Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

[Altair]

So nothing towards actual climate help - yup

What other countries do is up to them. If Russia can get their emissions down while exporting coal, or mongolia, and if countries like China can stop growing their emissions while burning coal, that is all up to them. We can control what we do, and our emission targets.

Again - the point - or do you not live on the same planet as the rest of us?

Just because we cannot control what Mongolia, Russia or China does doesn't mean we cannot control what we do. If those countries miss their targets I hope their is a reckoning they face for that, but that's on them.

So you have decided that the coal industry in Canada needs to go...

We have been closing coal power plants for the better part of a decade. We are now stopping exports. Just a natural progression imho.

Coal facts

www.nrcan.gc.ca

The prices of Canadian steel will rise - as well anything else that uses Coking Coal to fire their furnaces...

lol. First you say that the price of coal will drop. Now you are saying the price of steel will rise. I admit to having trouble following your logic.

They do a pretty good job themselves.
But quite frankly their biggest issues seem to be they aren't naturally as full of shit as JT and don't deftly deflect or blatantly lie to folks.
They have some poor platform issues - but their main issues are they don't come across as comfortable.

I'm just saying that it seems disingenuous to say you hate all politicians and only attack one side of the political spectrum.

You seem to ignore all the tertiary affect for Canadians and Canadian Industries with this - while I admit that reducing ones dependance on Coal and other Fossil fuels in a good idea - putting a x3 the price "tax" on it is not exactly slowly moving towards other energy sources.

the carbon tax is rising incrementally. Seems slow enough to me.

No it is not - your have to be as dumb as a post to believe that.
If you export coal - you are not the producer of the emissions - whomever burns the coal is - the fact that everyone has neatly decided to ignore -- the Paris agreement is chock so full of garbage it is revolting.

You seem to forget that mining coal has emissions related to it as well. A very carbon intensive activity actually.

Who said increase - I am all for decreasing emissions - but I think the Paris guidelines are poorly constructed and the Coal export ban by Canada wasn't well thought out.

Its what we have. For all the hate the Paris targets get, its better than what we had before, which was nothing, and what we would have if we got rid of it, which would be nothing.

Not at all

We are in agreement then

People are not one issue voters on this - the poll was absolute tripe - my 12 year old son has had to come up with better ones for his 7th Grade Civics class.

Seemed very straightforward. Do you support this? Yes, no, don't know.

The results are what they are. I doubt you would be complaining if the results were saying the opposite.

 

[Altair]

I’m on the same page as you. I want something done in regards to climate change. But I don’t think anything happening now is addressing the issue.

If the scientists say it will work, that's good enough for me.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If the scientists say it will work, that's good enough for me.

People say the same about medical advice about Covid from people in the medical fields until said people say something they don't agree with then they're just quacks and conspiracy nuts.

 

[Altair]

People say the same about medical advise about Covid from people in the medical fields until said people say something they don't agree with then they're just quacks and conspiracy nuts.

In this case, I go with the consensus.

 

[Remius]

If the scientists say it will work, that's good enough for me.

The scientists actually say more needs to be done. Most are saying that without a robust regulatory framework that goals will likely not be met. I don’t doubt that it can work, the issue is that something more effective needs to be done.

Speeches and accords with no teeth or incentives are all feel good and politically easy things but rarely achieve their intended goals because that gets punted down the road for someone else to deal with.

Do you have the latest report card on how many countries have reached their emmsisions goals? Because going into COP26 not one single country was on track to meet its emission goals.

 

[Good2Golf]

Do you have the latest report card on how many countries have reached their emmsisions goals? Because going into COP26 not one single country was on track to meet its emission goals.

Shocking!

Maybe if everybody doubles their promises, things will improve?

Yet demonstrable and measurably bad things that continue to destroy the ecosystem and direct capacity of the environment to process CO2 continue, like global deforestation. #notonthewokeagemda

 

[Retired AF Guy]

We have been closing coal power plants for the better part of a decade. We are now stopping exports. Just a natural progression imho.

