How Canada Can Solve Global Warming through a Strong Economy

[misher]

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.

[ssiguy]

Canada has the world's largest fresh water supplies and thousands of lakes and rivers that could be used for Hydro power. The fact that we have any coal fired plants is nothing short of scandalous. Not only is that clean power but also allows for what is increasingly looking like the transportation fuel of tomorrow...…..hydrogen. This is made even better by Canada already having some of the best hydrogen technology and firms especially Hydrogenics out of Mississuaga. The new Alstom hydrogen trains use its technology.

Of course cutting our emissions while simultaneously increasing others doesn't do Mother Nature any good. That means stopping all coal exports and a planned phase-out of LNG. Contrary to popular belief, LNG is a polluting natural resource it just happens to be less polluting than coal or oil. It is good for a 'bridge' technology to reduce emissions over the short-mid term but is no solution. This would require BC doing in 30 years what it is saying Alberta should do right now..................phase out it's dirty energy technology but something tells me that when the shoe is on the other foot, BC will be defending it's polluting LNG as it currently, and very hypocritically, defends it's coal exports.

[EspionNoir]

I’m not an expert in this topic, but I do think public transport plays a part. Strong regional economy will attract more people, thus making public transport more necessary. Public transport make people less willing to drive, and this drives emissions down.

I’m in all support for Winnipeg to build more public transport, whether a stronger RT or a brand new rail transport. And a stronger public transport drives more people to live in Winnipeg.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by misher

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.

Ok, how do you pay for the carbon sequestration if it costs $100? With a $100+ carbon tax, of course. Good, done, let's do that now and stop the pointless politics. The 'technology will save us' argument still needs someone to pay for it.

[lio45]

I don't disagree with the general idea but this part is pure ignorance:

Originally Posted by misher

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.

If the goal is to have money to spend every year, the best way to do that is to not reimburse the debt with it. Basically the opposite of what you're stating.

It would cost us approximately half a trillion dollars to save that $20 billion per year; we're better off using that half a trillion and putting it to work, and it'll generate benefits/returns in excess of that $20 billion per year.

[jawagord]

The IMF has Canadian GDP increasing 1 to 4% from a 1C rise in mean temperature. The apparent economic sweet spot for annual mean temperature is 15C (see IMF report pages 144-145). Much of Canada has an annual mean temperature of 1 or 2C, even balmy Vancouver has a mean of only 10C, so Canada would benefit greatly from a warmer climate, even moreso if it was the scary (but impossible) 4-5C rise studied by the IPCC in scenario RP4.5

For Canada climate change is not a problem. And countries where it might be a problem have no interest in curbing economic growth, because the effects of poverty now for billions of people is a far worse situation than dealing with future changes in climate.

https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Pu...ext.ashx?la=en

https://climateatlas.ca/map/canada/a...3.7&lng=-78.57

[isaidso]

The number of Canadians who are fine with climate change is much larger than we think. It's just not PC to admit it. Climate change is going to happen. We should focus more of our money, time, and effort preparing for it.

[MolsonExport]

what the hell is the matter with you people celebrating ACC?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

what the hell is the matter with you people celebrating ACC?

It makes more sense than denying it.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jawagord

The IMF has Canadian GDP increasing 1 to 4% from a 1C rise in mean temperature. The apparent economic sweet spot for annual mean temperature is 15C (see IMF report pages 144-145). Much of Canada has an annual mean temperature of 1 or 2C, even balmy Vancouver has a mean of only 10C, so Canada would benefit greatly from a warmer climate, even moreso if it was the scary (but impossible) 4-5C rise studied by the IPCC in scenario RP4.5

For Canada climate change is not a problem. And countries where it might be a problem have no interest in curbing economic growth, because the effects of poverty now for billions of people is a far worse situation than dealing with future changes in climate.

https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Pu...ext.ashx?la=en

https://climateatlas.ca/map/canada/a...3.7&lng=-78.57

For starters that's incredibly selfish, but secondly it's naive to think it won't be a problem for Canada. If there's a nice big landmass with a mild climate, no one living there and a pathetic military where do you think the hordes of climate refugees are going to go?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

what the hell is the matter with you people celebrating ACC?

A look at the Weather thread is all we need to know that a chunk of this forum has had a longtime fixation on their hometowns being the warmest they can be, so I'm not surprised many would be thrilled with ACC.

On the other hand, without "celebrating" it, it's possible to recognize it and take steps to prepare for it (or even, in many cases, benefit from it).

[Ontario1]

http://isthereglobalcooling.com/

[Nouvellecosse]

I don't think it's a terrible idea, but there are a few minor things I'd point out.

