The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Coldrsx]

City of Edmonton celebrates local corporations for their environmental leadership
July 15, 2021

Corporations play an important role in reducing the impacts of climate change, both in their operations and for their customers. At the first annual Corporate Climate Leaders Summit, the City of Edmonton honoured three of the members of the Corporate Climate Leaders Program, for taking exceptional action in measuring their carbon footprint, developing action plans and setting greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets.

The Corporate Climate Leaders Program (CCLP), launched in 2018, is part of the City of Edmonton’s Energy Transition Strategy, a plan to reduce emissions 35 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025, and achieve net-zero by 2050.

“The 65 members of the Corporate Climate Leaders Program are leading the way in achieving meaningful greenhouse gas emission reductions,” said Stephanie McCabe, Deputy City Manager of Urban Planning and Economy. “The City of Edmonton is proud to partner with them to demonstrate that together we can make a difference in protecting our environment.”

Lafarge Canada won the Employee Engagement Award for achieving up to a 25 per cent reduction in their greenhouse gas footprint as a result of employee engagement initiatives.

The Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues won the Community Leader Award for their Green League program which supports Edmonton’s Community Leagues to become leaders in energy efficiency and increasing the number of community solar projects in the city.

The Corporate Climate Leader of the Year Award went to Explore Edmonton Corporation for their work in transforming the Edmonton Convention Centre and Edmonton EXPO Centre to become two of Canada’s greenest event venues.

“I am tremendously proud of our team and everyone who has supported the work of our climate action plan,” said Melissa Radu, Sustainability Manager, Venues at Explore Edmonton. “Our sustainability initiatives at the Edmonton Convention Centre and Edmonton EXPO Centre demonstrate that the urgency needed to act on climate change is possible.”

Members of the CCLP have collectively committed to reducing 183,962 tonnes of GHGs in Edmonton by 2035 - the equivalent of removing more than 42,000 cars off the road for one year.

The CCLP welcomed nine new members this year:

Alberta Investment Management Corporation
Canadian Urban Limited
Child Development Dayhomes
Coke Canada
Edmonton Public Schools
Melcor Developments
NorQuest College
Switch Engineering
Wild + Pine

For more details on all the CCLP award winners, visit their profiles.


For more information:
Corporate Climate Leaders Awards

Media contact:
Mary-Ann Thurber
Communications Advisor
Communications and Engagement
780-619-3254

[rofina]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

in other words, we should keep kicking the can farther down the road so we can avoid doing anything about it until it is too late.

You know that wasn't my point, and you know that's not a logical stance to take, yet you continue to distill things down to stupid one liners like that because it suits some need of yours.

No, we shouldn't kick the can down the road because its not a logical thing to do.

I didn't say that, and I didn't even imply that.

Read my post again, if that helps.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Climate change isn't just about forest fires though.

Correct. Which is why it has been rebranded from Global Warming.

Like I said, it's an accelerant and multiplier. So if you get fires, they start getting more frequent and severe. Ditto if you're a region that gets floods

Yup. That's logical. I definitely don't disagree.

And that is why we talk about climate change. Because the effects are global. None of that should mean you ignore your local problem, like forest management in BC.

This is where it gets tricky. There is ALOT that could change about all these issues on a much smaller, local, level that would have a disproportionately large effect on the broader effects of climate change.

But everyone is looking elsewhere for answers - to government, to corporations, to grand actions. We want big ideas and big things.

I think the solutions are boring; build smarter. Manage risks better. Change individual lifestyles. Reduce consumption. Eat less. Buy less. Drive less. All individual choices, if applied at scale would make a drastic difference.

But its boring. Its not grand enough, and it doesn't sound great when discussing the long list of options of tackling climate change.

On the flip side, the point can definitely be made that we need to steer people in the right direction via tax incentives or other cost measures. I think there's a valid point there, misinformation campaigns make it difficult to get ones bearings today, and in those instances firm direction is helpful.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by rofina

Correct. Which is why it has been rebranded from Global Warming.


