Climate Change Thread

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

I am confident that the 70,000 dedicated environmentalists who flew into COP 28 in Dubai will provide the solutions we are looking for. 

 

Holding that meeting in Dubai is actually funny. 

 

It just tells me nothing significant in oil and gas is going to change for a long time. 

[RupertKBD]

15 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

Holding that meeting in Dubai is actually funny. 

 

It just tells me nothing significant in oil and gas is going to change for a long time. 

 

It is, but not "ha ha"funny.....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/03/back-into-caves-cop28-president-dismisses-phase-out-of-fossil-fuels
 

Quote

 

The president of Cop28, Sultan Al Jaber, has claimed there is “no science” indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global heating to 1.5C, the Guardian and the Centre for Climate Reporting can reveal.

Al Jaber also said a phase-out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves”.

The comments were “incredibly concerning” and “verging on climate denial”, scientists said, and they were at odds with the position of the UN secretary general, António Guterres.

 

 

This is the kind of denial we're up against and it actually happened at a Climate Change summit.

[Bob Long]

26 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

 

It is, but not "ha ha"funny.....

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/03/back-into-caves-cop28-president-dismisses-phase-out-of-fossil-fuels
 

 

This is the kind of denial we're up against and it actually happened at a Climate Change summit.

 

He said the quiet part out loud

 

The OECD put out a good report a few years ago showing the likely oil production path, which will take about 30 years to play out until oil really declines below other energy sources.

 

It's just going to take time to build up a green infrastructure. In the meantime Canada needs to figure thow to pay for our little corner of it.

 

 

[UnkNuk]

16 hours ago, The Lock said:

 

I'm not necessarily disagreeing here; however, we need to also consider the population of each country.

 

If we look at China with a population of 1.4 billion, that's just over 10 metric tons per person. (14.4 billion / 1.4 billion)

If we look at the US with a population of over 330 million, that's just over 19 metric tons per person. (6.3 billion / 0.33 billion)

If we look at Canada with a population of 40 million, that same calculation equals just over 17 metric tons per person. (687 million / 40 million)

 

So per person, both Canada and the US are actually emitting significantly more greenhouse gases than China is. Now obviously, there's probably more context there to be had, but this just goes to show that only looking at it in total amounts doesn't really help us to know the full scenario. It only helps to put the blame on China so that we don't have to do as much.

 

Yes, if you look at the per capita stats China is doing better than Canada.  But that's more or less irrelevent to the problem.

 

The real problem is total amount of greenhouse gases that each country pumps into the atmosphere.  And while there are reasonable explanations as to why China is pumping 14.4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere it doesn't change the fact that China is pumping 14.4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere!

 

And until such time that China (and other major polluters such as the US and India) figure out a way to bring that total way down, it doesn't matter what Canada does in relation to its own emissions.  Regardless of our per capita emissions.

 

Again, I'm all for Canada curbing its emissions wherever it can.  But we shouldn't tie ourselves up in knots on account of those emissions.  Overall they are not that significant in relation to the real problem.

[Spur1]

1 hour ago, UnkNuk said:

 

Yes, if you look at the per capita stats China is doing better than Canada.  But that's more or less irrelevent to the problem.

 

The real problem is total amount of greenhouse gases that each country pumps into the atmosphere.  And while there are reasonable explanations as to why China is pumping 14.4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere it doesn't change the fact that China is pumping 14.4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere!

 

And until such time that China (and other major polluters such as the US and India) figure out a way to bring that total way down, it doesn't matter what Canada does in relation to its own emissions.  Regardless of our per capita emissions.

 

Again, I'm all for Canada curbing its emissions wherever it can.  But we shouldn't tie ourselves up in knots on account of those emissions.  Overall they are not that significant in relation to the real problem.

Canada needs to show the way. 

[Johngould21]

Is the "rain" thread missing? We sure don't need a repeat of two years ago. My hometown has doesn't have drinkable tap water in many of it homes. Plus my neighbour just down the street only moved back into her home in late summer.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

11 minutes ago, Johngould21 said:

Is the "rain" thread missing? We sure don't need a repeat of two years ago. My hometown has doesn't have drinkable tap water in many of it homes. Plus my neighbour just down the street only moved back into her home in late summer.

