The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[WarrenC12]

Facts just don't work on some people I guess.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by lio45

Even with Truenorth's numbers, it's hard to accept that a gratuitous 100 km road trip in a gasoline-burning average-sized vehicle just to have some kale would be even with eating ONE burger patty at home.

(Ya know what, I don't feel so bad about driving anymore, it's got way less of an environmental impact than I used to believe!!! )

Even better if you manage to run down a few glacier-melting cows along the way! You’re basically destined for climate change sainthood at that point.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Facts just don't work on some people I guess.

On the very same thread page we have both a ~300 km figure and a ~50 km figure for a quarter pounder. Which one's fact and which one's not?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

On the very same thread page we have both a ~300 km figure and a ~50 km figure for a quarter pounder. Which one's fact and which one's not?

Depends on the beef emissions and relevant vehicle emissions of course. All detailed above.

If it was 40kms driving for a quarter pounder, would that make you believe it?

Earth looks flat from my window too.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Depends on the beef emissions and relevant vehicle emissions of course. All detailed above.

If it was 40kms driving for a quarter pounder, would that make you believe it?

Earth looks flat from my window too.

This is not a rational reaction to simple questioning of claims. Why is the 300km figure more true than the others?

Regardless, even at 50km that's actually still a very significant figure and it's likely beef is getting an easier ride than it should in regards to its associated emissions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

On the very same thread page we have both a ~300 km figure and a ~50 km figure for a quarter pounder. Which one's fact and which one's not?

The 300 km was scaremongering and also not based on any real source. I have provided a more reasonable estimate.

Moreover, it’s long know that red meat is extremely emissions intensive. Poultry is just far more efficient at converting plant to protein. I don’t get why that’s hard to understand. Cattle live far longer before slaughter and are far more energy intensive to raise. They also produce a ton of methane which is way more damaging than CO2. This accounted for in the CO2 calculations by determining CO2 equivalency. Fundamentally, this is a huge part of what makes red meat sometimes as high as 30-40x more emissions intensive than poultry (and on average 5x more intensive).

Article that provides data on different foods:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46459714

Also people forget that 1L of gas weights 0.78 Kg. And modern cars are efficient enough that you’re only burning 7-8L per 100 km. So literally burning around 60g of gas per Km. Not as much as people imagine sometimes, but still very damaging for the environment unfortunately.

Part of all this is the tyranny of numbers. Global warming is a huge problem with massive numbers. And it’s hard to understand how small things you personally do contribute to the problem. But denying these facts doesn’t actually change reality.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Depends on the beef emissions and relevant vehicle emissions of course. All detailed above.

If it was 40kms driving for a quarter pounder, would that make you believe it?

Earth looks flat from my window too.

It's just ironic you'd accuse me of being facts-averse. One of my good friends (a physicist with a PhD like most of my closest social circle) has been working as "environmental accountant" for a while now (for some global org; the job is in Switzerland) and from the casual conversations we had since, it's been crystal clear to me that it's insanely difficult to properly figure out the true environmental footprint of most things, to the point that my reaction now is to take any "figures" as very rough guesswork (as anyone who claims to have "facts" in that field is probably a quack). So in my view... you're the flat earther, not the other way around

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's just ironic you'd accuse me of being facts-averse. One of my good friends (a physicist with a PhD like most of my closest social circle) has been working as "environmental accountant" for a while now (for some global org; the job is in Switzerland) and from the casual conversations we had since, it's been crystal clear to me that it's insanely difficult to properly figure out the true environmental footprint of most things, to the point that my reaction now is to take any "figures" as very rough guesswork (as anyone who claims to have "facts" in that field is probably a quack). So in my view... you're the flat earther, not the other way around

What’s frustrating here is that people use that complexity as an excuse for denial and inaction.

Nobody is suggesting that burgers should be banned. But a proper carbon price regime should see a shift in diet to more poultry and vegetarian consumption. When you think about it, it’s actually nuts how cheap fast food burgers are. And that items like the Beyond Meat or Impossible burgers cost so much more than the beef counterparts. That’s because beef does not have a price that reflects externalities. And often gets a ton of subsidies too.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by milomilo

... and it's likely beef is getting an easier ride than it should in regards to its associated emissions.

You can scratch that "it's likely" and replace it by "it's certain".

I guess I'm just too much of a scientific to accept anything at this stage more precise than "red meat has a huge environmental footprint compared to nearly all other foods on a nutritional value basis, and we should try to eat way less of it"....

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What’s frustrating here is that people use that complexity as an excuse for denial and inaction.

Agreed, but let's face it, that's partly the fault of the "you should do a 299 km roundtrip to get kale instead of eating this hamburger at home" type; they're giving ammo to their opponents.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

Agreed, but let's face it, that's partly the fault of the "you should do a 299 km roundtrip to get kale instead of eating this hamburger at home" type.

