The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[lio45]

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about lumber's footprint, OldDarthmouthMark: if harvested from a mature forest (and used as permanent materials, i.e. not burned), and then the forest is allowed to re-grow, that's a positive, not a negative, from the POV of carbon dioxide trapping. A growing tree "traps" more CO2 than a mature one.

In other words - the "best" thing to do from a CO2 perspective is to cut our forests once in a while while making sure the carbon from each harvest remains sequestered (i.e. keeping the resulting lumber in a permanent state of non-decomposition).

[milomilo]

I didn't mention it, but yeah that too. Putting lumber into homes is a form of carbon capture, so long as the forests it comes from are sustainable, which should be easy to achieve since we can source it all from Canada.

[Hackslack]

I’m surprised that enviros aren’t applauding China for blocking Canadian meat, as China is Canada’s 3rd largest export for meat, a huge demand of Canadian livestock will significantly decrease therefore we will not require nearly as much livestock. Seeing as livestock accounts for 15% of GHG the enviros should be applauding that industry will take a huge hit.

[vid]

Canada's forests aren't actually a carbon sink so every tree we cut down is a win. I totally don't live in a city that depends on cutting down trees for economic growth.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I’m surprised that enviros aren’t applauding China for blocking Canadian meat, as China is Canada’s 3rd largest export for meat, a huge demand of Canadian livestock will significantly decrease therefore we will not require nearly as much livestock. Seeing as livestock accounts for 15% of GHG the enviros should be applauding that industry will take a huge hit.

They'd only applaud it if they realized how negatively it will affect Alberta's economy relative to other provinces (67% of national beef production).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

They'd only applaud it if they realized how negatively it will affect Alberta's economy relative to other provinces (67% of national beef production).

That's the icing, but the actual cake is that a trade war with China that results in us overconsuming less throwaway planet-destroying Chinese crap and them eating less meat is full of win on all sides.

[vid]

That only works if we ban their shit in retaliation and we haven't yet.

This is 100% fueled by Meng Wangzhou though. I bet they knew about the fraudulent papers (assuming they exist) and were saving it for some kind of blackmail at some point.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

They'd only applaud it if they realized how negatively it will affect Alberta's economy relative to other provinces (67% of national beef production).

Actually, the information I heard is that this will disproportionately affect Quebec as they produce more of the pork exported to China. AFAIK only 6% of Canadian beef goes to China.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about lumber's footprint, OldDarthmouthMark: if harvested from a mature forest (and used as permanent materials, i.e. not burned), and then the forest is allowed to re-grow, that's a positive, not a negative, from the POV of carbon dioxide trapping. A growing tree "traps" more CO2 than a mature one.

In other words - the "best" thing to do from a CO2 perspective is to cut our forests once in a while while making sure the carbon from each harvest remains sequestered (i.e. keeping the resulting lumber in a permanent state of non-decomposition).

I stand corrected. I was thinking in terms of the more simplistic viewpoint that I was taught in school many years ago, that plants/trees use CO2 in the process of photosynthesis and give off Oxygen as a result.

https://sciencing.com/trees-turn-car...-10034022.html

Therefore, using that viewpoint, it would be better to keep trees going. I won't pretend to be an arborist or a dendrologist, so I wasn't aware that trees actually 'trap and store' CO2 that is released when it rots or burns. I thought that CO2 is a byproduct of burning 'anything' and not simply released when it burns (also not a chemist, and won't pretend to be one - didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn last night... ).

I do know that forestry tends to clearcut, which negatively affects the wildlife living in that area. And have also seen planned reforestation focusing on one species of tree (one that is profitable for their particular intended use), which apparently is not beneficial for wildlife/ecosystem when it finally does start to grow up.

Also, I was concerned about the byproducts of forestry, i.e. the wood that's not usable for marketable boards gets burned as fuel or used in the pulp and paper industry (which has other negative effects on the environment). Then I was wondering if anybody considered how wood used for building materials was processed, which typically means kiln drying (uses energy and emits CO2), and sometimes pressure treating with chemicals, etc.

Of course there is energy/CO2 and chemical pollution involved with recycling of plastics as well, but I won't pretend to be an expert on those topics, and thus won't state that it's worse or better than the wood industry, because I don't have the data, nor do I realistically have time to find and process it.

