HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 4:18 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is online now
Identity Condiment
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 38,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djesus777 View Post
First, the UN says 2015 is the last hope, then it was 2020, then 2025 and now 2030. Although climate change is real and global warming, this article is alarmist. Pretty soon it'll be 2050 as the last stand.
I think the last chance we had was years ago, and we're now well past a point of no return. Saying "we have until 2030!!" is just a ploy to get governments to actually do something and not be apathetic but if Trump, Ford, and soon Bolsonaro are any indication, the world's governments at all levels give exactly zero fucks about this and there is nothing the UN can say or do to change that.
__________________
Thunder Bay Updated 2018!other photos | my geofiction | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 4:23 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is online now
Identity Condiment
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 38,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Why is that "amazing"?

A SSP discussion about realistic solutions to the housing affordability crisis can be had, or we can have a discussion thread that starts with the suggestion we could kill all the rich and take their housing, but those two aren't going to be anywhere near the same thing.
Haha, the second word in the post was the discrediting hyperbole of my post! That's amazing!

I feel like a youtube video!!

Now, I've never argued that we should take the rich's houses. Those aren't practical! Just their money. Not that there is much of it, so much wealth of people and corporations is tied up in the assumed value of things that actually extracting it is impossible. We could take everything from Jeff Bezos but it can never add up to the $150 billion it's worth on paper or whatever it might be today. That kind of wealth doesn't work like that.

And honestly I don't see how we can have any conversation on here without it becoming hyperbolic. They're all hyperbolic, whether I'm part of them or not. Look at the weather threat! It's insanely hyperbolic and they're using stats! We've had discussions on housing here before and there are two problems with it. One: conservatives can't accept any form of government spending that isn't putting money into their own pockets and two: we're not parliament and discussing issues here goes about as far as discussing issues at a table in the back of a Tim Hortons in Kenora. Why put in the serious effort? Hyperbole is more fun!
__________________
Thunder Bay Updated 2018!other photos | my geofiction | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 10:46 AM
333609543's Avatar
333609543 333609543 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 267
The only problem I have is that the original post shows a scenario where a 100m sea level rise occurs. This is impossible, from all the articles I have read, if ALL the ice on Earth melts we can expect a 66 metre (216 feet; National Geographic) sea level rise as a maximum. That's still nothing to scoff at however, and depending on what happens we could see 1-4m sea level rise by 2100 (Affecting the St. Lawrence Valley & the maritimes). I'm not going to comment further and instead will just read what others may post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 1:26 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
I don't know - I consider the idea of half a billion climate refugees to be pretty terrifying myself. And people think a carbon tax is too costly....
There goes the hyperbole machine again. The actual number is probably close to 150m

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...imate-refugees

And that is spread over over decades, and over the whole world.

I am not saying climate change won’t cause problems - it clearly will. But it won’t be the disaster movie you’re predicting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 1:54 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is online now
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 9,760
Canadians have nothing to worry about the same way eastern Russia has nothing to worry about. The green farmland belt will only go north in the worst scenario, so buckle up and enjoy any warming we may or may not get. It is certainly better than an Ice Age that will happen soon enough. My fear is man will not have the ability to combat cooling as easily as warming.


If I was a Canadian I would be much more worried about cooling than warming.
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 2:14 PM
SHOFEAR's Avatar
SHOFEAR SHOFEAR is offline
DRINK
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: City Of Champions
Posts: 7,961
I'm far more worried about Canadians doing more than our share and taking much of the global burden at the expense of our standard of living while the major polluter countries do next to nothing.

Seems like most people my age are frustrated that their standard of living will/has declined form their parents generation, while at the same time they are oddly supportive of policies that place too much focus on the environment and social issues at the expense of the economy.
__________________
Lana. Lana. Lana? LANA! Danger Zone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 2:53 PM
240glt's Avatar
240glt 240glt is offline
HVAC guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: YEG -> -> -> Nelson BC
Posts: 10,680
Concerned enough to drop $30k of our own cash to lower our carbon footprint through the installation of a new solar array on the roof. We are not big energy users in the first place and I feel very strongly that micro generation is key for energy sustainability.

https://imgur.com/a/ZuIz06A

Sorry for the link. Can’t figure out how to imbed photos now that I’m not using Photobucket
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 4:27 PM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
There goes the hyperbole machine again. The actual number is probably close to 150m
Oh, that's a much better number.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 5:46 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
Oh, that's a much better number.
It is 2% of the world’s population spread out over 40 years, which hardly matches the apocalyptic rhetoric on this thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 7:41 PM
someone123's Avatar
someone123 someone123 is online now
hähnchenbrüstfiletstüc
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 20,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
The thread started with a "+100m sea level" premise. What did you expect?
One detail that tends to get lost is that the hyperbolic 100 m sea level rise people are just as bad as climate change deniers from the perspective of how scarce resources would be misallocated if we were to plan according to their far-fetched beliefs.

A nice aspect of all of this is that moving away from fossil fuels and to new energy sources is good for a whole bunch of reasons. But I think these changes should be based on economics and not fatalism. I disagree with doomsday type views that we must go back to the Middle Ages or the world will be destroyed (which BTW people have argued for centuries, with the end time predictions constantly evolving; a few decades ago people were obsessed with overpopulation). We should pursue cheap and clean energy though.

