Climate Change and Canada

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by lio45

Shocking, except when you realize that large chunks of the city's sewage system are dating back from a time when the confluence of the Bow and Elbow rivers was complete wilderness.

Honestly, it's not the cop out it seems to be; any new city built from scratch right now would certainly easily out-green an existing, older one on nearly all counts in terms of its daily operations' environmental footprint.

That seems like quite a simplification. There are plenty of older cities around the world that do quite well for waste/wastewater treatement. I think it has less to do with being a new city somehow making it esaier than it does political, social, financia, or environmental pressures. Calgary and Edmonton didn't just randomly decide to do what they did because they are younger cities. Both are fairly high up in larger watersheds crossing provincial boundaries. Calgary would be major point source on a regulated river system flowing through a relatively dry area. Edmonton couldn't find financially viable or sustainable place to put its waste in the long term. Both cities were pretty much forced to innovate, and this has also happened with many other cities that are much much older.

This also means that neither city is inherently more virtuous than places that haven't experienced the same pressures. Did being younger make the job a bit easier, probably, yeah. However, I think the difference is more that if you have a landfil that is going to last for the forseeable future, or if you are near a body of water that will dilute raw sewage enough to not freak people out (or they are used to the pollution) you are much less willing to invest the time and money into improving the system. Like most instances of pollution it's a form of the tragedy of the commons. Cities make the change when there is a reason for them do so, not because it is easier or virtuous.

[Trans Canada]

Great post. It takes a massive amount of ignorance to believe that the scientific consensus on climate change is some conspiracy among climate scientists. In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that (paraphrased from the IPCC) simple ignorance is no longer an excuse for denying anthropogenic climate change - borrowing from John Kerry, "Denial of the science is malpractice."

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

pardon my French, but you don't know jack shit about science.

With your extreme obstinacy, you are not being a skeptic. Rather, you are clinging to an a priori conviction, which is the complete opposite of what constitutes scientific skepticism.


Allow me to repeat an earlier post. I know a thing or two about the scientific method.

The entire enterprise of scientific inquiry is underpinned by skepticism. The bar for rejecting the null hypotheses (status quo, that is, no relationship, no trend, or what have you) in favor of concluding the alternative hypothesis (that there is a difference, a trend, etc.) is very rigorous, and reported in terms of confidence intervals arranged around a probability, balancing the tradeoff between committing a type-1 error (false positive; falsely concluding Ha when Ho is true; e.g., a pregnancy test that indicates you are pregnant when you are not) and a type-II error (false negative: falsely concluding Ho when Ha is true; e.g., a pregnancy test indicates you are not pregnant when in fact you are). Which is the more serious error?

For example, in say, psychology, the convention is that a valid result would be considered accurate 19 times out of 20, within a certain +/- deviation about the result (that is, type 1 error). This means that, factoring in chance variation, the same conclusion should be reached 95% of the time, under the same/similar circumstances. One can easily set the bar higher (e.g., with a larger sample size, or with more data observations), say to 99%, 99.9%, 99.9997% (i.e., six sigma level of confidence, which means incorrectly concluding the alternative hypothesis 3.4 times out of a million). Medical trials will often set a 99.9% probability of a type-1 error.

A critical aspect of theory testing is test-retest, under similar and different circumstances (boundary conditions, assumptions), often testing against competing theories (alternative explanations for phenomena). No single study could ever have the final word, neither could any ten or any hundred.

The corpus of research on climate change consists of many tens of thousands of studies on similar and widely different phenomena; the resulting body of evidence being very, very strongly in support of anthropogenic global warming.

This is not negotiable.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

It's not copping out. It is facing reality.

It would be a disaster if Canada risked introducing economy-crushing carbon taxes or cap-and-trade policies that cause all of its citizens to suffer through economic hardship, just so we can pat ourselves on the back at how noble we are. Meanwhile the environment does not get any cleaner.

BC has had a carbon tax since July 2008, and our economy has hardly been crushed. In fact, our economy is stronger than most provinces. And our fuel use has dropped by 16% over that time, as opposed to the rest of Canada where fuel use increased by 3%. Here's a nice article about it.

[khabibulin]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

You know that air conditioning uses tons of energy too right?

Except in the most extreme of circumstances (think Chicago a few years ago), air conditioning use is considered a luxury, not a necessity. In most cases, lack of air conditioning will cause you to be uncomfortable, but not kill you.