One thing that I do find a little concerning in these discussions is that they often seem to focus on one aspect of pollution - CO2 - and not the net effect on our environment as a whole. I don't know if that's because it's easier and more simple to focus on just the CO2 aspect, or if it's an attempt at slanting an argument because something that may be good from a CO2 perspective may be 'not good' from other environmental aspects. The thing is, our planet doesn't work that way - we are stuck in the environment as a whole, and our quality of life doesn't depend solely on how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, independent of all the other aspects of our environment.

I'll let y'all debate that one, I don't really have time to dig in any further...

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Processing the bottles into construction material will use a considerable amount of energy, likely more than the lumber. So it's likely better to just landfill the bottles and use the lumber, from a CO2 perspective, while being exactly equivalent from the perspective of just getting rid of the plastic.

There's an easy way to find out - apply a universal carbon price. If it's better to use the bottles, industry will use them as it will be cheaper.

The reason why I posted the link to the article about the plastic house had less to do with carbon pollution, and more to do with an honest effort to find a way to deal effectively with the problem of plastic waste, and what this is doing to the world's oceans.

In essence, I posted it as proof that there are effective means available to recycle plastics into useful products. Rather than banning plastics (which have many useful functions), we should be looking at ways (such as this) where discarded plastics can have a useful second life, not harmful to the environment.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The reason why I posted the link to the article about the plastic house had less to do with carbon pollution, and more to do with an honest effort to find a way to deal effectively with the problem of plastic waste, and what this is doing to the world's oceans.

In essence, I posted it as proof that there are effective means available to recycle plastics into useful products. Rather than banning plastics (which have many useful functions), we should be looking at ways (such as this) where discarded plastics can have a useful second life, not harmful to the environment.

I think your points are valid and don't think you should have to explain your reasons for posting - it should be obvious. This is why I commented about arguments which isolate C02 as being the only important thing and thus ignore all the other aspects of our environment. It's all one big ecosystem, and while reducing CO2 emissions would be of benefit, it's not the only thing that's important. Everything on our planet is interconnected.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The reason why I posted the link to the article about the plastic house had less to do with carbon pollution, and more to do with an honest effort to find a way to deal effectively with the problem of plastic waste, and what this is doing to the world's oceans.

In essence, I posted it as proof that there are effective means available to recycle plastics into useful products. Rather than banning plastics (which have many useful functions), we should be looking at ways (such as this) where discarded plastics can have a useful second life, not harmful to the environment.

Right, it is interesting in it's own right. But we must not lose sight of what the actual problems are and what the solutions are. What is the actual problem with landfilling plastic that is solved by recycling? This plastic has already been recaptured, so it's not going in the ocean or otherwise littering, so the only other real problem that can be solved is a reduction in CO2 emissions.

I just had a look at what composite decking is made of, and it can be made of recycled plastic, so we have found a similar use with a business case. But it is more expensive and isn't being used for it's environmental credentials, it is being used because it is more durable.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Actually, the information I heard is that this will disproportionately affect Quebec as they produce more of the pork exported to China. AFAIK only 6% of Canadian beef goes to China.

Oh ok, so no applause allowed then.

[Airboy]

Largest building-integrated photovoltaic glass installation in Canada at Edmonton Convention Centre
June 27, 2019

The City of Edmonton, which owns the Edmonton Convention Centre, has announced a $10.8 million atrium modernization project that includes the replacement of the venue’s 35-year-old skylight units with photovoltaic (solar cell) glass units. The project will begin this month and is expected to be completed in early 2020.

“Our commitment to sustainable design is reflected in projects such as this,” said Brad Watson, Facility Infrastructure Delivery, City of Edmonton. “This iconic building in Edmonton’s river valley provided a great opportunity to introduce the largest building-integrated photovoltaic glazing system in Canada.”

The new solar cells will convert sunlight into clean electricity while maintaining the transparency of the Centre’s current glass atrium. All 696 sloped panels on the atrium will be replaced, with photovoltaic glass units replacing approximately 50 per cent of the existing glass. It is estimated that more than 227,000 kilowatt hours of electricity will be generated each year and the panels will reduce anticipated greenhouse gases by over 150,000 kg. The investment is anticipated to be paid back in around 22 years.

“As stewards of a public facility, we have a duty to respect and honour the venue’s landmark location in Edmonton’s river valley,” said Melissa Radu, Sustainability Manager, Edmonton Convention Centre. “Not only does the installation help position Edmonton as an attractive destination for sustainable events, it encouraged us, our clients and our guests to set loftier goals that support the future of our industry and environment.”

