HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1021  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 4:27 AM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 26,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Well that would lead to another arbitrary criteria of what a 'big' city is.
"Millions of people in the metro area" would be a fairly neutral and defensible criterion...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1022  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 4:31 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,973
Nope, that's completely arbitrary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1023  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 4:41 AM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 26,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Nope, that's completely arbitrary.
Everything's arbitrary. It's a continuum from the tiniest hamlet to Tokyo. "A city with millions of people in it" looks to me like one of the best places to draw this line - I challenge you to come with anything better
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1024  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 5:00 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,973
I reject your challenge, it's impossible! One could just as easily say anything with 10^6 people is a more logical line based on our numbering system than 2x10^6.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1025  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 5:10 AM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is online now
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Who's preaching? I'm just posting facts that show why Canada as a whole is missing our Copenhagen targets, which were actually achievable if we wanted them to be.

I live an extremely low carbon lifestyle given my standard of living, and the climate factors into every decision I make (to some degree). So in fact, I am walking the talk.

I didn't "advise" anyone to do anything.
If you eat meat your not walking the talk.


BTW Canadians shouldn't you wait until summer to bring this topic up.


Your under un normal snow and cold right now.
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1026  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 5:14 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 34,818
unnormal? pretty normal out west
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1027  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 5:15 AM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is online now
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Has manufacturing really declined since 2005? I'm pretty sure most of that was long before, in the 90s era fallout from NAFTA.

Way to distract from the obvious elephant on the chart though.

No heavy carbon intensive industries [ aluminum, steel, coal, coke, cement and the like just ] got off shored to the 2nd and 3rd world nations and now a new first world nation that is for the last 20 years China.



That's the goal really is it not? Global redistribution of wealth?
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1028  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 5:28 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 7,166
Canada will never meet it's GHG emissions goals because we have Alberta and Sask which make up only 15% of the population creating over 50% of our emissions. BC will be the next big GHG emitter and denier as it's massive LNG projects come on stream.

Ontario, Quebec, NS, and NS have seen their emissions decline and all 4 are below their 1990 levels with Ontario being the best performer in not only total emissions reduced but also per-capita. Central/eastern Canada is actually doing quite well and have European level emissions but Alberta, Sask, and BC have all seen their emmissions rise since 1990 and are taking active steps that will see this continue.

Would a better way to combat climate change be for all the PROVINCES to be charged by Ottawa a certain amount of money per-ton of emissions...............PROVINCES that produce the most, pay the most. The message will be clear, if you are building your economy on GHG you will pay dearly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1029  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 5:33 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Canada will never meet it's GHG emissions goals because we have Alberta and Sask which make up only 15% of the population creating over 50% of our emissions. BC will be the next big GHG emitter and denier as it's massive LNG projects come on stream.

Ontario, Quebec, NS, and NS have seen their emissions decline and all 4 are below their 1990 levels with Ontario being the best performer in not only total emissions reduced but also per-capita. Central/eastern Canada is actually doing quite well and have European level emissions but Alberta, Sask, and BC have all seen their emmissions rise since 1990 and are taking active steps that will see this continue.

Would a better way to combat climate change be for all the PROVINCES to be charged by Ottawa a certain amount of money per-ton of emissions...............PROVINCES that produce the most, pay the most. The message will be clear, if you are building your economy on GHG you will pay dearly.
Uh, like a carbon tax?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1030  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 5:59 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 7,166
No, it's not a carbon tax because the fee would not be levelled at individuals and/or businesses but rather provinces. One of the problems with a carbon tax is that large emitters simply write-off their carbon fees as a tax write-off and just consider it part of doing business while individuals just pay a few extra cents at the pump which they really don't notice and neither doesn't do the environment any good.

This method would make the PROVINCES pay for their total emissions to put real political pressure on the most polluting provinces. Ottawa would, for example, set a $20 billion/year provincial carbon fee and divide that amount by how much GHG your province produces but returned to the provinces on a per-capita basis. So, Alberta and Sask would be sending Ottawa and extra $10 billion a year {50% of $20 billion} but would get back their combined population {15% of $20 billion} or $3 billion.

