HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 2:29 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Sure but only once that new power around comoletely displaces fossil fuels, which is extremely ambitious.

I posted a long time ago that car in taxation is an academic spiltikm tsjr will only fail in the real world as politicians will not impose it without bias.
Renewables don't have to completely displace fossil fuels for us to start - if we waited for each piece of technology or science to become available to do anything we would never get anywhere. But if someone can profitably make money selling solar power, and someone else can buy that power and use it to sequester carbon for $100 a tonne, then the economics exist for them to do that. If no one is paying though, there's no incentive to do it.

Of course, who knows if it is actually feasible to sequester carbon and at what price. The government definitely doesn't know, which is why I advocate a mechanism for the market to find out the best way. If someone figured they could make a profit planting trees if the government gave him back $50 a tonne of carbon captured, then that could be the best way. Who knows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 2:44 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,300
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ccs...ower-1.3905724

This is a perfect case study. Shell spent $1.3B on CCS, and without any taxes or government incentive that would be a complete waste of money for Shell. It removes 1.2 million tons a year of CO2 though, so at $100/tonne carbon price, that investment would be paid off in 10 years, which is reasonable, and the more of this that is done, the cheaper it will become.

Back to the thermodynamics point, I thought about it and it's not actually true that CCS is impossible without renewables powering it. It's carbon capture, not carbon dioxide chemically converting back to carbon. If you can efficiently separate the carbon from mixed gas, then pumping it underground or otherwise storing it should use less energy than it took to create. Hopefully.

I didn't used to support CCS at all, but I've come round to thinking it's probably neccesary as we will never reduce our CO2 output enough. In fact we really need to not just reduce emissions but reverse the total amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 3:22 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 23,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
If someone figured they could make a profit planting trees if the government gave him back $50 a tonne of carbon captured, then that could be the best way. Who knows.
If allowed to keep the proceeds from the mature timber, it's a fact it can be easily profitable to plant trees even while being given $0 per tonne of carbon captured, as it's already done on larg-ish scales.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 3:27 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 23,281
Thinking out loud, maybe we should push the idea of policies like NH's Current Use (nearly no yearly property taxes charged to anyone who owns forestland and commits to keeping it undeveloped) even further, by giving credits to anyone keeping land as growing forest instead of developing it.

You don't need to be actually planting trees, that process happens by itself. You just need to avoid subdividing and clearing it all in order to blanket it in sprawlstyle bungalows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 4:10 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Thinking out loud, maybe we should push the idea of policies like NH's Current Use (nearly no yearly property taxes charged to anyone who owns forestland and commits to keeping it undeveloped) even further, by giving credits to anyone keeping land as growing forest instead of developing it.

You don't need to be actually planting trees, that process happens by itself. You just need to avoid subdividing and clearing it all in order to blanket it in sprawlstyle bungalows.
If I was to design the system, I think I would charge the developer of land a carbon tax on the calculated net lost carbon absorption of all the trees cut down, over a certain period of time, say 50 years. Charge for the cost, rather than rewarding rich people for hoarding land.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 4:14 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
If allowed to keep the proceeds from the mature timber, it's a fact it can be easily profitable to plant trees even while being given $0 per tonne of carbon captured, as it's already done on larg-ish scales.
This is more thinking out loud, but if someone had a tree or plant that was really good at pulling carbon out the air, but produced crappy lumber, then currently there is no incentive to plant that. But if rewarded, maybe it would be worthwhile. Hypothetical, of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 4:28 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 23,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
If I was to design the system, I think I would charge the developer of land a carbon tax on the calculated net lost carbon absorption of all the trees cut down, over a certain period of time, say 50 years. Charge for the cost, rather than rewarding rich people for hoarding land.
Works too, it's kind of similar.

There's a significant opportunity cost to hoarding land, though. It would make sense to make that more rewarding. I "hoard" my lands because I love nature and the forest, and like to go there to hike and relax (and hunt and fish, eventually), but from a strict "rewards" point of view, these idly forested properties - they don't generate cashflow, I'm not having any logging done there - means I have less income-generating properties in Sherbrooke or Florida right now. Even if I had them logged, that would be a very very low net cap rate.

It wouldn't be that unfair if I got carbon capture credits every year for the conscious choice of acquiring those lands and keeping them undeveloped. It would make this kind of investment more attractive generally to people, and that's probably not a bad thing...?

