How Canada Can Solve Global Warming through a Strong Economy

[lio45]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If you want, I can change my phrasing to 'the technology does not currently exist for biofuels to compete with fossil fuels at the current price point'

Which is the same statement as "the technology is there, and is merely one prohibitively high new tax on pollution away from being viable".

As we discussed already in the other thread and in the past, the problem of course is that such a tax would be political suicide. Which is the same statement as "the will to actually do something serious about this issue isn't there yet".

[milomilo]

Yes, the question I have is what price does gas need to be for a biofuel derived gas become commercially viable? Logically, it seems it must be higher than ~$2 a litre, as that is approximately how much gas costs in Europe, and if someone could produce biofuel for that price then they should already be selling it (actually they have an advantage because it likely would have beneficial taxation).

So what is the price point we need? $3? $10?, $100? I don't know. It may be that biofuels aren't the answer, and that if you make fuel that expensive then some other form of technology will turn out to be a better option. Or carbon sequestering becomes so cheap that we just do that instead and keep burning fossil fuels.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes, the question I have is what price does gas need to be for a biofuel derived gas become commercially viable? Logically, it seems it must be higher than ~$2 a litre, as that is approximately how much gas costs in Europe, and if someone could produce biofuel for that price then they should already be selling it (actually they have an advantage because it likely would have beneficial taxation).

So what is the price point we need? $3? $10?, $100? I don't know. It may be that biofuels aren't the answer, and that if you make fuel that expensive then some other form of technology will turn out to be a better option. Or carbon sequestering becomes so cheap that we just do that instead and keep burning fossil fuels.

Cost is not the only factor. Biofuels need to reduce emissions. The big hit against ethanol from corn is that its production consumes more fossil fuels than its production displaces.

[milomilo]

Not if the carbon price is high enough, as that cost will then get transferred to the biofuel, incentivising using carbon neutral sources. Of course, I don't know how high 'high enough' is.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not if the carbon price is high enough, as that cost will then get transferred to the biofuel, incentivising using carbon neutral sources. Of course, I don't know how high 'high enough' is.

Carbon pricing schemes don’t tax net emissions, they tax gross emissions. Finding a carbon neutral source would not help paying a lower carbon tax.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Carbon pricing schemes don’t tax net emissions, they tax gross emissions. Finding a carbon neutral source would not help paying a lower carbon tax.

Any fossil fuel inputs a biofuel has will have a carbon tax applied, so that tax then gets transferred into the biofuel. If the biofuel producer uses less fossil fuel and more renewables, they will reduce their carbon tax rate.

[WhipperSnapper]

Interesting title but, same old shit. There's so many things we can do now without making major changes to out lifestyles now which can't be done reinventing energy without destroying economies. In general, the Canadians I know or met love to talk but do nothing. They always take a free plastic bag when it's offered. They always drink coffee from a disposable cup. "Roll up to win". Let's create even more unnecessary trash for the chance of a free doughnut . Imagine if Tim Horton's reduced their waste by 1%? The world would be saved!

Remember, China is no longer taking our contaminated recyclable trash. It almost all goes into landfill no matter what coloured bin you put it in. It's the little things that will ultimately save us.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Remember, China is no longer taking our contaminated recyclable trash. It almost all goes into landfill no matter what coloured bin you put it in. It's the little things that will ultimately save us.

That's thing though, they won't. People think that just because they saved a minuscule amount of plastic by not using a straw or plastic bag and their new iPhone used a slightly more environmentally friendly manufacturing method, that they are doing their part and all is good. But they are oblivious to the carbon cost of everything they consume, as it is impossible to accurately know that statistic. The issue of plastic waste is also a separate, and less important issue compared to climate change.

The solution is to make the climate change problem an economic one. The market failure right now is the cost of carbon is external. If the cost was internalized, then every decision people make will have the climate cost baked into it. The solution is actually simple, but the politics is clearly very difficult because of fake conservatives who are deliberately ignorant of the economic theory behind carbon pricing.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That's thing though, they won't. People think that just because they saved a minuscule amount of plastic by not using a straw or plastic bag and their new iPhone used a slightly more environmentally friendly manufacturing method, that they are doing their part and all is good. But they are oblivious to the carbon cost of everything they consume, as it is impossible to accurately know that statistic. The issue of plastic waste is also a separate, and less important issue compared to climate change.

The solution is to make the climate change problem an economic one. The market failure right now is the cost of carbon is external. If the cost was internalized, then every decision people make will have the climate cost baked into it. The solution is actually simple, but the politics is clearly very difficult because of fake conservatives who are deliberately ignorant of the economic theory behind carbon pricing.

Most sources of carbon are highly inelastic (food, shelter, transport). A carbon tax set high enough to actually address global warming (and not just generate revenue like most carbon taxes we see) would have to be global and so high as to create significant externalities (including starvation).

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Ontario1

http://isthereglobalcooling.com/

Thanks for injecting a little mental retardedness into this thread. I am dumber for having clicked on your link, which is chock full of utterly preposterous alternative facts.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That's thing though, they won't. People think that just because they saved a minuscule amount of plastic by not using a straw or plastic bag and their new iPhone used a slightly more environmentally friendly manufacturing method, that they are doing their part and all is good. But they are oblivious to the carbon cost of everything they consume, as it is impossible to accurately know that statistic. The issue of plastic waste is also a separate, and less important issue compared to climate change.