While energy production from wind/solar power has increased in the last ten years, coal still produces three times more energy then wind and solar power combined. And wind/solar energy production is miniscue compared to our main energy producers (Natural gas, oil, hydro and nuclear respectively) Heck, even biowaste and fuel produces three times more energy than wind/solar power.

Source: IEA

 

[daftandbarmy]

View attachment 67081

Shocking!

Maybe if everybody doubles their promises, things will improve?

Yet demonstrable and measurably bad things that continue to destroy the ecosystem and direct capacity of the environment to process CO2 continue, like global deforestation. #notonthewokeagemda

'Buying stuff' is the biggest driver of climate change, it seems. Good luck trying to change that behaviour.

Oh, and Happy Black Friday!

How Buying Stuff Drives Climate Change​

In fact, our consumer habits are actually driving climate change. A 2015 study found that the production and use of household goods and services was responsible for 60 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Not surprisingly, wealthy countries have the most per capita impact. A new U.N. report found that the richest one percent of the global population emit more than twice the amount than the poorest 50 percent; moreover, the wealthier people become, the more energy they use. A typical American’s yearly carbon emissions are five times that of the world’s average person. In 2009, U.S. consumers with more than $100,000 in yearly household income made up 22.3 percent of the population, yet produced almost one-third of all U.S. households’ total carbon emissions.

As more people around the world enter the middle class and become affluent, the problem is worsening.

How Buying Stuff Drives Climate Change

Consumerism causes a large chunk of our carbon emissions. Here are a few ideas for healthier habits during the holidays and beyond.

news.climate.columbia.edu

 

[KevinB]

What other countries do is up to them. If Russia can get their emissions down while exporting coal, or mongolia, and if countries like China can stop growing their emissions while burning coal, that is all up to them. We can control what we do, and our emission targets.

Except everyone lives on the same planet.

Just because we cannot control what Mongolia, Russia or China does doesn't mean we cannot control what we do. If those countries miss their targets I hope their is a reckoning they face for that, but that's on them.

Everyone will see that same reckoning - that is the problem.

We have been closing coal power plants for the better part of a decade. We are now stopping exports. Just a natural progression imho.

Except no one has a really good solution (well other than Nuclear - and the tree huggers hate it more that coal)

lol. First you say that the price of coal will drop. Now you are saying the price of steel will rise. I admit to having trouble following your logic.

Coal has gone down in price - however Canada's taxes on it are skyrocketing - thus shortly coal won't be cheaper to get in Canada --

I'm just saying that it seems disingenuous to say you hate all politicians and only attack one side of the political spectrum.

No I am just attack morons sitting in office -- there is no point in attacking morons not in office.

the carbon tax is rising incrementally. Seems slow enough to me.

You seem to forget that mining coal has emissions related to it as well. A very carbon intensive activity actually.

Do you make your own clothes, food, own a car? Everything has emissions related to it.
The main issue I see with coal, is Canada (and the US and most other nations) don't have effective replacements on line for replacement of it at this point in time.
I see it more like closing a few lanes on the Highway because in three years you are going to repave it.

Its what we have. For all the hate the Paris targets get, its better than what we had before, which was nothing, and what we would have if we got rid of it, which would be nothing.

No one seems to be following it - so I don't actually think it is doing much.

We are in agreement then

Seemed very straightforward. Do you support this? Yes, no, don't know.

The problem is people statistically never admit to ignorance - and don't know respondents are always underrepresented.

The results are what they are. I doubt you would be complaining if the results were saying the opposite.

You don't know me very well then

 

[Altair]

Except everyone lives on the same planet.

If Mongolia doesn't have oil extraction for example, they might be able to afford to keep their coal mines open and meet their targets meanwhile Canada with stuff like oil and gas extraction doesn't have that luxury. Just one made up example, as I don't know Mongolia's economic makeup and I really don't care enough to learn, but thats how paris is meant to work.

Everyone will see that same reckoning - that is the problem.