(I suppose a counter-point would be to point out that regardless of who owns them, forest would likely be growing there anyway if there's no potential for development (values would just be lower), and if there's potential for development then your method of heavily disincentivizing that works as well to cover that part.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 4:33 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 23,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
This is more thinking out loud, but if someone had a tree or plant that was really good at pulling carbon out the air, but produced crappy lumber, then currently there is no incentive to plant that.
Sure, that's an excellent point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 7:54 PM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/ccs...ower-1.3905724

This is a perfect case study. Shell spent $1.3B on CCS, and without any taxes or government incentive that would be a complete waste of money for Shell. It removes 1.2 million tons a year of CO2 though, so at $100/tonne carbon price, that investment would be paid off in 10 years, which is reasonable, and the more of this that is done, the cheaper it will become.

Back to the thermodynamics point, I thought about it and it's not actually true that CCS is impossible without renewables powering it. It's carbon capture, not carbon dioxide chemically converting back to carbon. If you can efficiently separate the carbon from mixed gas, then pumping it underground or otherwise storing it should use less energy than it took to create. Hopefully.

I didn't used to support CCS at all, but I've come round to thinking it's probably neccesary as we will never reduce our CO2 output enough. In fact we really need to not just reduce emissions but reverse the total amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere.
Depends on whether CO2 is considered inert enough to be sequestered. Assuming CO2 would be injected into the ground, there are likely insufficient geological formations to accommodate and potential the gas could escape. Sequestering as a solid requires converting CO2 to pure carbon, cellulose, calcium carbonate, gypsum, carbohydrate or hydrocarbon, all of which require more energy than unleashed by the original combustion of hydrocarbons.

Plants, algae, some Monera and some Protozoa can synthesize cellulose. Plants can also synthesize carbohydrates. Some Protozoa synthesize calcium carbonate. Reforestation and algae farming could provide biologic sequestration. Genetic engineering to splice genes responsible for the Calvin Cycle into bacteria could enable biologic sequestration into carbohydrate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 9:25 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
As seen on SSC ;)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Works too, it's kind of similar.

There's a significant opportunity cost to hoarding land, though. It would make sense to make that more rewarding. I "hoard" my lands because I love nature and the forest, and like to go there to hike and relax (and hunt and fish, eventually), but from a strict "rewards" point of view, these idly forested properties - they don't generate cashflow, I'm not having any logging done there - means I have less income-generating properties in Sherbrooke or Florida right now. Even if I had them logged, that would be a very very low net cap rate.

It wouldn't be that unfair if I got carbon capture credits every year for the conscious choice of acquiring those lands and keeping them undeveloped. It would make this kind of investment more attractive generally to people, and that's probably not a bad thing...?

(I suppose a counter-point would be to point out that regardless of who owns them, forest would likely be growing there anyway if there's no potential for development (values would just be lower), and if there's potential for development then your method of heavily disincentivizing that works as well to cover that part.)
Yes, I would have to agree. There's often a knee-jerk reaction against anything perceived as governments in any way helping or favouring the wealthy, but I would view it more in terms of "rewarding rich people for using their wealth to fund the protection of the natural environment" rather than "rewarding rich people for hoarding land." They already have the money, they can already use it to acquire more money by investing it in countless ways, some of which are good for society while others are neutral or even harmful. I see no harm in encouraging more capital to flow to places where it's deemed useful.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 9:38 PM
isaidso isaidso is online now
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 9,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-tacular View Post
I’m also dumbfounded that some cretins are unashamed to celebrate the death of thousands if not millions of people in other countries, to say nothing of the complete annihilation of the natural world and the fact we are leaving future generations with a shit sandwich. It takes a special kind of ignorant evil to make such statements. Sadly I’ve heard similar from a few selfish Baby Boomers.
You're being over the top dramatic and sensationalist. I've not seen anyone in this thread celebrating climate change or celebrating the death of millions of people. Posts like yours do the cause a disservice and aren't very constructive. People will tune out in a hurry if you make the kinds of statements you just made.

Even if it's unpopular some people are interested in the whole story; even if it doesn't fit neatly into the narrative. Labeling them ignorant and evil is absurd. Quite the opposite, some people on here want to cut through the noise, get ALL THE INFORMATION, and keep the hysterics at bay.

There's also a substantial proportion of the population that don't have the same faith in humanity that you do. My carbon footprint has always been small for a Westerner but my interest in this has turned to acceptance that this is happening. My energies have now turned to how to adapt to climate change. The planet undergoes climate change all the time, species die out, others adapt, and others prosper. As unpleasant as that may be, it's how it's always worked. That man is responsible this time around doesn't change that.