The solution is to make the climate change problem an economic one. The market failure right now is the cost of carbon is external. If the cost was internalized, then every decision people make will have the climate cost baked into it. The solution is actually simple, but the politics is clearly very difficult because of fake conservatives who are deliberately ignorant of the economic theory behind carbon pricing.

well said.

[Ontario1]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Thanks for injecting a little mental retardedness into this thread. I am dumber for having clicked on your link, which is chock full of utterly preposterous alternative facts.

Good. Well said.

[ssiguy]

An interesting video and also interesting is how he mentioned particularly ecologically damaging oil resources such as Canada's TARsands. He did not say OILsands which is how most people outside Canada view it which is why it has such a bad name internationally.

[Delusio Cogno]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

...ecologically damaging oil resources such as Canada's TARsands. He did not say OILsands which is how most people outside Canada view it which is why it has such a bad name internationally.

A black rose by any other name...

How much water, how much carbon does it take to produce a barrel? How much land is lost to tailing ponds? Taking the money but losing your health is a bad exchange for oil prostitutes.

[jawagord]

Somebody is not telling the truth. Subsidies for green energy are manageable when it's greenwash money for a few hundred Tesla drivers, subsidies for 5 million electricity consumers become a giant financial headache for even ND-Green governments.

Dozens of solar, wind and run-of-river power projects have been indefinitely suspended by the provincial government in an effort to manage the cost of electricity from independent power producers.

“That will have to change if B.C. is to pursue its CleanBC plans,” said Jae Mather, executive director of Clean Energy B.C. By turning its back on alternative energy, B.C. is missing the opportunity to make electricity cheaper for consumers, he added.

“The price of wind and solar is the lowest of any form of electricity generated on the planet right now,” he said in an interview.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...-sector-on-ice

[Hackslack]

Here's a super simplistic idea:

Divert all tax revenue generated from these large energy infrastructure projects, and oil sands project, towards developing green energy infrastructure, including high speed rail (Calgary to Edmonton, Van to Seattle?) that would take hundreds of thousands of cars off the road, massive solar/wind power plants, EV power stations across the country, etc...

Canada wants to phase out fossil fuels? Well utilize the development of its fossil fuels the entire world absolutely craves, and direct the revenue generated towards projects that phases out fossil fuels domestically... Pretty straight forward. No matter what Canada does, the world will continue to demand oil for energy, yet we have the opportunity to simply utilized our fossil fuel natural resources to develop green energy.

Does that not make infinitely more sense than to outright block Canada's Fossil Fuel resource development, thereby blocking any source of revenue that would be generated, thereby re-allocating the production of Fossil Fuels to other jurisdiction with little to no environmental regulatory???

We need to stop being so short-sighted. Lets use our FF resources to our green energy ambitions' advantage. Leverage revenue generated from fossil fuels to develop green energy. A win-win-win for all stakeholders... Simple.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Here's a super simplistic idea:

Divert all tax revenue generated from these large energy infrastructure projects, and oil sands project, towards developing green energy infrastructure, including high speed rail (Calgary to Edmonton, Van to Seattle?) that would take hundreds of thousands of cars off the road, massive solar/wind power plants, EV power stations across the country, etc...

Canada wants to phase out fossil fuels? Well utilize the development of its fossil fuels the entire world absolutely craves, and direct the revenue generated towards projects that phases out fossil fuels domestically... Pretty straight forward. No matter what Canada does, the world will continue to demand oil for energy, yet we have the opportunity to simply utilized our fossil fuel natural resources to develop green energy.

Does that not make infinitely more sense than to outright block Canada's Fossil Fuel resource development, thereby blocking any source of revenue that would be generated, thereby re-allocating the production of Fossil Fuels to other jurisdiction with little to no environmental regulatory???

We need to stop being so short-sighted. Lets use our FF resources to our green energy ambitions' advantage. Leverage revenue generated from fossil fuels to develop green energy. A win-win-win for all stakeholders... Simple.

Your speaking to a choir of lemmings who refuse to see reality.

We have the same people who insult the BC Liberals for polluting the environment screaming at them for spending extra money so BC Hydro could support alternative energy development. Honestly when all is said and done if its not left wing then its wrong. The left wing doesn't care about the environment, they just want more taxes and burdens on others. More taxes=good.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...cers-1.5019705


People like to ignore the technological advances, capital investment, boost to the economy, and taxes the Albertan oil industry has given us. It's so much better for the environment than it used to be and processes keep getting more efficient. Money from it is being used to invest in research into combating global warming.

[jawagord]

.... but Canada’s economy is probably an exception???

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9xe3BWPsBTU

[milomilo]

Bill Gates is right, many people are naive to the scale of the problem and their involvement in it. But what is your point? That because the problem is large and difficult, Canada should not bother even trying to solve it?

[Mister F]

The argument that Canada is too small to make a difference is such BS. The world has dozens and dozens of countries with less than 50 million people. If each one has that same attitude, suddenly you have 1.8 billion people saying "we're too small".

And it's not even selfish. It's self destructive. Climate change doesn't just mean a warmer climate. It means that infrastructure is more expensive. Extreme weather events are getting more severe and frequent. More frequent storms, droughts, heat waves, and polar vortexes. Changes to flora and fauna. This is going to be costly for all of us, including in Canada.