Provincial governments will be far more likely to reduce the emissions in their provinces if Ottawa puts a GHG gas gun at their head. The provinces that have higher emissions will be hit with huge fines and hence drastically lower spending power resulting in closed hospitals, pot-holed roads, and laid-off teachers. This kind of approach hits leaders & parties where they fear it most..............their re-election campaigns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1031  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 6:04 AM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
No, it's not a carbon tax because the fee would not be levelled at individuals and/or businesses but rather provinces. One of the problems with a carbon tax is that large emitters simply write-off their carbon fees as a tax write-off and just consider it part of doing business while individuals just pay a few extra cents at the pump which they really notice which doesn't do the environment any good.

This method would make the PROVINCES pay for their total emissions to put real political pressure on the most polluting provinces. Ottawa would, for example, set a $20 billion/year provincial carbon fee and divide that amount by how much GHG your province produces but returned to the provinces on a per-capita basis. So, Alberta and Sask would be sending Ottawa and extra $10 billion a year {50% of $20 billion} but would get back their combined population {15% of $20 billion} or $3 billion.

Provincial governments will be far more likely to reduce the emissions in their provinces if Ottawa puts a GHG gas gun at their head. The provinces that have higher emissions will be hit with huge fines and hence drastically lower spending power resulting in closed hospital, pot-holed roads, and laid-off teachers. This kind of approach hits leaders & parties where they fear it most..............their re-election campaigns.
What you've described is exactly a carbon price, only levied in the most inefficient way possible. Individuals and businesses know how best to reduce their emissions, not provincial governments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1032  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 6:44 AM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a Van down by the river
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
Canada will never meet it's GHG emissions goals because we have Alberta and Sask which make up only 15% of the population creating over 50% of our emissions...
Are you illiterate?? In post 1011, I provided the numbers for GHG emissions for Canada WITHOUT AB and SK. in 2005 and 2017 which clearly show Canada WILL NOT meet it's goals.

Yes emissions are very high per capita in AB and SK, but stop with the sanctimonious BS. Canada was never going to meet the Copenhagen goals and using AB and SK is merely a cop out for not doing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
Actually, AB and SK are not solely responsible - everyone in Canada is.

In 2005, Canada's GHG emissions WITHOUT AB and SK were 428 MT.** Meaning our 2020 Copenhagen target would be roughly 300 MT. IN 2017, Canada's GHG emissions WITHOUT AB and SK were roughly 367 MT, so roughly 22% over the Copenhagen target.

So rather than trying to blame it all on AB and SK, maybe we should all accept the responsibility!



**
2005
Canada - 730
AB -233
SK - 70
2017
Canada - 716
AB -274
SK - 75
__________________
It really is later than you think!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1033  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 6:50 AM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a Van down by the river
Posts: 4,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Both of your posts make zero logical sense. Can't help you, sorry.
Seriously??? In response to a post of a chart showing AB and SK having soaring GHG emissions expanded upon by TorontoDrew, you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Also a pretty clear trend with the "Big 3" of Ont, Que, and BC. If Alberta wants to join the club...
Your obvious implication is that ON, QC AND BC are doing a great job of reducing GHG by saying "a pretty clear trend". Further by saying "If Alberta wants to join that club, they should start doings things like ON, QC and BC.. The truth however is that unlike ON and QC, GHG emissions in BC have been rising.

So either:

A - You did not mean to imply that BC was doing positive things on the emission reduction front like ON and QC and only included it because of population (??), or

B - you are/were obvlious to GHG emissions increasing in BC.

So which is it??
__________________
It really is later than you think!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1034  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 4:40 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 10,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
Seriously??? In response to a post of a chart showing AB and SK having soaring GHG emissions expanded upon by TorontoDrew, you said Your obvious implication is that ON, QC AND BC are doing a great job of reducing GHG by saying "a pretty clear trend". Further by saying "If Alberta wants to join that club, they should start doings things like ON, QC and BC.. The truth however is that unlike ON and QC, GHG emissions in BC have been rising
Show me on the charts where BC hurt you:





Of course we could (and should) be doing more to lower emissions. But I'm not sure why you're picking on BC's flat to declining emissions, which equal a significant drop in emissions per capita and per unit of GDP, since we've had a very healthy economy for a number of years.