Yes, either we solve this or global temperatures rise 4 or 5 degrees and say goodbye to life as we know it.

Except no one has a really good solution (well other than Nuclear - and the tree huggers hate it more that coal)

Tree huggers or no, there has been a lot of work put into SMRs recently.

Coal has gone down in price - however Canada's taxes on it are skyrocketing - thus shortly coal won't be cheaper to get in Canada --

I don't see how a ban on thermal coal exports by 2030 have anything to do with Metallurgical coal and the carbon tax, but sure, whatever.

No I am just attack morons sitting in office -- there is no point in attacking morons not in office.

There is a point in attacking the morons not in office because they have the potential of being in office or propping up the morons in office if its a minority parliament.

Do you make your own clothes, food, own a car? Everything has emissions related to it.

but some more than others.

The main issue I see with coal, is Canada (and the US and most other nations) don't have effective replacements on line for replacement of it at this point in time.
I see it more like closing a few lanes on the Highway because in three years you are going to repave it.

80 percent of the Canadian energy grid is from non GHG emitting sources. Getting that next 20 percent is not the struggle you seem to think it is.

USA is another story with 40 percent of their/your energy coming from non GHG emitting sources but that's not the situation in Canada.

No one seems to be following it - so I don't actually think it is doing much.

Well, its the best shot we got. Its too late in the game to come up with a entirely new framework that every country is going to sign up for and agree on. So its this or bust. And if its bust and the climate scientists are anywhere close to being right, well, humanity had a good run.

The problem is people statistically never admit to ignorance - and don't know respondents are always underrepresented.

Plays both ways so it doesn't really matter.

You don't know me very well then

Who really knows anyone on a online forum?

 

[Altair]

While energy production from wind/solar power has increased in the last ten years, coal still produces three times more energy then wind and solar power combined. And wind/solar energy production is miniscue compared to our main energy producers (Natural gas, oil, hydro and nuclear respectively) Heck, even biowaste and fuel produces three times more energy than wind/solar power.

Source: IEA

Coal could produce 5 times more energy and I wouldn't give a damn, its one of the biggest polluting sources of energy. Coal makes up 6 percent of our energy grid and still responsible for 63 percent of emissions from power generation in Canada. Replace it with natural gas, and then as more renewables come online, replace natural gas.

 

[Brad Sallows]

80 percent of the Canadian energy grid is from non GHG emitting sources. Getting that next 20 percent is not the struggle you seem to think it is.

Good for us. The problem isn't the remaining 20% of current use, it's the fraction of future use (moving the transportation economy off hydrocarbon fuels). Don't leave that out and pretend we're doing well.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Reports of coal's inevitable demise are either over-optimistic, or dangerously delusional: take your pick. We'd better get used to it:


The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World, an interdisciplinary MIT study

An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group examined the role of coal in a world where constraints on carbon dioxide emissions are adopted to mitigate global climate change. This follows The Future of Nuclear Power which focused on carbon dioxide emissions-free electricity generation from nuclear energy and was published in 2003. This report, the future of coal in a carbon-constrained world, evaluates the technologies and costs associated with the generation of electricity from coal along with those associated with the capture and sequestration of the carbon dioxide produced coal-based power generation. Growing electricity demand in the U.S. and in the world will require increases in all generation options (renewables, coal, and nuclear) in addition to increased efficiency and conservation in its use. Coal will continue to play a significant role in power generation and as such carbon dioxide management from it will become increasingly important. This study, addressed to government, industry and academic leaders, discusses the interrelated technical, economic, environmental and political challenges facing increased coal-based power generation while managing carbon dioxide emissions from this sector.

The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Constrained World, an interdisciplinary MIT study | MIT Global Change

globalchange.mit.edu

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The Koch brothers are still investing in coal.
Meanwhile, Warren Buffet is buying up LNG.
Lastly, if your wondering what is replacing everything, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are building a huge nuclear plant in Wyoming. Bet there'll be no tree huggers boycotting that build.