Yup. That's logical. I definitely don't disagree.



This is where it gets tricky. There is ALOT that could change about all these issues on a much smaller, local, level that would have a disproportionately large effect on the broader effects of climate change.

But everyone is looking elsewhere for answers - to government, to corporations, to grand actions. We want big ideas and big things.

I think the solutions are boring; build smarter. Manage risks better. Change individual lifestyles. Reduce consumption. Eat less. Buy less. Drive less. All individual choices, if applied at scale would make a drastic difference.

But its boring. Its not grand enough, and it doesn't sound great when discussing the long list of options of tackling climate change.

On the flip side, the point can definitely be made that we need to steer people in the right direction via tax incentives or other cost measures. I think there's a valid point there, misinformation campaigns make it difficult to get ones bearings today, and in those instances firm direction is helpful.

I used to feel a lot of guilt about my carbon footprint. Then Covid happened. Virtually everyone on earth stopped commuting to work and travelling and was forced to consume less and live a lighter carbon footprint lifestyle. Yet global emissions only dropped by something like 6%. If this pandemic has taught me anything it's that the world pollution problem is disproportionately driven by capitalism and corporations. The offloading of responsibility to an individual level is brilliant gaslighting on the part of Oil and Gas companies and all the other high polluting industries. It absolves them of responsibility and disperses the blame away from them. So I say screw the catch all mantra of personal choices saving the planet. They help, but there is no way we will ever tackle such a GLOBAL problem without large intervention from governments. The same way we have had to fight this virus.

[Truenorth00]

The idea that if everyone just cut back a tad, climate change would be solved is nonsense. It doesn't work when the house you live in is still heated with natural gas and even the transit bus you take runs on diesel. It's also just not how basic economics or human nature works. The carbon tax, at least, recognizes acknowledges that humans are more motivated by economic interest than altruism.

Next, we haven't built the infrastructure that would allow us alternatives. In a lot of our suburbs, you're still getting into an SUV and driving 10 mins just to fucking feed yourself (get groceries). Think about that. You literally can't feed yourself without two tons of steel and burning a liter of dino juice. Where's the transit and bike paths and walkable neighbourhoods that can truly reduce car dependency in an organic fashion that is not forced? This is why so many folks concerned about climate change also care about better designed and resourced cities.

Lastly, this viewpoint completely ignores the energy poverty of the developing world. Nearly half the world still cooks with solid fuel. We're not going to actually cut emissions without developing the technology that can address their energy poverty. Not just on cooking. But on mobility, heating, etc

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I used to feel a lot of guilt about my carbon footprint. Then Covid happened. Virtually everyone on earth stopped commuting to work and travelling and was forced to consume less and live a lighter carbon footprint lifestyle. Yet global emissions only dropped by something like 6%. If this pandemic has taught me anything it's that the world pollution problem is disproportionately driven by capitalism and corporations. The offloading of responsibility to an individual level is brilliant gaslighting on the part of Oil and Gas companies and all the other high polluting industries. It absolves them of responsibility and disperses the blame away from them.

BP literally created the concept of the personal Carbon Footprint to emphasize to shift the burden of responsibility to individuals. And just look at the posts here to see how brilliantly that PR has worked.

https://www.motherjones.com/environm...bon-footprint/

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by rofina

You know that wasn't my point, and you know that's not a logical stance to take, yet you continue to distill things down to stupid one liners like that because it suits some need of yours.

No, we shouldn't kick the can down the road because its not a logical thing to do.

I didn't say that, and I didn't even imply that.

Read my post again, if that helps.

which was that we need to talk about a lot of other things before we talk about climate change. thus relegating climate change to the end of the list.

My reading comprehension is just fine; I just don't enjoy engaging with people that are hell bent on replying with contrarian nonsense (and quite frankly I am rather sick of you following me around in every thread doing this for shits and giggles).

