New BC Political Discussion - POST BC Election 2017

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I've calc'd using some emissions statistics that about 16% of BC's energy (by joule) comes from renewables currently. Some of the 84% would be covered off by efficiency gains, but 84% is a huge amount of energy to replace.

Commuting I can understand, but how would one go about making the industrial sectors renewable? Much of it's resource gathering and long-distance trucking.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Ben Dover

When only .004% of the planet's population is "zero-emissions" it still won't add up to a hill of beans.

Correct, but BC's emissions per person rank among the highest on the planet.

Yes, it all depends on kicking America/Europe/China's butts into gear. No, we won't achieve that with a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Commuting I can understand, but how would one go about making the industrial sectors renewable? Much of it's resource gathering and long-distance trucking.

Electric semi-trucks are in development. But we also have the technology to create renewable liquid fuels.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Correct, but BC's emissions per person rank among the highest on the planet.

Yes, it all depends on kicking America/Europe/China's butts into gear. No, we won't achieve that with a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude.

Completely unfair to compare emissions per a person of an oil producing nation with a tiny population to the average non oil producing nation with high populations that is shipping in oil. In the end if we closed down oil we’d just be outsourcing oil to someone worse. I personally feel outsourcing pollution while politically correct is morally wrong.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Electric semi-trucks are in development. But we also have the technology to create renewable liquid fuels.

It'll be interesting to see if we can make a solar-powered mining drill or zero emission pulp mill. Not holding my breath though.

Originally Posted by misher

Completely unfair to compare emissions per a person of an oil producing nation with a tiny population to the average non oil producing nation with high populations that is shipping in oil. In the end if we closed down oil we’d just be outsourcing oil to someone worse. I personally feel outsourcing pollution while politically correct is morally wrong.

I'm not following. Canada has half the population and roughly the same level of development as most of Europe, but somehow we're polluting (per person) twice as much as an average European. How can we ask them to reduce it even further - better yet, how do we ask China - if we don't do it too? That just makes us massive hypocrites.

Don't use the mining argument - there's no such thing as "first world, ethically-sourced" oil - especially when the tar sands pollute up to 37% more than conventional crude. The rest of the world (save Trump's America) is doing its best to get themselves off oil too. China and India are doubling down on LNG, nuclear and renewables.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It'll be interesting to see if we can make a solar-powered mining drill or zero emission pulp mill. Not holding my breath though.



I'm not following. Canada has half the population and roughly the same level of development as most of Europe, but somehow we're polluting (per person) twice as much as an average European. How can we ask them to reduce it even further - better yet, how do we ask China - if we don't do it too? That just makes us massive hypocrites.

Don't use the mining argument - there's no such thing as "first world, ethically-sourced" oil - especially when the tar sands pollute up to 37% more than conventional crude. The rest of the world (save Trump's America) is doing its best to get themselves off oil too. China and India are doubling down on LNG, nuclear and renewables.

Most of europe doesn't produce oil! They have farms, cities, and 400+ years of intense industrialization. Jesus do you want us to all be farmers (because we don't have the industry to industrialize anytime soon)? And buy our oil from the middle east?

My solution to make you happy, lets just double our population, then you'll be happy because our pollution per a person will drop Its a completely stupid answer that does nothing for the environment other than to make you happy.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Most of europe doesn't produce oil! They have farms, cities, and 400+ years of intense industrialization. Jesus do you want us to all be farmers (because we don't have the industry to industrialize anytime soon)? And buy our oil from the middle east?

My solution to make you happy, lets just double our population, then you'll be happy because our pollution per a person will drop Its a completely stupid answer that does nothing for the environment other than to make you happy.

Please read the last few pages. The solution is for the developed world to get OFF oil products, which its increasing technology means it doesn't need it for a lot of things anyway. Then we aren't talking about oil sands or the Middle East or anything like that.

The average PRC or European only adds seven tons to the atmosphere, we add sixteen, and somehow you think it's fair to turn around and say "we don't have to change anything, but you guys need to cut down?" That is stupid. If we had twice the population, we'd be polluting as much as Japan.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It'll be interesting to see if we can make a solar-powered mining drill or zero emission pulp mill. Not holding my breath though.



I'm not following. Canada has half the population and roughly the same level of development as most of Europe, but somehow we're polluting (per person) twice as much as an average European. How can we ask them to reduce it even further - better yet, how do we ask China - if we don't do it too? That just makes us massive hypocrites.

Don't use the mining argument - there's no such thing as "first world, ethically-sourced" oil - especially when the tar sands pollute up to 37% more than conventional crude. The rest of the world (save Trump's America) is doing its best to get themselves off oil too. China and India are doubling down on LNG, nuclear and renewables.

Replace solar powered with battery powered, and that's what's happening. Battery powered underground mining equipment is already a thing. It's pretty uncommon, but it's definitely getting interest from the industry.

Canada has higher emissions mostly because of our low population density and high requirements for heating. BC doesn't have very intense carbon emissions (somewhere around 16t) , but Alberta's are massive (around 60t).

[nds88]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The average PRC or European only adds seven tons to the atmosphere, we add sixteen, and somehow you think it's fair to turn around and say "we don't have to change anything, but you guys need to cut down?" That is stupid. If we had twice the population, we'd be polluting as much as Japan.

What is stupid is when Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore etc tell the common person to cut down on their carbon emissions....while flying on their private jet and sailing on their mega yacht to get to a city to lecture said common person.