In Canada, thousands of people would perish every year without access to heat generated by the burning of fossil fuels.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

We have a new natural gas power plant that was built in Calgary last year. Also see my previous article link about how Edmonton is the first city on earth to have an industrial scale bio fuel converter that eliminates most of their trash and turns it into energy. Also those fans that literally suck CO2 out of the air were invented in Calgary. Alberta also has a carbon tax. I make no excuses for the terrible mistakes of the previous PC government and the sorry state of the oilsands but we are by no means doing nothing about it.

That's good feedback and you are right, I should not have said they are "doing nothing about it".

I certainly am not one of these Suzuki types who continually bash Alberta and Albertan at every possible moment. According to Suzuki, everything Alberta does in bad and everything BC does is good..........end of story. Albertans are very concerned about their environment as all the polls have consistently shown. It's easy for us in the rest of the country to talk climate change when our jobs are not at stake. It's one thing to be concerned about making more expensive choices for the benefit of the planet but it's quite another to expect to endorse decisions that could jeopardize your families shelter, food, and well being by the loss of your job.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

BC has had a carbon tax since July 2008, and our economy has hardly been crushed. In fact, our economy is stronger than most provinces. And our fuel use has dropped by 16% over that time, as opposed to the rest of Canada where fuel use increased by 3%. Here's a nice article about it.

I believe those numbers are oversimplified (as percentage statistics usually are) and slightly skewed in favor of BCs position. BC's situation is very different from the rest of Canada.

First, that article does not mention that BC's economy is arguably less reliant on fossil fuels than anywhere else in Canada. Tourism, service, natural resources, and real estate are massive economic drivers there, which already makes BC more of an outlier. BC's population is also becoming increasingly concentrated in the Vancouver area, where a larger proportion of people have been giving up driving since they've invested so much into public transit (especially for the Olympics), and also boasts one of the mildest climates in all of Canada (less air conditioning and less heating required in Vancouver than any other major city in Canada). Population growth in other provinces is far less centralized.

Almost all of BCs power is hydro as well (they sell most of their coal to China, which I am uncertain how it is taxed since they aren't burning it in BC). Provinces that have more manufacturing (Alberta, Ontario) or depend on burning fossil fuels for electricity would suffer a much different fate with taxes on carbon than BC has.

Plus, BC has been shedding tens of thousands of jobs the last couple of years, and people have been moving Eastward year after year to find employment for almost a decade because it's getting too hard to make a living there. The cost of living is nuts, and a huge part of that is taxes. I am not convinced that businesses in BC all stay put and just produced less carbon dioxide - business that burned more carbon fuels could simply move to Alberta (or Asia), and businesses that didn't produce CO2 could more easily thrive in BC with their matched tax cut they implemented to offset the carbon taxes. So I think the numbers are skewed that way as well.

I really don't think carbon taxes across Canada would turn out as rosy for the country as environmentalists in BC claim they would.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

It would be a disaster if Canada risked introducing economy-crushing carbon taxes or cap-and-trade policies that cause all of its citizens to suffer through economic hardship, just so we can pat ourselves on the back at how noble we are. Meanwhile the environment does not get any cleaner.

It might cripple Alberta, but the rest of the country would be fine. BC already has a carbon tax, and it is expected to lead the country in growth this year.

Looking at BC and Sweden (a country with a carbon tax), it would seem as though a carbon tax would result in a brief slowdown in growth (this is the period where everyone claims the tax isn't working and attempts are made to repeal), followed by a decoupling of carbon emissions from GDP growth, and then a return to the same growth that preceded the tax.

The argument that a carbon tax would kill the economy doesn't hold up based on real world evidence. There is a brief adjustment period, and then things return to normal. A carbon tax can actually make decisions easier for businesses. Without the tax, fossil fuel usage prices tend to be very volatile. It's hard to commit to spending extra money for a fuel efficient fleet when oil could either be $150 or $50 a barrel within a year. With a carbon tax, the price of fuel is expected to slowly but consistently rise, ensuring that there will be a return on investment for a more efficient fleet.

There is also an advantage to being one of the first to adopt a carbon tax. The green economy will have a head start in Canada, and when other countries finally get around to lowering their emissions, our products will be in high demand.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

That seems like quite a simplification. There are plenty of older cities around the world that do quite well for waste/wastewater treatement. I think it has less to do with being a new city somehow making it esaier than it does political, social, financia, or environmental pressures. Calgary and Edmonton didn't just randomly decide to do what they did because they are younger cities. Both are fairly high up in larger watersheds crossing provincial boundaries. Calgary would be major point source on a regulated river system flowing through a relatively dry area. Edmonton couldn't find financially viable or sustainable place to put its waste in the long term. Both cities were pretty much forced to innovate, and this has also happened with many other cities that are much much older.