Are you Once (Mr 3000) or CannedAirSpray or Freeweed? I can't decide.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The idea that if everyone just cut back a tad, climate change would be solved is nonsense. It doesn't work when the house you live in is still heated with natural gas and even the transit bus you take runs on diesel. It's also just not how basic economics or human nature works. The carbon tax, at least, recognizes acknowledges that humans are more motivated by economic interest than altruism.

Next, we haven't built the infrastructure that would allow us alternatives. In a lot of our suburbs, you're still getting into an SUV and driving 10 mins just to fucking feed yourself (get groceries). Think about that. You literally can't feed yourself without two tons of steel and burning a liter of dino juice. Where's the transit and bike paths and walkable neighbourhoods that can truly reduce car dependency in an organic fashion that is not forced? This is why so many folks concerned about climate change also care about better designed and resourced cities.

Lastly, this viewpoint completely ignores the energy poverty of the developing world. Nearly half the world still cooks with solid fuel. We're not going to actually cut emissions without developing the technology that can address their energy poverty. Not just on cooking. But on mobility, heating, etc

You're probably right.

But if you are right, the pessimist in me comes out; were not going to come together and solve this.

Then again, I'm already acting as if we wont. I got my bug out plan, and it happens to work really well in a world that starts to crumble due to climate change.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

which was that we need to talk about a lot of other things before we talk about climate change. thus relegating climate change to the end of the list.

Yes. Ok. So you read it. A lot we can control, and we should. That will help with climate change. Same page. Look at us communicating. Nice, isn't it?

Climate change should be end of the list for you and I because were peons in the grand scheme of things. We can vote for candidates that promise change, but the real effect we can have is in personal consumption and life style decisions.

My reading comprehension is just fine; I just don't enjoy engaging with people that are hell bent on replying with contrarian nonsense (and quite frankly I am rather sick of you following me around in every thread doing this for shits and giggles).

Neither is happening. You're a smart dude that either; likes to play a pompous prick online, or is in fact a pompous prick in real life. Since I never met you in person, I will assume its the former. Because you disagree with opinion, it doesn't make it nonsense.

Are you Once (Mr 3000) or CannedAirSpray or Freeweed? I can't decide.

We live in the same country and post in 5 of the same threads because that's all the active threads there are on this forum.

Apparently I'm Lio, add that to your list of suspects too.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I used to feel a lot of guilt about my carbon footprint. Then Covid happened. Virtually everyone on earth stopped commuting to work and travelling and was forced to consume less and live a lighter carbon footprint lifestyle. Yet global emissions only dropped by something like 6%. If this pandemic has taught me anything it's that the world pollution problem is disproportionately driven by capitalism and corporations. The offloading of responsibility to an individual level is brilliant gaslighting on the part of Oil and Gas companies and all the other high polluting industries. It absolves them of responsibility and disperses the blame away from them. So I say screw the catch all mantra of personal choices saving the planet. They help, but there is no way we will ever tackle such a GLOBAL problem without large intervention from governments. The same way we have had to fight this virus.

When most of the world was actually locked down in April 2020 emissions fell by 17%.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x

Looking at overall 2020 numbers makes little sense as none of the major emitters (US, China, Russia, India) was locked down in the 2nd half of 2020.

[Al Ski]

We've known about this for 60 plus years.

We've done nothing about it because we were happy to get fat - plus there were millions of $$$ in disinformation directed towards us that encouraged us to get fat.

Glad I don't have kids because I wouldn't know what to tell them.

Nothing is going to change because we worship short-term profit

This ship isn't going to turn around, we're in for.. I don't even know..

It's not going to be good.

[Architype]

We have serious issues in this country, and I just see a politically embedded back and forth tug of war here that is not productive in resolving the predominant triad of issues we have to deal with (i.e.. Anglo-Francophone issues, the First Nations, and Liberal-academic environmentalism & wokism vs. conservatism). Instead of just being wise guys making wise cracks, educated people should bring forth the full impetus of their knowledge in more productive ways. The level of ad hominem argumentation in the Canadian threads is ridiculous sometimes.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by rofina

You're probably right.