The low information environmentalist naysayer perspective has already had a fairly tangible negative effect in discouraging the development of nuclear energy projects.
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 8:24 PM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 842
The only thing Canadians have to fear from climate change is Carbon Taxes!

A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

The IPCC said the “price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued.” However, the group’s report tacitly acknowledges the unlikelihood that governments will enact astronomical taxes on energy.


http://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/a-...arbon-pricing/
__________________
The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound. That's why Darwin will always be right and Malthus will always be wrong - K.R.Sridhar

Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. - M.Tyson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 9:48 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 22,751
The fires in BC the last 2 summers are a good preview of climate change here, we won't flood, but we will burn up.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 6:06 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawagord View Post
The only thing Canadians have to fear from climate change is Carbon Taxes!

A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

The IPCC said the “price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued.” However, the group’s report tacitly acknowledges the unlikelihood that governments will enact astronomical taxes on energy.


http://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/a-...arbon-pricing/
Yep, best not to do anything and keep pimping dirty oil.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 6:22 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 22,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Yep, best not to do anything and keep pimping dirty oil.
So do you have a logical response, or do you just pop by long enough to spew some bullshit then leave. The post you're responding to makes a good point and quotes sources, what do you have to add that's constructive?
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 6:49 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
So do you have a logical response, or do you just pop by long enough to spew some bullshit then leave. The post you're responding to makes a good point and quotes sources, what do you have to add that's constructive?
That's all the response that was called for. The article basically boiled down to 'this is too expensive, so let's not even bother".

Let's be blunt, everyone involved in fossil fuel extraction is part of the problem. It doesn't matter if you drive a Prius or take the bus. That's why we get nonsense from Trudeau like "if we only extract more of this dirty oil we'll have the funds to fight climate change".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 6:57 PM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,910
I think the problem is that nobody is willing to lead a low-carbon lifestyle. Not the politicians, bureaucrats, professors or NGO workers that like to talk so much about the climate. They like their business trips, conferences in exotic locales, and vacations in distant destinations. Remote communities complain about pipelines but want to keep their diesel-based lifestyles. Upper middle class people in certain areas might be willing to accept a token carbon tax that will not have any measurable effect on the climate, as long as it doesn’t affect them very much, but would not accept any serious measures.

If the climate advocates really believed their rhetoric about impending doom they would be proposing efforts to restrict immigration, discourage procreation, limit global trade and travel, rationing and pretty significant restrictions on most sectors of the economy and most personal activities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 6:58 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
That's all the response that was called for. The article basically boiled down to 'this is too expensive, so let's not even bother".

Let's be blunt, everyone involved in fossil fuel extraction is part of the problem. It doesn't matter if you drive a Prius or take the bus. That's why we get nonsense from Trudeau like "if we only extract more of this dirty oil we'll have the funds to fight climate change".
You're part of the problem too, I hope you can recognize that.

What about someone employed for the oil industry who develops more energy efficient ways to extract oil? Would it be better they weren't employed doing that and did something else? Your irrational, low intellect, attitude to this is not helpful at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 7:29 PM
Calgarian's Avatar
Calgarian Calgarian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 22,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
That's all the response that was called for. The article basically boiled down to 'this is too expensive, so let's not even bother".
You almost got it right. The article basically states the cost the tax would have to be in order for it to be the solution would be massive, and not one government in the world is going to impose a tax of that size. Hence the argument that a Carbon Tax is useless. It's a decent way to raise money to spend developing a solution, but it's not a solution in itself, not even close!

Quote:
Let's be blunt, everyone consuming fossil fuels is part of the problem.
FTFY. The only way to stop greenhouse gas emissions is to stop using carbon, but everything in our society uses carbon, and none of us are making steps to mitigate out footprint. You can blame producers as long as you contribute absolutely nothing to the demand for their products, but I bet your carbon footprint is just as large as the rest of ours.

If we are going to solve this problem, we need to cut the demand for products made of fossil fuels. End of story.
__________________
Git'er done!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 9:00 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgarian View Post
You almost got it right. The article basically states the cost the tax would have to be in order for it to be the solution would be massive, and not one government in the world is going to impose a tax of that size. Hence the argument that a Carbon Tax is useless. It's a decent way to raise money to spend developing a solution, but it's not a solution in itself, not even close!

FTFY. The only way to stop greenhouse gas emissions is to stop using carbon, but everything in our society uses carbon, and none of us are making steps to mitigate out footprint. You can blame producers as long as you contribute absolutely nothing to the demand for their products, but I bet your carbon footprint is just as large as the rest of ours.

If we are going to solve this problem, we need to cut the demand for products made of fossil fuels. End of story.
And what's the classic Econ 101 method for cutting demand? Raise the Price, ergo a carbon tax. Simple really, even milomilo should be able to comprehend that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2018, 9:07 PM
CityTech CityTech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Westboro, Ottawa
Posts: 323
Significant reductions in carbon footprints can be made by eliminating coal power and shifting to electric vehicles, two things that aren't particularly difficult with present technology.
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 5:27 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.