The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Doug

Not at all. I'm saying that blaming LNG for increased methane emissions is overly simplistic as is typical of misinformation coming from environmental activists.

But that's the justification you used to claim BC was being hypocritical supporting LNG over dilbit.

[milomilo]

I'm confused too. I agree with the general point though that singling out bad things about anything does little good. Everything is bad in its own way, trade offs need to be made.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm confused too. I agree with the general point though that singling out bad things about anything does little good. Everything is bad in its own way, trade offs need to be made.

'Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good" is the general sentiment.

We need to be moving all energy towards electricity, but in the mean time if we replace something high emission with low emission, we're on the right track.

[milomilo]

As long as we don't do the opposite, like replace low emission with high emission because of misplaced ideas, like replacing plastics with more intensive alternatives.

I'm intrigued by the recent claims of LNG being little better than coal when everything is accounted for. If it is true, then that is a problem. But I have my doubts.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by milomilo

As long as we don't do the opposite, like replace low emission with high emission because of misplaced ideas, like replacing plastics with more intensive alternatives.

I'm intrigued by the recent claims of LNG being little better than coal when everything is accounted for. If it is true, then that is a problem. But I have my doubts.

On a well to wire basis LNG is not a low emission source for power generation. China is replacing some coal power generating stations with gas to curb local air pollution, but they don’t care if it’s pipeline gas from Russia which would be lower in overall emissions or imported LNG, only that the price is right.

Check out the graph on page 22 of the linked study for average country emissions comparison vs BC LNG for power generation.

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/...FB3A1809382DB6

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by milomilo

As long as we don't do the opposite, like replace low emission with high emission because of misplaced ideas, like replacing plastics with more intensive alternatives.

I'm intrigued by the recent claims of LNG being little better than coal when everything is accounted for. If it is true, then that is a problem. But I have my doubts.

It seems to be based on worst case fugitive gas emissions for LNG, which isn't likely in BC's new project.

[whatnext]

Meanwhile Alaska has been baking in a record heatwave. That can't be good for melting permafrost and methane:

Three cities in Alaska experienced record high temperatures on July 4th as several agencies warned Friday of high fire risk in the Upper Yukon and south central Alaska. According to CBS Anchorage affiliate KTVA, the Division of Forestry reported over 100 active fires burning throughout the state of Alaska.

According to the National Weather Service, the temperature hit 90 degrees at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. The previous record high temperature of 85 degrees was set on June 14, 1969. The average high temperature for July 4 is 75 degrees....

....One expert told the Associated Press the high temperatures were the result of climate change.

"It's a weather story and it is an ongoing changing environment story as well as these kinds of extreme weather events become much more likely in a warming world," said Rick Thoman, a climate specialist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks' Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy...

...."Surface temperatures are above normal everywhere around Alaska," Thoman said. "The entire Gulf of Alaska, in the Bering Sea, in the Chukchi Sea south of the ice edge, exceptionally warm waters, warmest on record, and of course record-low sea ice extent for this time of year off the north and northwest coasts of the state."...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-...ge-2019-07-06/

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Meanwhile Alaska has been baking in a record heatwave.

Alaska's undisputed all-time high was 100F in 1915 at Fort Yukon. Unfortunately, the records at Anchorage may not be all that reliable in 1915. But the records that are available says it also hit 100F on June 20, 1915.

https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ak0285

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Alaska's undisputed all-time high was 100F in 1915 at Fort Yukon. Unfortunately, the records at Anchorage may not be all that reliable in 1915. But the records that are available says it also hit 100F on June 20, 1915.

https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ak0285

Little-known fact: Alaska holds the record for a state's lowest record high temperature at 100F, tied with Hawaii.

[ssiguy]

Sheer has just announced that he will stop the carbon tax which is no surprise but he also stated that he will halt the policy towards reducing actual emissions on the gasoline itself. That is a surprise and an incredibly stupid one. Even people who care little about climate change see the obvious benefits of making the gas we use in our cars less polluting. He seems to be bound and determined to lose this election.

Sheer madness!

[milomilo]

The better policy would be to scrap the emissions standards, which are pointless and even counter productive with a carbon price in place, and increase the carbon price somewhat.

[Doug]

The alleged clean fuel standard is a joke. How does one reduce the carbon intensity of carbon? Too bad some people fall for initiatives because of their labels.

[acottawa]

Higher octane gasoline would apparently reduce emissions.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-hig...ns-of-dollars/

Not sure if that I should what I say being planned, as there are no details and there is no plan to implement it before 2022.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Higher octane gasoline would apparently reduce emissions.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-hig...ns-of-dollars/

Not sure if that I should what I say being planned, as there are no details and there is no plan to implement it before 2022.

~2045 for the majority to switch? Stated in the last paragraph of the article (3 policy + 20 implementation years).

That seems a bit of a waste of time as a full phase out of nearly all ICE vehicles could be done on the same timeline; exceptions under a special license would be fire trucks, ambulance, police, electrical authority vehicles, and others required for safety or restoring power during a long outage.

These locations already often have their own fuel service operated by backup generators as most gas stations cease to function during blackouts.

[WarrenC12]

Do clean fuel standards help improve local air quality?

Given we have a publicly funded health system, it would make sense for the government to want to regulate the air quality in urban environments, to keep people out of the hospitals with breathing issues.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do clean fuel standards help improve local air quality?

No. They do not impact O3, NOx or particulates

[Doug]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Higher octane gasoline would apparently reduce emissions.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-hig...ns-of-dollars/

Not sure if that I should what I say being planned, as there are no details and there is no plan to implement it before 2022.

Sure but would require automakers to up compression ratios on new vehicles. It would take twenty years plus to get automakers on side, redesign engines and replace existing vehicles

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Doug

Sure but would require automakers to up compression ratios on new vehicles. It would take twenty years plus to get automakers on side, redesign engines and replace existing vehicles

Might as well just electrify in that case.

[ssiguy]

You would think that Sheer of all people would support lower emissions for gasoline. If he wants gasoline to continue to flow till the end of time {which he does} logic would dictate that he try to show oil usage in the most positively light to lessen the pariah reputation it has now. If nothing else you would think he would be going out of their way to alienate progressive and urban voters in policy they would at least have the political smarts to say nothing.

What the Tory war room is doing is beyond explanation. They seem to be going out of their way to alienate middle of the road and urban voters and instead doubling down on their support of oil which is akin to preaching to the converted. The Tories seem to think you can win an election by just appealing to your hard core base while everyone {or at least I thought} knows that you don't win elections with your base but rather getting the politically non-commited "mushy middle" 30% voting block to join your team and that means appealing to centrist voters.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Might as well just electrify in that case.

Sure...once the technology exists