But if you are right, the pessimist in me comes out; were not going to come together and solve this.

Then again, I'm already acting as if we wont. I got my bug out plan, and it happens to work really well in a world that starts to crumble due to climate change.

There's no doubt, it's going to be a tough fight. But, I also think it's good to understand that we're a long way from the difficult choices. For the most part, a lot of what we can do right now would give us a higher quality of life while cutting emissions.

Imagine for a second, living in a 15 min neighbourhood with a mix of housing, electric cars in the driveways, homes built to higher standards (net zero ready), better transit and bike paths. It's not substantially different than the lifestyle of most Canadians. But that walkability would make people healthier, would reduce car dependency and substantially cut emissions.

Imagine our major urban corridors (Quebec-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton) having decent enough rail service that short haul flights aren't needed. No showing up an hour before a flight to get undressed and groped by a CATSA agent.

It can be done. And this is literally what the feds are pushing towards. Maybe it doesn't get us to carbon neutral by 2050. Maybe we get two thirds of the way. But that would still be better than alternative. The difference between 2°C and 3°C warming is still substantial (the part the psychopaths on this thread don't want to tell you). Even if we don't keep warming to 1.5°C (the official target).

Lastly, there will always be lots of doomerism in Canada on this. With about a quarter of our emissions coming from oil and gas, there's always going to be someone pushing the narrative that we can't fully cut emissions without decimating the economy. This, however, ignores the fact if the world succeeds in developing the alternatives (as it is on track to do right now), these emissions will fall simply because of reduced global demand for oil and gas. So we should worry less about that quarter to a third of emissions. Let's worry about the bits we can actually change right now with the technology we have, through policy and infrastructure investments. And again, this should give us better cities to live in and easier ways to get around.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no doubt, it's going to be a tough fight. But, I also think it's good to understand that we're a long way from the difficult choices. For the most part, a lot of what we can do right now would give us a higher quality of life while cutting emissions.

Imagine for a second, living in a 15 min neighbourhood with a mix of housing, electric cars in the driveways, homes built to higher standards (net zero ready), better transit and bike paths. It's not substantially different than the lifestyle of most Canadians. But that walkability would make people healthier, would reduce car dependency and substantially cut emissions.

Imagine our major urban corridors (Quebec-Windsor and Calgary-Edmonton) having decent enough rail service that short haul flights aren't needed. No showing up an hour before a flight to get undressed and groped by a CATSA agent.

It can be done. And this is literally what the feds are pushing towards. Maybe it doesn't get us to carbon neutral by 2050. Maybe we get two thirds of the way. But that would still be better than alternative. The difference between 2°C and 3°C warming is still substantial (the part the psychopaths on this thread don't want to tell you). Even if we don't keep warming to 1.5°C (the official target).

Lastly, there will always be lots of doomerism in Canada on this. With about a quarter of our emissions coming from oil and gas, there's always going to be someone pushing the narrative that we can't fully cut emissions without decimating the economy. This, however, ignores the fact if the world succeeds in developing the alternatives (as it is on track to do right now), these emissions will fall simply because of reduced global demand for oil and gas. So we should worry less about that quarter to a third of emissions. Let's worry about the bits we can actually change right now with the technology we have, through policy and infrastructure investments. And again, this should give us better cities to live in and easier ways to get around.

The difference between 2 degrees and 3 degrees is not whether Canada reaches two thirds of its net zero target or not. Canada's share of global emissions is 1.5% and falling.

There might be positive benefits to the measures you're discussing (such as better local air quality or better health outcomes) but affecting climate change at a macro level is not one of them.

If you don't believe me there is a handy calculator here.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/climate-change-calculator/

You can bring Canada's emissions to zero and can't event see the change in the curve.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The difference between 2 degrees and 3 degrees is not whether Canada reaches two thirds of its net zero target or not. Canada's share of global emissions is 1.5% and falling.

There might be positive benefits to the measures you're discussing (such as better local air quality or better health outcomes) but affecting climate change at a macro level is not one of them.

