

3 hours ago, Boges said:

China pollutes so much because they account for 1/5th of the world's population and they account for a vast majority of the world's manufacturing of cheap crap.

China's overpopulation is a problem of its own making, and there's no per-capita allotment for emissions.  

3 hours ago, Boges said:

Mexico is gaining on them though, because demographic shifts suggest that Chinese people don't want to work for peanuts anymore. 

That, and the fact that China's a hostile and untrustworthy partner that the West is starting to steer away from.  

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

China's overpopulation is a problem of its own making, and there's no per-capita allotment for emissions.  

So the fact that Canada accounts for 2% of emissions while making up only a fraction of a percent of Global population isn't relevant? 

[herbie]

Why argue with people who will never "get it"?

Just deny climate change exists at all. Like Trump's idea of not reporting Covid cases would make it go away.
Doing anything at all isn't worth the effort unless it's 100% effective.
Why should I pay when someone who can't pay doesn't?

Same recycled complaints, repeat in circles. No further thought or action required.
 

 

[Moonbox]

18 minutes ago, Boges said:

So the fact that Canada accounts for 2% of emissions while making up only a fraction of a percent of Global population isn't relevant? 

Relevant? Sure, but not as relevant as overpopulation.  Humouring the delusion that China and India are going to lift their bursting-at-the-seams populations out of poverty via coalfire power generation and that we'll cover the difference by driving Teslas and putting solar panels on our roofs isn't going to end well.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

I guess how serious is subjective, which is why there can't be a consensus on what to do. 

I guess - but that kind of makes it feel like it's not really all that crisis-y.  I mean if a giant meteor was plummeting towards the earth we'd all likely agree it was a crisis.

1 hour ago, Boges said:

The point about comparing to industrialization is that developing nations are finally being able to use methods that rich nations have used for decades to build their wealth. It's a tough ask to tell them to stay in poverty for the sake of the environment. 

Well if they're all going to die if we don't then i feel like they may have to take a different route.  And if it's NOT that serious then why are we changing what WE do?

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Therefore it's the rich nations that need to take the lead on pivoting to Green Energy. 

There no 'taking the lead' - we're going to advance faster with tech no matter what but i thought the issue here was the climate crisis?  If there's no crisis then we'll just do what we usually do and i'm sure the tech will get greener over time. It has been so far.

1 hour ago, Boges said:

 

I don't see a lot of rushing. Carbon taxes are incremental. The war in Ukraine is raising the cost of living more than any Carbon Tax. 

Not in canada. The carbon tax is not only rising but unlike almost all our other taxes it's cumulative.

Lets put that in perspective.  Lets say there was gst on food. The producers would not actually pay any gst - they get the credits. Only the end consumer would pay.  So - the tax is applied to the final price only once.

Now - lets take the carbon tax. That is charged to the guy who makes and delivers the fertilizer to the farmer - so he has to build it into his mark up.

That increases the costs to the farmer - who then grows food with it. He pays the carbon tax on growing the food.  So now he's got to add HIS costs to the markup AND the fertilizer  as well - so he's basically had to pass on the carbon tax twice.

The produce is now at the distributers - who has to pay carbon tax to get it to the stores who order it. Guess what happens there   So - the carbon tax PLUS mark up on the carbon tax has now been baked in and marked up 3 times.

FINALLY it gets to the store where the carbon tax will be added again due to the cost of fuel to transport it and energy to keep the store running.

I believe when you work all the math out it works out to about 850 or so for a year for 2 people. 70 bucks a month or so  (MIGHT have been 4 people, cna't remember).  Either way it's substantial.

And it applies to one degree or another to just about everything. New home construction, lumber, food, you name it.

So no - the war is not affecting us that much.

1 hour ago, Boges said:

No one is being told their furnaces or ICE vehicles are being seized, we are still in early stages of development on this. Lots of progress has already been made. 

 

But we're still paying a massive tax that has had NO impact on anythnig - and nothing we do will have a significant impact anyway.

So - it is quite reasonable to say if the major polluters are increasing their pollution by more than our entire output every couple of years - whats' the point of worrying about our output?

[Boges]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I guess - but that kind of makes it feel like it's not really all that crisis-y.  I mean if a giant meteor was plummeting towards the earth we'd all likely agree it was a crisis.

Have you seen that movie Up in the Air? Don't be so sure leaders would look to find way to not deal with such things.

 

 

Quote

 

Not in canada. The carbon tax is not only rising but unlike almost all our other taxes it's cumulative.

Lets put that in perspective.  Lets say there was gst on food. The producers would not actually pay any gst - they get the credits. Only the end consumer would pay.  So - the tax is applied to the final price only once.

 

 

Let's also put this into perspective. Gas prices were $1.30/litre in 2008. Gas Price increase we see now are, more or less, what you'd see with inflation over the past 15 years. The Carbon Tax was soundly defeated in 2008. Since 2015 a party that has run on a Carbon taxes has won. So the appetite of Canadians seem to support it. 