 

Nope, it's just next door over at White Noise: 

 

[Johngould21]

7 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Nope, it's just next door over at White Noise: 

 

Thanks for that,

[Bob Long]

59 minutes ago, Spur1 said:

Canada needs to show the way. 

 

I understand the sentiment.... But who are we showing the way to by allowing the world to consume more Saudi oil?

 

We could show the way through green tech maybe.

[UnkNuk]

1 hour ago, Spur1 said:

Canada needs to show the way. 

 

Why?

 

And why do you think the world is going to follow us even if do we show them the way?  Assuming we can figure out what that way is?

[The Lock]

21 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

 

Yes, if you look at the per capita stats China is doing better than Canada.  But that's more or less irrelevent to the problem.

 

The real problem is total amount of greenhouse gases that each country pumps into the atmosphere.  And while there are reasonable explanations as to why China is pumping 14.4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere it doesn't change the fact that China is pumping 14.4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere!

 

And until such time that China (and other major polluters such as the US and India) figure out a way to bring that total way down, it doesn't matter what Canada does in relation to its own emissions.  Regardless of our per capita emissions.

 

Again, I'm all for Canada curbing its emissions wherever it can.  But we shouldn't tie ourselves up in knots on account of those emissions.  Overall they are not that significant in relation to the real problem.

 

All this though is making excuses for countries like Canada and the US not to have to do something. Think about how many countries are like Canada with a smaller population but can do something.

 

Sure, China's pumping out 1.4billion. The entire world is pumping out over 37billion. So the rest of the world is still pumping out 23billion metric tons of greenhouse gases. You want to sleep on countries like us? You're missing what we should be doing collectively throughout the entire world. Just because China's the biggest contributor does not mean we should be sitting on our arses blaming China for it.

 

There's around 200 countries in the world. Blaming one country is nothing more than laziness. This is why it should be thought of as per person and not as totals as totals are misleading.

 

So it's really not the total amount of greenhouse gases from one country, it's about the total greenhouse gases created by the entire world and us collectively working on it. 1 country is meaningless in the grand scheme of things since it gives an excuse to the numerous small countries you are forgetting about that collectively puts out significantly more greenhouse gases than China.

Edited December 5, 2023 by The Lock

[RupertKBD]

19 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

Why?

 

And why do you think the world is going to follow us even if do we show them the way?  Assuming we can figure out what that way is?

 

It's a daunting task and it can make it seem hopeless when the worst offenders are countries where Canadians have no sway....

 

What we can do is vote for people who will put pressure on countries like China, India and the US to make changes to the way they do things. Hard to do however, if you aren't doing anything in your own back yard....

 

The problem I see is that we appear to be ready to elect a government that will take us backward, rather than forward on this issue.

[The Lock]

21 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

 

Why?

 

And why do you think the world is going to follow us even if do we show them the way?  Assuming we can figure out what that way is?

 

Based on that question, what's the way for China? It's no different. All this says is we're too lazy and are effectively looking at ourselves as being "too good for change" while pointing the finger at China saying "you, you do something about this instead." No matter how big or small the country, it all matters.

 

The way isn't going to be easy. No one's claiming that that I can tell. No matter what though, things are changing and people are going to suffer. They already are. Just look at the past few years and forest fires and flooding. That's just going to get worse because we're "too good to change".

Edited December 5, 2023 by The Lock

[UnkNuk]

8 hours ago, The Lock said:

All this though is making excuses for countries like Canada and the US not to have to do something

 

I'm not making excuses for the US.  They are the second biggest emitter of GHG.   And I'll throw India in there as well.  Those two, with China are the three biggest emitters of GHG accounting for around 50% of GHG.  As per this website that @RupertKBD mentioned:

 

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/us/countries-climate-change-emissions-cop28/

 

8 hours ago, The Lock said:

The entire world is pumping out over 37billion.

 

According to the above website, the total is around 50 billion, which is a number I've seen the most often.

 

8 hours ago, The Lock said:

You're missing what we should be doing collectively throughout the entire world.

 

Yes, the entire world should be doing that collectively.   Is the entire world doing that collectively?