1) Taking steps to reduce emissions is wasted since other countries won't is an unproven and potentially self-fulfilling assertion. Nobody wants to be the first because we all distrust each other and assume others will take advantage of the situation. So everyone continues doing what they're doing and takes the fact that others are also doing so as evidence that they were right (that others were planning to do so all along). In reality, if one group takes a strong leadership position others can be persuaded to follow since they don't all have the fear of being the only one, and they lose many of the excuses for inaction.

2) The idea that if our economy goes full tilt that we'll actually spend the funds on carbon sequestration. Canada is a predominantly capitalistic country, so most of the profits of a strong economy are reaped by the private sector. We don't really have a good mechanism to force the private sector to fund greater public good initiatives other than some type of fees or taxes. These things both meet with huge resistance and the process of implementation would be politically fraught. Many people will make the same arguments that you made about reducing carbon emissions, inevitably saying that Canada shouldn't be spending dozens of billions of dollars on this when other won't, when Canada only accounts for 2% of emissions meaning that if we're actually going to make a major difference we'll be paying to capture a lot of carbon emitted by other people. They'll say that taxing profits generated here will drive business to places that don't do that, and this will unfairly harm Canada.

3) Even without climate change, we can't stay on fossil fuels forever since they're non-renewable and won't last forever, and they have other harmful pollution and side effects beyond greenhouse gases. For instance airborne particulate is harmful to human health, their extraction and transportation tends to be more harmful to the environment compared to the alternatives, and some fossils fuels increase the occurrence of acid rain. When one considers the huge cost of the negative externalities connected with polluting energy sources, you can make an argument for the economic transition away from these energies even without the threat of climate change.

4) The trade off (good/dirty economy vs green/stunted economy) is a false dilemma. Developing greener technologies is a burgeoning and potentially lucrative sector and will only become more so going forward. The price of many renewables is rapidly dropping, in some cases competing cost-wise with fossil fuels and every indication suggests this trend will only continue to grow. Putting an economic drag such as additional taxes or fees on one element of the economy while using the proceeds to give a boost to another is not the same as putting a uniform drag across the economy as a whole.

Anyway, just a couple of thoughts. I'm always glad to see people thinking of and discussing potential solutions.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

what the hell is the matter with you people celebrating ACC?

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.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Ok, how do you pay for the carbon sequestration if it costs $100? With a $100+ carbon tax, of course. Good, done, let's do that now and stop the pointless politics. The 'technology will save us' argument still needs someone to pay for it.

Sequestration technology will never be viable due to the laws of thermodynamics. The amount of energy required to sequest the emissions from the production of 1 GJ of fossil fuel energy must be greater than 1 GJ. It would be better to use the energy required to power sequestration to displace the fossil fuel energy source to begin with.

No way any government can expedite a technological solution to climate change. The market opportunity is already sufficiently massive that the US private sector stands a far better chance of success.

Canada would be best to invest in reforestation, which is basically solar powered sequestration.

[mintzilla]

Interesting that the OP didn’t mention per capita emissions numbers. Canadians should be goddamn ashamed to be only better than America Australia and Saudi. God forbid you don’t drive the biggest gas guzzling suv or truck. Or make a small effort to cut back on meat.
Or support things like bike lanes and public transport. Nah, f*** you got mine culture is alive and well in the great white north.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Doug

Sequestration technology will never be viable due to the laws of thermodynamics. The amount of energy required to sequest the emissions from the production of 1 GJ of fossil fuel energy must be greater than 1 GJ. It would be better to use the energy required to power sequestration to displace the fossil fuel energy source to begin with.

No way any government can expedite a technological solution to climate change. The market opportunity is already sufficiently massive that the US private sector stands a far better chance of success.

Canada would be best to invest in reforestation, which is basically solar powered sequestration.

Not impossible, with renewables or some other form of non carbon burning energy like nuclear or something else we haven't invented yet. Agreed with reforestation, if it is financially viable - and the only way to find out if it is is to put a price on carbon.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not impossible, with renewables or some other form of non carbon burning energy like nuclear or something else we haven't invented yet. Agreed with reforestation, if it is financially viable - and the only way to find out if it is is to put a price on carbon.

Sure but only once that new power technology completely displaces fossil fuels, which is extremely ambitious.

I posted a long time ago that carbon taxation is an academic comcept will only fail in the real world as politicians will not impose it without bias.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Doug

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.

I'd instead argue that automotive vehicle in taxation is a covfefian spiltikm tsjr, not an academic one.

[misher]

Originally Posted by mintzilla

Interesting that the OP didn’t mention per capita emissions numbers. Canadians should be goddamn ashamed to be only better than America Australia and Saudi. God forbid you don’t drive the biggest gas guzzling suv or truck. Or make a small effort to cut back on meat.
Or support things like bike lanes and public transport. Nah, f*** you got mine culture is alive and well in the great white north.

Were a huge net resource exporter not a business center or tech nation of course we pollute more per a person. But those other nations that don’t pollute much rely on us for these resources and would pollute just the same getting them themselves. It’s a global world.