A red herring argument. Whether it’s 50 km or 300 km, it’s still bad. Why should the magnitude of how bad something is, impact your decision to stop doing said bad thing?

Let’s be honest what all this is about. People don’t want to change. And that’s because at the end of the day, even all the folks who claim to care about climate change, just don’t see it as a big enough threat. The average Canadian really is a hypocrite like that. They’ll claim to care about climate change, while still clamouring for single family homes, buying SUVs, taking their annual Cuba vacation and chomping on big juicy homemade beef burgers on the weekend.

Broadly, I am okay with allowing that denial (because I am a realist), as long as there are very strict policies in place that limit compensation and government liability as a result. I don’t want my taxes paying to rebuild homes or businesses lost to widlfires or floods for a population that doesn’t understand how their actions are increasing the frequency and magnitude of these events. You lose the family farm because you didn’t plan for climate change? Not my problem.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A red herring argument. Whether it’s 50 km or 300 km, it’s still bad. Why should the magnitude of how bad something is, impact your decision to stop doing said bad thing?

Let’s be honest what all this is about. People don’t want to change. And that’s because at the end of the day, even all the folks who claim to care about climate change, just don’t see it as a big enough threat.

Which is my point - given that people in general would rather not have to change or make sacrifices, if you go and give them good reasons to find you not credible, they'll jump on them.

If one day it's 300 km and the next day it's closer to an order of magnitude less, it's easy for the Average Joe to morally justify waiting for these quacks to get closer to an agreement before he takes the very tangible step of giving up his juicy burger.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

Which is my point - given that people in general would rather not have to change or make sacrifices, if you go and give them good reasons to find you not credible, they'll jump on them.

If one day it's 300 km and the next day it's closer to an order of magnitude less, it's easy for the Average Joe to morally justify waiting for these quacks to get closer to an agreement before he takes the very tangible step of giving up his juicy burger.

Nice spin on excusing inaction. There’s virtually no disagreement on auto, housing and aviation emission. Why isn’t the same “Average Joe” cutting back on those or supporting investment in alternatives?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What’s frustrating here is that people use that complexity as an excuse for denial and inaction.

Nobody is suggesting that burgers should be banned. But a proper carbon price regime should see a shift in diet to more poultry and vegetarian consumption. When you think about it, it’s actually nuts how cheap fast food burgers are. And that items like the Beyond Meat or Impossible burgers cost so much more than the beef counterparts. That’s because beef does not have a price that reflects externalities. And often gets a ton of subsidies too.

Very well said. Denialists and do-nothingers love to throw a small contradiction into a scientific theory and walk away like they've solved everything. I don't know if they are being dishonest, or just trolling.

[lio45]

It's not a small contradiction, you've got a difference of an order of magnitude, and that's bad for credibility.

It's not me you need to convince, but rather, the general population.

It's similar to calling the way we're treating the natives in 2019 "a genocide". People are just going to tune you out, and you'll have the opposite effect of what you were trying to do.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nice spin on excusing inaction.

For the record, I'm a big fan of revenue-neutral high gas taxes and I'd do the same on red meat if it were up to me.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Very well said. Denialists and do-nothingers love to throw a small contradiction into a scientific theory and walk away like they've solved everything. I don't know if they are being dishonest, or just trolling.

I don't know who you are talking about, but I was the one the point out the glaring innacuracy, and I am far from a denialist. It wasn't a small contradiction, it was a huge error and if the costs of certain actions are not accurately quantified then achieving the goals we want will be much harder to achieve.

[Airboy]

Apparently this is being installed here in Alberta. I think near Rocky Mountain House.
Since I will be in the area this weekend I will try to find it.
https://eavor.com/

Oil field Drilling Giant Precision is partnered with Shell on this. All directional drilling.

[rrskylar]

Sadly what's happening in Brazil right now is a lot more serious than what countries are doing to lower CO2 emissions!

Maybe it's time for an embargo of all Brazilian goods!

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Sadly what's happening in Brazil right now is a lot more serious than what countries are doing to lower CO2 emissions!

Maybe it's time for an embargo of all Brazilian goods!

Would you be okay with the world embargoing us for oil and gas extraction?

The developing world does not give a shit. Because they see the hypocrisy of the developed world. America and Europe (and Canada to a lesser extent) cut down their forests and burned most of the carbon in the atmosphere to date, to develop. Now we insist that they live in poverty for the sake of the environment.

Canadians who got rich on selling coal, oil and gas. Who bitch about 4cents/L carbon tax. Who live in some of the largest homes in world, in one of the coldest climates anywhere. Who refuse to build or use public transit. Who buy behemoth SUVs. Who refuse to cut back on flying or build alternatives. You think we have the right to lecture Brazilian farmers and ranchers about the environment?

You think the Amazon is precious? Brazilians will rightly ask that you pay for it, if it's worth that much to you. How much you willing to pony up?