Even if we cut emissions in half tomorrow the planet will undergo substantial climate change. That's something all climatologists accept as fact. People are living in a fantasy world if they think this isn't happening. It would be wise for us to pour our attention into adaptation. How Canada responds to rising sea levels, more extreme weather, a longer growing season, climate refugees, etc. is what we should be focusing on.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 9:46 PM
acottawa acottawa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,963
The problem is that nobody (or at least you would need a ridiculous number of decimal places) is willing to actually live a low-carbon lifestyle: not environmentalists, not indigenous people, not left-wingers, not right-wingers, not centrists.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 10:35 PM
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 32,063
A low-carbon lifestyle would be way less expensive in the long run than the economic repercussions we will face individually and collectively from ACC.

Curbing global warming could save US$20 trillion (Nature)

Fig. 1: Deriving impact projections.

Nature

Fig. 2: Global impact of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C relative to 2 °C.

Nature

Fig. 3: Country-level impact of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C relative to 2 °C.


Fig. 4: The impact of global warming on global GDP per capita, relative to a world without warming, for different forcing levels.


The study can be found here

Quote:
International climate change agreements typically specify global warming thresholds as policy targets1, but the relative economic benefits of achieving these temperature targets remain poorly understood2,3. Uncertainties include the spatial pattern of temperature change, how global and regional economic output will respond to these changes in temperature, and the willingness of societies to trade present for future consumption. Here we combine historical evidence4 with national-level climate5 and socioeconomic6 projections to quantify the economic damages associated with the United Nations (UN) targets of 1.5 °C and 2 °C global warming, and those associated with current UN national-level mitigation commitments (which together approach 3 °C warming7). We find that by the end of this century, there is a more than 75% chance that limiting warming to 1.5 °C would reduce economic damages relative to 2 °C, and a more than 60% chance that the accumulated global benefits will exceed US$20 trillion under a 3% discount rate (2010 US dollars). We also estimate that 71% of countries—representing 90% of the global population—have a more than 75% chance of experiencing reduced economic damages at 1.5 °C, with poorer countries benefiting most. Our results could understate the benefits of limiting warming to 1.5 °C if unprecedented extreme outcomes, such as large-scale sea level rise8, occur for warming of 2 °C but not for warming of 1.5 °C. Inclusion of other unquantified sources of uncertainty, such as uncertainty in secular growth rates beyond that contained in existing socioeconomic scenarios, could also result in less precise impact estimates. We find considerably greater reductions in global economic output beyond 2 °C. Relative to a world that did not warm beyond 2000–2010 levels, we project 15%–25% reductions in per capita output by 2100 for the 2.5–3 °C of global warming implied by current national commitments7, and reductions of more than 30% for 4 °C warming. Our results therefore suggest that achieving the 1.5 °C target is likely to reduce aggregate damages and lessen global inequality, and that failing to meet the 2 °C target is likely to increase economic damages substantially.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 10:49 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
A low-carbon lifestyle would be way less expensive in the long run than the economic repercussions we will face individually and collectively from
He's right though. A truly carbon neutral life means living a hunter gatherer existence, not even using fire for heat or cooking, and no one wants to live like that. While some people are certainly less carbon intensive, even the most ardent Canadian environmentalist will still cause far more emissions than non-human animals. It's unavoidable in our economy as everything we use is made and transported by oil.

So rather than pretending that someone who uses a bit less carbon is a saint and someone who uses a little more is the worst, it would be better to frame policy in a way that complements human behavior and promotes realistic solutions. And being realistic about what we can achieve.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 11:10 PM
misher misher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 1,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
He's right though. A truly carbon neutral life means living a hunter gatherer existence, not even using fire for heat or cooking, and no one wants to live like that. While some people are certainly less carbon intensive, even the most ardent Canadian environmentalist will still cause far more emissions than non-human animals. It's unavoidable in our economy as everything we use is made and transported by oil.

So rather than pretending that someone who uses a bit less carbon is a saint and someone who uses a little more is the worst, it would be better to frame policy in a way that complements human behavior and promotes realistic solutions. And being realistic about what we can achieve.
Hey guys I really love the discussion going on here!