Quote

I believe when you work all the math out it works out to about 850 or so for a year for 2 people. 70 bucks a month or so  (MIGHT have been 4 people, cna't remember).  Either way it's substantial.

That's mostly covered by people get. 

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, Boges said:

Have you seen that movie Up in the Air? Don't be so sure leaders would look to find way to not deal with such things.

 

Well fair point  

27 minutes ago, Boges said:

 

 

Let's also put this into perspective. Gas prices were $1.30/litre in 2008. Gas Price increase we see now are, more or less, what you'd see with inflation over the past 15 years. The Carbon Tax was soundly defeated in 2008. Since 2015 a party that has run on a Carbon taxes has won. So the appetite of Canadians seem to support it. 

But it doesn't work.  So that kind of tells me that they support appearance over substance.

We also signed kyoto and then did nothing and the public kept supporting that.  And we signed paris and did nothing and the public is still voting liberal.

Sooooo - if we're going to do nothing anyway, why not do nothing affordably?

27 minutes ago, Boges said:

That's mostly covered by people get. 

I did not understand what you meant there

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, Boges said:

It's such a childish sentiment. 

People in the developed world, looking at people in the developing world trying to rise above poverty and claiming that "If they can pollute, why can't we"! 

China pollutes so much because they account for 1/5th of the world's population and they account for a vast majority of the world's manufacturing of cheap crap. Mexico is gaining on them though, because demographic shifts suggest that Chinese people don't want to work for peanuts anymore. 

China pollutes so much because much of their energy comes from coal, and they continue to add more coal plants every year. They've approved more new ones so far this spring than in all of last year.

And it's interesting you find reality a childish sentiment.

Let's just keep dipping that tablespoon into the pool to empty it like good lttle boys, bankrupting industry as we do, while China and India and the rest of the world have firehoses going full blast to fill it up. Because... because that will make us feel good about ourselves! Well, those of us who don't lose our jobs...

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Boges said:

China is probably one of the few nations that's actually invested heavily in renewable production. EV adoption is quite high with them. Their increased emissions are a reflection of moving a largely rural society into a more developed one. 

This is so much bullshit. They've invested heavily in order to be the majority producer of EV equipment to the world. To make money. To use to build up their military. 

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/4/24/china-approves-coal-surge-despite-emissions-pledge-greenpeace

 

 

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Why argue with people who will never "get it"?

herbie writing in from China again. Always eager to defend China and push their agenda...

 

[herbie]

Conclusions from a defective mind.

The usual MAGA logic. Use every fallacy first, when you still can't actually come up with an intelligent response , rinse and repeat.

[I am Groot]

14 hours ago, herbie said:

Conclusions from a defective mind.

The usual MAGA logic. Use every fallacy first, when you still can't actually come up with an intelligent response , rinse and repeat.

Thank you for giving us your conclusions.

[herbie]

So give us an intelligent response then!
One other than simply denying facts (like China investing heavily into Green tech is BS) and repeating the notion that because we can't cure it all by ourselves we shouldn't even attempt to reduce CO2.

Childish contrarianism contributes nothing.

[I am Groot]

On 6/1/2023 at 2:17 PM, herbie said:

So give us an intelligent response then!
One other than simply denying facts (like China investing heavily into Green tech is BS) and repeating the notion that because we can't cure it all by ourselves we shouldn't even attempt to reduce CO2.

Childish contrarianism contributes nothing.

I'm all for pursuing nuclear energy and technological innovations which will, at a reasonable cost, downsize CO2 emissions. But I'm NOT for handicapping our economy by placing a burden on it and all Canadians that most of the world, including our chief trading partner, refuse to place on themselves.

China, India, the US, Russia, and Japan are the top five emitters of CO2. These five countries represent over two-thirds of CO2 emissions and NONE have carbon taxes or have signed on to any treaty to reduce their emissions by a specific date like Canada has. Why? And how can we possibly hope our sacrifice is of any worth given the above?

Without their commitment to deep cuts there is no purpose for our extremely expensive efforts at reduction and we'd be better off putting that money to flood control, irrigation, better building codes, and better fire suppression equipment and systems.

Edited June 3, 2023 by I am Groot

[herbie]

Ok good response. But all those suggestions do nothing whatsoever towards reducing CO2.

^other than nuclear power generation, which is still more expensive than other green alternatives. And you're talking to someone from BC that doesn't have any fossil fuel generation.
What about geothermal? There's countries making extensive use and Canada's barely dabbled at it.

[I am Groot]

18 minutes ago, herbie said:

Ok good response. But all those suggestions do nothing whatsoever towards reducing CO2.

^other than nuclear power generation, which is still more expensive than other green alternatives. And you're talking to someone from BC that doesn't have any fossil fuel generation.
What about geothermal? There's countries making extensive use and Canada's barely dabbled at it.