Designed by DIALOG to withstand extreme temperatures and accommodate the vertical slope of the building’s roof, the finished installation will feature a uniquely Edmonton display that will be visible from within the atrium and across the river valley.

"Our team at DIALOG is proud to be part of helping the Edmonton Convention Centre continue to evolve. The installation of the integrated solar PV system demonstrates true leadership and the City of Edmonton’s commitment to a more sustainable future,” said Donna Clare, Principal Architect at DIALOG. “We are excited to see this unique and important transformation of the atrium glazing completed.”

The Edmonton Convention Centre will remain open during construction and will work closely with the City of Edmonton and construction manager to minimize any impact on the client and guest experience.

[SignalHillHiker]

This is more climate than weather...

So, generally speaking, clear water is dead water - there's almost nothing living in it. Cloudy water is FULL of plankton, organic materials, life.

Newfoundland, generally, has very deep, blue, cloudy water. It's very rich, as most cold water areas are.

But over the past few years, it's been changing more often, and in more places, to that turquoise, clear, lifeless blue of touristy warm areas. Don't get me wrong, turquoise can still be VERY cloudy and full of life. But ours tends to change to that colour when it's clear and dead.

Even in Brigus, which is a north-facing coast, this year, the water is a COMPETELY different colour than normal.



Here's mine, different angle but it's the same exact stretch of water (the tunnel is through that hill just behind the house). Different angles, etc. can create different colours - but not THAT big a difference.

Brigus by R C, on Flickr

[Eau Claire]

So the fear industry sites seem to be more and more caught between a rock and a hard place. They can’t keep denying the huge progress that’s being made – and btw remember that we’re only 4 years into an 85 year project, so huge progress is being made very early in the game – and yet they still clearly believe that fear is what’s driving their clicks and bringing in the money. Check out this Guardian article that is about a project so significant they’re calling it a step-change:

UK's biggest carbon capture project is step-change on emissions
Tata-owned Cheshire plant to turn 40,000 tonnes of CO2 a year into useful products
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-on-emissions

But then look at the bottom of the page:
“As the crisis escalates” ... give us money!

[Eau Claire]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

This is more climate than weather...

So, generally speaking, clear water is dead water - there's almost nothing living in it. Cloudy water is FULL of plankton, organic materials, life.

Newfoundland, generally, has very deep, blue, cloudy water. It's very rich, as most cold water areas are.

But over the past few years, it's been changing more often, and in more places, to that turquoise, clear, lifeless blue of touristy warm areas. Don't get me wrong, turquoise can still be VERY cloudy and full of life. But ours tends to change to that colour when it's clear and dead.

Even in Brigus, which is a north-facing coast, this year, the water is a COMPETELY different colour than normal.

...

That's interesting, but it's unlikely to be related to climate, especially if it's happened over just the last few years. The climate change we're experiencing now is a long term thing, hence the 2100 deadline set by the IPCC.

[Eau Claire]

This is high tech and very cool, but I don't understand it enough to understand it's potential.

First snapshots of trapped CO2 molecules shed new light on carbon capture
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-snapsh...n-capture.html

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by Eau Claire

That's interesting, but it's unlikely to be related to climate, especially if it's happened over just the last few years. The climate change we're experiencing now is a long term thing, hence the 2100 deadline set by the IPCC.

I'm not sure, of course, hence my post - but specific changes such as that, even overnight, can definitely be the result of climate change. We can see some changes, they're not all on a multiple-life time frame. When a highway collapses in melting permafrost in Yukon, that's climate change, even though it was fine last month and impassable today.

I'd be curious to see if the water in Brigus is warmer than it has been on average of the past years. Even less than a degree can cause change.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Eau Claire

So the fear industry sites seem to be more and more caught between a rock and a hard place. They can’t keep denying the huge progress that’s being made – and btw remember that we’re only 4 years into an 85 year project, so huge progress is being made very early in the game – and yet they still clearly believe that fear is what’s driving their clicks and bringing in the money. Check out this Guardian article that is about a project so significant they’re calling it a step-change:

UK's biggest carbon capture project is step-change on emissions
Tata-owned Cheshire plant to turn 40,000 tonnes of CO2 a year into useful products
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-on-emissions

But then look at the bottom of the page:
“As the crisis escalates” ... give us money!

Yes they are a commercial venture which requires money. No surprise. So what is your agenda here?