[misher]

Originally Posted by nds88

What is stupid is when Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore etc tell the common person to cut down on their carbon emissions....while flying on their private jet and sailing on their mega yacht to get to a city to lecture said common person.

Did you check out how much BC politicians spend on helicopters and private jets ������ 2.3 million on Helijet and 1.4 on harbor air. In comparison only $300,000 was spent taking the ferry. Good to know our leaders travel in style.

https://www.vancourier.com/gelato-ca...ges-1.23671600

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by nds88

What is stupid is when Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore etc tell the common person to cut down on their carbon emissions....while flying on their private jet and sailing on their mega yacht to get to a city to lecture said common person.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by nds88

What is stupid is when Leo DiCaprio, Al Gore etc tell the common person to cut down on their carbon emissions....while flying on their private jet and sailing on their mega yacht to get to a city to lecture said common person.

Funny you should mention that. I get the frustration with celebrities and high horses, but as Warren observed, it's not like we can put out the fire from outside the house. At least they're trying.

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Replace solar powered with battery powered, and that's what's happening. Battery powered underground mining equipment is already a thing. It's pretty uncommon, but it's definitely getting interest from the industry.

Canada has higher emissions mostly because of our low population density and high requirements for heating. BC doesn't have very intense carbon emissions (somewhere around 16t) , but Alberta's are massive (around 60t).

Interesting, thanks.

I take it that Alberta's high because of the tar sands?

[Ben Dover]

...and why don't we shut down pointless activities such as Nascar? Monster-truck shows? Formula 1? NHRA? Reno Air races?

Answer: Because of the WEALTH it creates for a select few. That's why the middle class is ALWAYS demanded to make the sacrifices and/or pay the levies/taxes/dues.

Yeah...hearing celebrities pontificate about the evils of climate change, while flying their private jets and floating in their yachts frustrates the hell out of me. My brother in law is in the film/entertainment industry and the waste and excess is mind-blowing.
12 semi-trucks and trailers driven across thousands of miles to a "location" to shoot a scene that will last 10 seconds...but if I pay another $.20 per liter, as a "carbon tax"...I am supposedly doing something to save the planet.
How dare I drive to work, when I could take (non-existent) mass transit....how do I think I am taking my family camping in our trailer and burning fossil fuels to go fishing...

This kind of duplicity drives me nuts...

[Migrant_Coconut]

Not saying that's not a problem, but compared to a quarter billion cars commuting from home to work and back every day (many of which DO have access to decent mass transit), a few hundred races or film crew trips a year is a drop in the bucket.

Actually, what the hell is the point of NASCAR? F1 and drag racing kinda makes sense, but stock racing is basically three hours of watching people turn left.

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Actually, what the hell is the point of NASCAR? F1 and drag racing kinda makes sense, but stock racing is basically three hours of watching people turn left.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/fe51...temid=10413001

and advertising.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Got it.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Funny you should

Interesting, thanks.

I take it that Alberta's high because of the tar sands?

Lot's of things contribute, like a frigid climate (more heating req'd), use of coal for power, massive spread out cities that encourage long commutes, oil sands (which use lots of natural gas), lots of agricultural activities, etc.

Originally Posted by Ben Dover

...and why don't we shut down pointless activities such as Nascar? Monster-truck shows? Formula 1? NHRA? Reno Air races?

Answer: Because of the WEALTH it creates for a select few. That's why the middle class is ALWAYS demanded to make the sacrifices and/or pay the levies/taxes/dues.

...

12 semi-trucks and trailers driven across thousands of miles to a "location" to shoot a scene that will last 10 seconds...but if I pay another $.20 per liter, as a "carbon tax"...I am supposedly doing something to save the planet.
How dare I drive to work, when I could take (non-existent) mass transit....how do I think I am taking my family camping in our trailer and burning fossil fuels to go fishing...

Increases in the carbon tax will incentivize all all activities listed above to clean up, maybe even moreso than they force you to decarbonize.

There's no reason those 12 semi trucks can't be electric in the next year or two. Adding a tax to it means that the bean-counters will be incentivized to invest in a way that reduce their tax liability and make good financial decisions, instead of just make PR incentives.

You could run many of those other activities off of alcohol if you need to replace the fossil fuel with another high density liquid fuel. Not everything can run off of carbon neutral fuels like alcohol, but surely some very specialized activities could be. As long as the rest of the supply chain has fossil fuel removed, the whole thing works. Electric tractors and farming equipment are certainly on the horizon.

If an economic activity is able to pay for it's externalities, then it's probably not pointless. I seriously doubt fuel costs are a major concern for sports like NASCAR or dragsters (which I think run alcohol anyways), so adding a $1-2/L probably isn't a huge problem.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

There's no reason those 12 semi trucks can't be electric in the next year or two.

Textbook over-promise, under-deliver.

[misher]

Originally Posted by s211

Textbook over-promise, under-deliver.

Tesla comes to mind. In the end the tech is coming but its "someday soon" rather than tomorrow. Until then we got to keep doing things the old fashioned way.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

There's no reason those 12 semi trucks can't be electric in the next year or two. Adding a tax to it means that the bean-counters will be incentivized to invest in a way that reduce their tax liability and make good financial decisions, instead of just make PR incentives.

Yes and no - as long as we're stuck on lithium-ion batteries, I highly doubt that we're getting long-distance electric anything.