If you don't believe me there is a handy calculator here.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/climate-change-calculator/

You can bring Canada's emissions to zero and can't event see the change in the curve.

I compare it to owning a dog. Is it okay if I let my dog shit on the sidewalk and not pick it up? After all, I have just one dog and my neighbour has 5 dogs. Surely, you should focus on her right? Or is that irrelevant when we're all stepping in dogshit at the end of the day?

So yes, while Canada isn't the difference between 2°C and 3°C precisely, our efforts (or lack thereof) will most certainly contribute to the final result.

Also, when you add up all the countries that have sub 2% emissions, you end up with half the world's emissions. You want them to also take the same approach you're advocating here?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I compare it to owning a dog. Is it okay if I let my dog shit on the sidewalk and not pick it up? After all, I have just one dog and my neighbour has 5 dogs. Surely, you should focus on her right? Or is that irrelevant when we're all stepping in dogshit at the end of the day?

So yes, while Canada isn't the difference between 2°C and 3°C precisely, our efforts (or lack thereof) will most certainly contribute to the final result.

Also, when you add up all the countries that have sub 2% emissions, you end up with half the world's emissions. You want them to also take the same approach you're advocating here?

If you own a dog somewhere where everyone lets their dog shit everywhere then nobody will notice a difference between there being 99 or 100 pieces of shit on the ground. If someone thinks the guy who owns 28 dogs and the guy who owns 15 dogs are basing their behaviour on the guy who owns one dog then I would wonder if they understand the geopolitics of the dog park.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If you own a dog somewhere where everyone lets their dog shit everywhere then nobody will notice a difference between there being 99 or 100 pieces of shit on the ground. If someone thinks the guy who owns 28 dogs and the guy who owns 15 dogs are basing their behaviour on the guy who owns one dog then I would wonder if they understand the geopolitics of the dog park.

Ah. So instead of at least trying to come up with an imperfect agreement with the other dog owners that might just reduce some of the shit on the sidewalk we should simply give up and let Rover shit anywhere he wants?

I've said before and I'll say it again. I can't understand being this much of a selfish prick. But what I really don't understand is the resistance to all the basic infrastructure stuff that would improve the Quality of Life of selfish pricks everywhere. It's almost like y'all want to give Rover a laxative because you think that will teach the guy with a dozen Labs.

[O-tacular]

Instead of focusing solely on Canada' national GHG emissions we should be taking into account the global GHG emissions that are produced from all of the resources that are shipped abroad. Our oil exports should count. That being the case we could contribute in a large way to reducing emissions by becoming an exporter of lithium. Alberta has the infrastructure in place, tons of it sitting around from oil wells and is developing methods to extract it that are much less environmentally disastrous than other areas of the world are using. Also, forest fires are contributing to increasing our emissions. Future permafrost melt and release of methane will as well.

Edit: Whether or not you hate Trudeau, at least he stuck with the other G7 countries in continuing to support the Paris accord during the Trump years. We can help steer the ship even if we are not a direct source of all emissions.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ah. So instead of at least trying to come up with an imperfect agreement with the other dog owners that might just reduce some of the shit on the sidewalk we should simply give up and let Rover shit anywhere he wants?

I've said before and I'll say it again. I can't understand being this much of a selfish prick. But what I really don't understand is the resistance to all the basic infrastructure stuff that would improve the Quality of Life of selfish pricks everywhere. It's almost like y'all want to give Rover a laxative because you think that will teach the guy with a dozen Labs.

Canada needs to be one that comes up with ideas of how to pick up that shit and bury it without any consequence to the surroundings, or develop a consumable for the dog that when it does shit, nobody notices, or come up with an idea of a consumable that enables the dog to not shit at all...

point being, not only does Canada need to contribute to cleaning up their own shit, the bigger impact Canada will have on the world will be to be innovators, and leaders in developing new and existing technologies in a economically feasible way that the rest of the world can leverage.

[MonctonRad]

I like the idea of a shitless dog.