 

[Altair]

Good for us. The problem isn't the remaining 20% of current use, it's the fraction of future use (moving the transportation economy off hydrocarbon fuels). Don't leave that out and pretend we're doing well.

I agree.

We should be doing much more.

It's shame people, including some here, think we should be doing less.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I agree.

We should be doing much more.

It's shame people, including some here, think we should be doing less.

What you're saying is, it's a shame other have different opinions to yours.

 

[Altair]

What you're saying is, it's a shame other have different opinions to yours.

If that opinion leads to the destruction of the environment and life as we know it, ya.

 

[KevinB]

If Mongolia doesn't have oil extraction for example, they might be able to afford to keep their coal mines open and meet their targets meanwhile Canada with stuff like oil and gas extraction doesn't have that luxury. Just one made up example, as I don't know Mongolia's economic makeup and I really don't care enough to learn, but thats how paris is meant to work.

Except we all breathe the same air - so it doesn't matter if Canada is trying

Yes, either we solve this or global temperatures rise 4 or 5 degrees and say goodbye to life as we know it.

That was my point above - Canadian use or export of Coal is <1% of the Worldwide Coal emissions.

Tree huggers or no, there has been a lot of work put into SMRs recently.

Honestly I am not sure if I like the idea of a lot more smaller reactors - or ore larger ones.
While not the environmental blight of Coal plants (and Hydro - due to flooding etc - those pesky wetland issue again) they do raise local water temps - and aren't very sightly

I don't see how a ban on thermal coal exports by 2030 have anything to do with Metallurgical coal and the carbon tax, but sure, whatever.

They all are related to mining of coal - but to your point Canada's coal exports are 95% metallurgical coal (2019) so yes your are correct it probably won't affect that much on that end - but cocking coal seems to be more highly refined - and slightly more expensive.
* I will admit when I read the Coal Export Ban, I had not noticed it glossed over it was simply a thermal coal export ban - your point had me go back and re-read - which I suspect the "feel good" nature of it was crafted in a way that most took it at face value a ban of all Canadian coal exports.
It reads "nicer" that way - but the economic impact to Canada with removal of exports of thermal coal is minor.
I think if it had been a little more transparent it wouldn't get such adverse reactions (but also not get as much praise too)

There is a point in attacking the morons not in office because they have the potential of being in office or propping up the morons in office if its a minority parliament.

Right now the Conservative party doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up - they don't have a cohesive plan to attract voters. But frankly I can't figure Canadian politics out - I can't see why anyone in their right mind would vote for the LPC or NDP.

but some more than others.

80 percent of the Canadian energy grid is from non GHG emitting sources. Getting that next 20 percent is not the struggle you seem to think it is.

7.4% of energy is from Coal - significantly decreased - but you will need to get CANDU's into Alberta and Sask to make any more significant reductions. They use ~85% of the thermal coal for energy in Canada.

USA is another story with 40 percent of their/your energy coming from non GHG emitting sources but that's not the situation in Canada.

It is a major State issue here -- we have Nuclear plants in Virginia - but a lot of states are committed to Coal.

Well, its the best shot we got. Its too late in the game to come up with a entirely new framework that every country is going to sign up for and agree on. So its this or bust. And if its bust and the climate scientists are anywhere close to being right, well, humanity had a good run.

I'm not considerably worried about the temperature issues - the world will go on - we are still in an Ice Age - but the long term issues of so much carbon in the atmosphere isn't good - we will probably poison ourselves off before temperature problems wipe us out.

Plays both ways so it doesn't really matter.

Who really knows anyone on a online forum?

 

[Jarnhamar]

In this case, I go with the consensus.

I agree.

We should be doing much more.

It's shame people, including some here, think we should be doing less.

But didn't you vote for these guys?

The People's Party does not accept the science behind human-caused global warming and simply promises to cancel all climate-related policies and pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change so it was not included in the analysis.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If that opinion leads to the destruction of the environment and life as we know it, ya.

In your opinion.