It's expensive. And as I pointed out, I'm not for spending a fortune on non-productive solutions. As long as the top five aren't committed to major reductions in a reasonable period of time we shouldn't go too far out of our way to do so either.

Because it would be a waste of time and money.

[SpankyMcFarland]

So should all countries continue to increase the greenhouse gases they have already contributed? When we talk about Canada, I presume we’re also talking about the West in general? It’s easy to say our little bit won’t matter but all those ‘little bits’ outside China do add up. 

[herbie]

I disagree*, it would still improve the quality of our environment here and opens up an entire new economy.

*with Groot's post

Edited June 3, 2023 by herbie

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So should all countries continue to increase the greenhouse gases they have already contributed? When we talk about Canada, I presume we’re also talking about the West in general? It’s easy to say our little bit won’t matter but all those ‘little bits’ outside China do add up. 

The developed world now represents 70% and growing of Co2 emissions. And none are required to meet any reduction goals under the treaties we have signed. If you add in the US and Russia, who likewise have no Co2 reduction goals that's the 88% of Co2 emissions.

If the nations spewing out 88% of the world's CO2 have no required reduction coals why in the hell do we?

[SpankyMcFarland]

31 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The developed world now represents 70% and growing of Co2 emissions. And none are required to meet any reduction goals under the treaties we have signed. If you add in the US and Russia, who likewise have no Co2 reduction goals that's the 88% of Co2 emissions.

If the nations spewing out 88% of the world's CO2 have no required reduction coals why in the hell do we?

One reason that springs to mind is that Europe and North America have already contributed a very large proportion of what’s up there. We are a long way ahead and I’m afraid the PRC is correct to point that out. And I’m not interested in this ‘we don’t count’ discussion. Every smaller country by emission size tries it on. Unless you’re going back to your own planet or something, conditions here should matter a great deal to you. 

Edited June 3, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[herbie]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

If the nations spewing out 88% of the world's CO2 have no required reduction coals why in the hell do we?

As I've pointed out dozens of times, we're all swimming in the same pool. You rather swim in 90% p!ss instead of 75%?

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, herbie said:

As I've pointed out dozens of times, we're all swimming in the same pool. You rather swim in 90% p!ss instead of 75%?

At that point it doesn't really matter.

But I'd rather swim in 90% than 75% if I'll be a broke assed homeless guy with the 75% but be comfortably middle-class with the 90%.

[I am Groot]

16 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

One reason that springs to mind is that Europe and North America have already contributed a very large proportion of what’s up there. We are a long way ahead and I’m afraid the PRC is correct to point that out.

This is the silly equity argument we see whenever the facts are pointed out. It makes absolutely no sense except as an aspect of progressive social justice beliefs (which themselves are mostly nonsensical). Yes, we did a lot of polluting when the alternative to burning wood or coal or oil was death by freezing. But that's not the only alternative now.

So why do countries like China and India get a by on building coal plants?

Edited June 4, 2023 by I am Groot

[Army Guy]

22 hours ago, herbie said:

Ok good response. But all those suggestions do nothing whatsoever towards reducing CO2.

^other than nuclear power generation, which is still more expensive than other green alternatives. And you're talking to someone from BC that doesn't have any fossil fuel generation.
What about geothermal? There's countries making extensive use and Canada's barely dabbled at it.

How does Nuclear option not reduce green house emissions ? we are still using coal fired power plants across the country, taking just these off line would provide a large decrease in emissions, not to mention plants fired by fossil fuels Massive tech upgrades in Nuclear energy are here with some of them being implemented in Canada.

SMR's would or could cut the north's reliant on fossil fuels for their energy, not only resulting in cuts to emissions, but cost savings in it's transport and storage would be huge... SMR's could be used in small communities to large cities as they are modular in construction...

Beside first we must improve our electrical grid and infra structure before we start implementing all this electrical cars and trucks, and all of it's infra structure and power needs, not to mention changing the rules and regulations involved in home solar heating and power ie most provinces do not pay for excess power generated by the home owner, in order to further lower power bills and consumption. 

And as being expensive, right now carbon tax is just going around and around and back into the pockets of tax payers at the end of the year , well most of it, as the liberal government has been saying and proven wrong by the PBO office, why not use those taxes to fund SMR or invest in green tech...and until that day roles around continue to invest in our oil and gas sector...how many billions could Canada have made in selling natural gas to Europe, or Asia those profits could have purchased MSRs for most northern communities, and power starved provinces.

 

[herbie]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

How does Nuclear option not reduce green house emissions ?

I said no such thing. I said nuclear is more expensive, it always has been because of long timelines and massive safety precautions.
One of the same arguments used against other green options until that situation reversed in the last few years. We can use those now, whereas 10-20 years from now to get nukes online. Do it faster and cheaper and isn't that the whole root of the proclem - no one likes to have to spend money?

Nukes are going to have to be considered for long term solutions though. And banning stupid wastes of energy like bitcoin mining.