More needs to be done by everybody, but especially AB and SK. They are orders of magnitude worse than QC, ON, and BC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1035  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 4:57 PM
canucklehead2 canucklehead2 is offline
Sex Marxist of Notleygrad
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YEG
Posts: 6,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Show me on the charts where BC hurt you:





Of course we could (and should) be doing more to lower emissions. But I'm not sure why you're picking on BC's flat to declining emissions, which equal a significant drop in emissions per capita and per unit of GDP, since we've had a very healthy economy for a number of years.

More needs to be done by everybody, but especially AB and SK. They are orders of magnitude worse than QC, ON, and BC.
As an Albertan, bingo!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1036  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2019, 8:39 PM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a Van down by the river
Posts: 4,274
nm
__________________
It really is later than you think!

Do something about your future.

Last edited by shreddog; Dec 4, 2019 at 11:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1037  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2019, 5:34 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 12,500
Meanwhile the consequences of inaction are becoming more apparent:

Greenland's ice sheet melting seven times faster than in 1990s

Greenland’s ice sheet is melting much faster than previously thought, threatening hundreds of millions of people with inundation and bringing some of the irreversible impacts of the climate emergency much closer.

Ice is being lost from Greenland seven times faster than it was in the 1990s, and the scale and speed of ice loss is much higher than was predicted in the comprehensive studies of global climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, according to data.

That means sea level rises are likely to reach 67cm by 2100, about 7cm more than the IPCC’s main prediction. Such a rate of rise will put 400 million people at risk of flooding every year, instead of the 360 million predicted by the IPCC, by the end of the century...

..“These are not unlikely events or small impacts,” said Andrew Shepherd, professor of earth observation at the University of Leeds, one of the lead authors of the study. “[These impacts] are happening and will be devastating for coastal communities.”

Greenland has lost 3.8tn tonnes of ice since 1992, and the rate of ice loss has risen from 33bn tonnes a year in the 1990s to 254bn tonnes a year in the past decade. Greenland’s ice contributes directly to sea level rises as it melts because it rests on a large land mass, unlike the floating sea ice that makes up much of the rest of the Arctic ice cap...


https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-than-in-1990s
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1038  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2019, 6:27 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 10,269
Harbour Air completes electric plane test at YVR:

https://twitter.com/HarbourAirLtd/st...388740609?s=20

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1039  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2019, 6:49 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kelowna
Posts: 5,706
^ Very cool. The Vancouver-Seattle/Vancouver-Victoria city pairs are an ideal use case for the electrification of float plane air travel.

A bit more info:

https://electrek.co/2019/12/10/world...-takes-flight/

Best guess from engine HP and stated battery weight is that it is a 300kWh battery pack (essentially 3 Model S P100 battery packs), and for their use cases (Vancouver-Victoria, Vancouver-Seattle, etc.) that is perfectly fine.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1040  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2019, 8:07 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 12,500
More bad news out of the Arctic

The Arctic may have crossed key threshold, emitting billions of tons of carbon into the air, in a long-dreaded climate feedback

The Arctic is undergoing a profound, rapid and unmitigated shift into a new climate state, one that is greener, features far less ice, and is a net source of greenhouse gas emissions from melting permafrost, according to a major new federal assessment of the region released Tuesday.

The consequences of these climate shifts will be felt far outside the Arctic in the form of altered weather patterns, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and rising sea levels from the melting Greenland ice sheet and mountain glaciers.

The findings are contained in the 2019 Arctic Report Card, a major federal assessment of climate change trends and impacts throughout the region. The study paints an ominous picture of a region lurching to an entirely new and unfamiliar climate state.

Especially noteworthy is the report’s conclusion that the Arctic may have already turned into a net emitter of planet-warming carbon emissions due to thawing permafrost, which would only accelerate global warming. Permafrost is the carbon-rich frozen soil that covers 24 percent of Northern Hemisphere land area, encompassing vast stretches of territory across Alaska, Canada, Siberia and Greenland...


https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...mate-feedback/
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:14 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.