As for what Milomilo said, yes none of us is going to give up our luxuries. Thats why I saw Carbon Sequestration as the only good solution, lets continue to pollute and put it back into the ground. Eventually technology will be at a point where pollution stops entirely, until then lets counter pollution with anti pollution so that 1-1=0.

Even if we don't pollute here, we are generally just pushing someone else to pollute on our behalf to provide us the same end products.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 11:35 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Depends on whether CO2 is considered inert enough to be sequestered. Assuming CO2 would be injected into the ground, there are likely insufficient geological formations to accommodate and potential the gas could escape. Sequestering as a solid requires converting CO2 to pure carbon, cellulose, calcium carbonate, gypsum, carbohydrate or hydrocarbon, all of which require more energy than unleashed by the original combustion of hydrocarbons.

Plants, algae, some Monera and some Protozoa can synthesize cellulose. Plants can also synthesize carbohydrates. Some Protozoa synthesize calcium carbonate. Reforestation and algae farming could provide biologic sequestration. Genetic engineering to splice genes responsible for the Calvin Cycle into bacteria could enable biologic sequestration into carbohydrate.
All true. Renewables will certainly make carbon sequestering much more attractive. I don't know what the best way of doing it will be, and the government definitely doesn't, so the best thing we can do implement a mechanism for the market to figure it out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 11:36 PM
The Chemist's Avatar
The Chemist The Chemist is offline
恭喜发财!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 中国上海/Shanghai
Posts: 8,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by misher View Post
The below is an opinion piece by myself.

I just wanted to bring up a point of contention for most Canadians. How much of the economy do you feel should we sacrifice for the environment? Should we shut down all non renewable resource extraction?

Canada currently produces around 2% of the worlds CO2 emissions
https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-ind...sp?lang=en&n=F

Should we be throttling our economy in return for reducing this number?

If we do, what happens when other nations choose not to do the same and out compete us? Will we sacrifice our economy?

Personally I feel that Canada should be going full speed. If we try to throttle our economy in return for reducing our emissions to say 1%, it won't stop global warming because the other nations representing 98% will not stop. We could stop all emissions and global warming will still happen.

My proposal is that instead, we should push our economy and direct some of those profits towards Carbon Capture/Sequestration technology and initiatives that help to reduce the emissions of others like shipping LNG to China.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...fuel-1.4696817
According to this article, we will soon be able to reduce Carbon by "$94 US to $232 US" a ton with current technology. Imagine how this technology would improve if we stopped hindering out economy and invested all that into it. According to very rough math, assume Canada produces around 600 megatons of CO2 annually, we could capture it all for about 60 billion dollars USD at a price of $100 a ton.

Carbon sequestration technology is still in its infancy and has yet to be mass produced. Imagine if we could cut that price in half, to 30 billion dollars. Canada spends around 20ish billion USD on our debt each year. So imagine if we paid off most of our debt and instead invested it in our carbon sequestration economy. Combine that with some of the money we spend on the environment and we balance our all of Canada's emissions.

Now imagine if the rest of the world continues to pollute. How do we stop this? Well we have a booming carbon sequestration industry so of course we ask other nations to contribute to our industry, paying us to clean up their emissions.

The stronger Canada and its economy is, the more money we can invest in Carbon sequestration. What most people don't realize is, if we don't produce oil/metal/gas/wood, other nations will. And those nations don't care about the environment. Lets do it here, pollute, and then invest that money in technology.

Global warming is not a battle, its a war. The world currently has 100% while we only contribute a measly 2%. Instead of looking at fighting our 2%, lets look at how we can fight the world's 100%. The only way we can do that is by investing in technology that can solve the 100%, rather than hurting our economic growth worrying that that 2% will become 2.1%.

Carbon sequestration is the future ladies and gentlemen. Lets stop caring about our 2% and look at how we can solve the world's 100%. Because we can trust that we care about global warming, but we can't trust any other nation to take care of it. And in all honestly, 10 years in the future do we want to be a minor player that has little control over it, or a global powerhouse economy that can make a difference.
China is going to be getting most of its gas needs for the future fulfilled by Russia and other central Asian countries - they're building a large pipeline network to pipe gas from Central Asia (primarily Kazakhstan) and Russia into China, and pipelines are a much more efficient transport system than transporting gas as LNG. China's getting some LNG too (I've worked at an LNG transport station in southern China where LNG is offloaded off of trucks and piped to customers) but that's mostly coming from much closer locations like Indonesia.
__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 11:41 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Works too, it's kind of similar.