 

8 hours ago, The Lock said:

This is why it should be thought of as per person and not as totals as totals are misleading.

 

I disagree.  Canada emits about 1% of global GHG.  Canada and Canadians could disappear overnight and it wouldn't make that much of a beneficial impact on climate change if other countries (especially the larger emitters) do not reduce their emissions.

 

However, I will say this:  if China, the US and India and several other large emitters were to come up with definite plan to reduce their GHG emissions and were serious about actually implementing that plan (making actual and verifiable reductions in their GHG emissions of, say, about 5% per year for instance) then Canada should also sign on to that plan.

 

In the meantime, sure, we should try to decrease our emissions.  But let's not tie ourselves up in knots about it.

 

[UnkNuk]

8 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

What we can do is vote for people who will put pressure on countries like China, India and the US to make changes to the way they do things. Hard to do however, if you aren't doing anything in your own back yard....

 

It's going to be hard to do even if we're doing a lot in our own back yard.  Do you really think that Xi Jinping or Narenda Modi or Joe Biden really care about what Canada is doing in regards to climate change?  Or that they are going to change their own climate policies because we have?

[UnkNuk]

6 hours ago, The Lock said:

Based on that question, what's the way for China? It's no different. All this says is we're too lazy and are effectively looking at ourselves as being "too good for change" while pointing the finger at China saying "you, you do something about this instead."

 

I'm not saying we're "too good for change".  (I'm not sure where you got that from.)  I'm saying it's not going to make much difference what we do if the largest emitters don't do anything.

 

6 hours ago, The Lock said:

No matter how big or small the country, it all matters.

 

It matters a heck of a lot more if it's China, the US and India that are doing something than if it's, say, Canada, Thailand and Nigeria.

 

[UnkNuk]

And while we're on the subject:

 

Greenhouse gas emissions soar – with China, US and India most at fault

 

Electricity generation in China and India, and oil and gas production in the US, have produced the biggest increases in global greenhouse gas emissions since 2015, when the Paris climate agreement was signed, new data has shown.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/03/greenhouse-gas-emissions-soar-with-china-us-and-india-most-at-fault?utm_term=656f3c1f897a19fe747728f1b5a4a328&utm_campaign=DownToEarth&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=greenlight_email

 

[The Lock]

1 hour ago, UnkNuk said:

 

I'm not saying we're "too good for change".  (I'm not sure where you got that from.)  I'm saying it's not going to make much difference what we do if the largest emitters don't do anything.

 

 

It matters a heck of a lot more if it's China, the US and India that are doing something than if it's, say, Canada, Thailand and Nigeria.

 

Do you even realise that Thailand's one of the countries looked up to in Southeast Asia being one of the success stories? Do you realise Nigeria would have a huge impact on Africa given they are one of the most important nations on that continent in terms of both economy and population? Think beyond worldwide when you think of these things. Thailand and Nigeria would be huge for their respective parts of the world.

 

However, I do understand not everyone knows geography nor understands the underlying geopolitics of those regions, but believe me, those countries would be very important in all of this, a lot more important than you realise. Nigeria could even be argued as being more important that most other countries out there. It has a significantly larger population than countries like Russia and will likely have a larger population than the US before the year 2075 or sooner... actually, not just likely, it will. lol

 

And sure, China and other larger countries should be doing things. If you noticed I never argued against that. I'm saying that we shouldn't discount what we can do just because we see a large number that China is emitting in greenhouse gases. The amount of pollutants based on population should not be discounted, which you seen intent on doing (thus, it coming across as a "we're too good for change" argument, whether intentional or not). We are also looked up to by other countries. There can still be a domino effect from us. We shouldn't have to rely on the largest countries to be doing their part.

Edited December 6, 2023 by The Lock

[RupertKBD]

9 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

It's going to be hard to do even if we're doing a lot in our own back yard.  Do you really think that Xi Jinping or Narenda Modi or Joe Biden really care about what Canada is doing in regards to climate change?  Or that they are going to change their own climate policies because we have?

 

Actually, I do....