There's a significant opportunity cost to hoarding land, though. It would make sense to make that more rewarding. I "hoard" my lands because I love nature and the forest, and like to go there to hike and relax (and hunt and fish, eventually), but from a strict "rewards" point of view, these idly forested properties - they don't generate cashflow, I'm not having any logging done there - means I have less income-generating properties in Sherbrooke or Florida right now. Even if I had them logged, that would be a very very low net cap rate.

It wouldn't be that unfair if I got carbon capture credits every year for the conscious choice of acquiring those lands and keeping them undeveloped. It would make this kind of investment more attractive generally to people, and that's probably not a bad thing...?

(I suppose a counter-point would be to point out that regardless of who owns them, forest would likely be growing there anyway if there's no potential for development (values would just be lower), and if there's potential for development then your method of heavily disincentivizing that works as well to cover that part.)
I prefer to keep policy as simple as possible. The problem with specific random tax exemptions for specific random things is that they usually aren't very efficient and are prone to loopholes and abuse. And once implemented, the people who benefit (in this example, rich landowners) will be very reluctant to give them up and they end up being permanent, even long after people even remember what the thing was for.

This is why economists favour carbon pricing. Don't try and regulate every single thing, just apply a single price uniformly to all carbon and the market will do what it does best, find efficiency.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 11:51 PM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is offline
As seen on SSC ;)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 5,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
He's right though. A truly carbon neutral life means living a hunter gatherer existence, not even using fire for heat or cooking, and no one wants to live like that. While some people are certainly less carbon intensive, even the most ardent Canadian environmentalist will still cause far more emissions than non-human animals. It's unavoidable in our economy as everything we use is made and transported by oil.

So rather than pretending that someone who uses a bit less carbon is a saint and someone who uses a little more is the worst, it would be better to frame policy in a way that complements human behavior and promotes realistic solutions. And being realistic about what we can achieve.
Well I have to disagree with the bolded part. There's no reason we can't use carbon neutral energy just because we currently (for the most part) don't. Without even counting renewable electricity generation, using fire for cooking or heating can be carbon neutral if done using bio mass such as wood, ethanol, or bio diesel since the process of growing the plant (trees, algae, etc.) used for fuel absorbs the same amount of carbon as is released when burning it. There may be some carbon released when transporting the fuel if trucks, tractors, etc are powered by fossil fuels, but they can also be powered using alternative energy. How easy it is to make such a transition and how much faith we have that it will happen are separate issues.

I agree that we shouldn't be vilifying one another because some people do better in this regard than others because it's currently a lot of work to made environmentally friendly choices and many people are just struggling with the basics. Not to mention that it isn't really an effective way to gain public support. But it just isn't true that it's impossible for humans to live with modern technology without emitting an unbalanced amount of carbon. We may need to make due without quite as much "stuff" though.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2019, 11:53 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 16,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post
You're being over the top dramatic and sensationalist. I've not seen anyone in this thread celebrating climate change or celebrating the death of millions of people. Posts like yours do the cause a disservice and aren't very constructive. People will tune out in a hurry if you make the kinds of statements you just made.

Even if it's unpopular some people are interested in the whole story; even if it doesn't fit neatly into the narrative. Labeling them ignorant and evil is absurd. Quite the opposite, some people on here want to cut through the noise, get ALL THE INFORMATION, and keep the hysterics at bay.

There's also a substantial proportion of the population that don't have the same faith in humanity that you do. My carbon footprint has always been small for a Westerner but my interest in this has turned to acceptance that this is happening. My energies have now turned to how to adapt to climate change. The planet undergoes climate change all the time, species die out, others adapt, and others prosper. As unpleasant as that may be, it's how it's always worked. That man is responsible this time around doesn't change that.

Even if we cut emissions in half tomorrow the planet will undergo substantial climate change. That's something all climatologists accept as fact. People are living in a fantasy world if they think this isn't happening. It would be wise for us to pour our attention into adaptation. How Canada responds to rising sea levels, more extreme weather, a longer growing season, climate refugees, etc. is what we should be focusing on.
I wasn't responding so much to your post as jawagord's. It reminds me of my father's cavalier comments about enjoying climate change because winters will be less cold. I agree with what you have said, but see a shift in many from Climate Change denial to inaction. They see no point in doing anything to help or change. It is happening, but to what degree is up to us. We can make the planet uninhabitable if we're not careful.
__________________
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

https://clockzillakingoflaval.tumblr.com
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 2:14 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.