 

However, we shouldn't be looking at it as a "one on one" prospect. It's fine for JT to bring it up with Xi or Modi in a private conversation, but what really happens is that we are part of a united front with countries from Europe, Asia and the Americas. This is what the Climate Conferences are supposed to be for and why it's so disappointing that it was hosted by a Petro State.

 

Xi is already doing something, as the articles I posted show. He needs to do more, (especially when it comes to burning coal for energy) but China is a world leader in renewables.

 

This united front I mentioned is why I believe it's important to elect leadership that actually cares about Climate Change and is willing to do something about it. It's one of the many reasons I'm worried about the prospect of Trump retaking the White House and Pierre Pollievre becoming PM. From what I've seen from both of them, I think it would be a giant step backwards in the fight against CC....

 

....which brings us back to Xi and Modi....we'll look like complete hypocrites if we're asking other countries to up their game, if we're not even in the game.

[RupertKBD]

As per my comments about Trump and Pollievre, case in point:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/trump-denies-climate-crisis-targets-john-kerry-in-iowa-town-hall/ar-AA1l5JNp?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=a89f390c57374a7eb399681ae183d6af&ei=15

 

Quote

 

However, Trump dismissed these environmental concerns, stating, "The only global warming we should be thinking about or worrying about is nuclear global warming, not global warming."

This statement echoes his previous dismissals of the climate crisis and his focus on other issues he deems more critical.

 

 

But hey, some folks are okay with Trump, because he'll garner them more clients....

[RupertKBD]

"And the winner is......Alberta!"

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/alberta-given-fossil-of-the-day-award-by-activists-at-global-climate-summit/ar-AA1l63xn?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=55e5b9c4172341789515d5b6eb8946f7&ei=28

 

Quote

 

Environmental activists put a spotlight on Alberta's climate record on Wednesday at the COP28 climate summit by giving the province the so-called "Fossil of the Day" award.

The Climate Action Network hands out the award daily at UN climate summits, but it's usually given to national governments, not a province or state.

 

 

I'm guessing the award is made out of stone, but Smith will probably get it bronzed....

[UnkNuk]

@The Lock   @RupertKBD

 

Obviously we're not going to agree on this issue.

 

But I have a question (or two):  what climate policies do you think should be enacted in Canada that will allow us to serve as an example to the rest of the world?

 

What sacrifices should Canadians be asked to make to reduce our GHG emissions even though other countries are not reducing theirs?

[RupertKBD]

2 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

@The Lock   @RupertKBD

 

Obviously we're not going to agree on this issue.

 

But I have a question (or two):  what climate policies do you think should be enacted in Canada that will allow us to serve as an example to the rest of the world?

 

What sacrifices should Canadians be asked to make to reduce our GHG emissions even though other countries are not reducing theirs?

 

Phase out coal and oil as sources of home heating, or electricity generation. (If anywhere in the country still does that)

 

Incentivize the development of Green technologies, using the same kinds of tax incentives we used to give to fossil fuel developers. (and may still do, for all I know)

 

I don't know how you quantify the "sacrifices" question, but I'd be okay with government sponsored retraining for workers whose jobs are phased out.

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, UnkNuk said:

@The Lock   @RupertKBD

 

Obviously we're not going to agree on this issue.

 

But I have a question (or two):  what climate policies do you think should be enacted in Canada that will allow us to serve as an example to the rest of the world?

 

What sacrifices should Canadians be asked to make to reduce our GHG emissions even though other countries are not reducing theirs?

 

There's not going to be one clear cut solution; however, we need to look at where the greenhouse gases are coming from: large organizations. One such area is the oil and gas industry. Therefore, this is not that dissimilar to your idea on looking at China. Instead we can pay our attention to large industries that produce the most greenhouse gases and put in place legislation to regulate that more.

 

So in my opinion, it's most about certain industries having to make some sacrifices as opposed to individuals. Of course, there could be taxes on individuals for certain things, but we're seen how the outcome of that could be less than ideal, especially in times like these where inflation's not ideal.

 

Another method would be to incentivize things like EV's; however, I'd argue we're not there yet in terms of technology. Batteries are still expensive and as long as that's the case, EV's are going to be limited in the impact they can do.

[RupertKBD]

Oh yeah....and the Carbon Tax stays....