This also means that neither city is inherently more virtuous than places that haven't experienced the same pressures. Did being younger make the job a bit easier, probably, yeah. However, I think the difference is more that if you have a landfil that is going to last for the forseeable future, or if you are near a body of water that will dilute raw sewage enough to not freak people out (or they are used to the pollution) you are much less willing to invest the time and money into improving the system. Like most instances of pollution it's a form of the tragedy of the commons. Cities make the change when there is a reason for them do so, not because it is easier or virtuous.

Honestly, I find issues like landfills, wastewater treatment, recycling, etc far more important than things like global warming causing emissions. I'm I an asshole for only caring about these thing because they impact me directly unlike see level rising and causing havoc in some far of country on the other side of the world, probably, but meh. My standard of living is just to good to give up for some righteous effort that really doesn't impact me. Go on and hate me for it, but I think I represent the majority of North Americans on this.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Plus, BC has been shedding tens of thousands of jobs the last couple of years, and people have been moving Eastward year after year to find employment for almost a decade because it's getting too hard to make a living there. The cost of living is nuts, and a huge part of that is taxes.

Huh. It's weird that BC Stats shows that employment numbers have actually been increasing over the past five years.

BC's carbon tax is revenue neutral, by the way, so it doesn't have any impact on the amount of tax paid by residents (it was balanced by a decrease in provincial income tax rates). That's not to say that BC residents don't pay higher taxes and fees, mind you. There are things we pay for in BC that are either cheaper or free in other provinces, like health premiums.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by khabibulin

Except in the most extreme of circumstances (think Chicago a few years ago), air conditioning use is considered a luxury, not a necessity. In most cases, lack of air conditioning will cause you to be uncomfortable, but not kill you.

In Canada, thousands of people would perish every year without access to heat generated by the burning of fossil fuels.

Luxury or not every year Calgary only maxes out the grid on the hottest summer days..

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Honestly, I find issues like landfills, wastewater treatment, recycling, etc far more important than things like global warming causing emissions. I'm I an asshole for only caring about these thing because they impact me directly unlike see level rising and causing havoc in some far of country on the other side of the world, probably, but meh. My standard of living is just to good to give up for some righteous effort that really doesn't impact me. Go on and hate me for it, but I think I represent the majority of North Americans on this.

you really don't care about causing havoc in some far off country?

you really think the majority of North Americans also do not care?

[lake of the nations]

For those who haven't seen this map that shows how climate change will redraw coastlines, it seems that Richmond will be the biggest loser in the country. Canada as a whole is quite spared when compared to other countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, China, etc., where tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people will likely have to move.

http://choices.climatecentral.org/in...b=extreme-cuts

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

It might cripple Alberta, but the rest of the country would be fine. BC already has a carbon tax, and it is expected to lead the country in growth this year.

What an interesting thing to say ... you do know that Alberta had the FIRST carbon tax in Canada, don't know?

Yup, in July 1, 2007, Alberta rolled out Bill 3, a carbon tax (and a whole 12 months before BC). While not as robust as BC's (it focuses on large emitters only) it is not revenue neutral, so it does have an impact on the economy ... and Alberta seemed to have done fine these past 8 years.

Anyway, back to the regular programming ..

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

you really don't care about causing havoc in some far off country?

you really think the majority of North Americans also do not care?

If we cared we would change.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by lake of the nations

For those who haven't seen this map that shows how climate change will redraw coastlines, it seems that Richmond will be the biggest loser in the country. Canada as a whole is quite spared when compared to other countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, China, etc., where tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people will likely have to move.

http://choices.climatecentral.org/in...b=extreme-cuts

There are many junk science websites out there making exaggerated predictions on sea level rise. Al Gore predicted 20 ft rise in the near future 10 years ago in the Inconvenient Truth, total BS. The IPCC predicts 1 - 2 ft in 100 years. Current scientific measurements shows even less 0.8 ft/100 years and a good portion of the rise unrelated to global warming. I suggest everyone should read some of the contrarian websites to get some perspective on this subject. Sea levels have been rising for the past 10,000 years but your entire life will go by without any noticeable change in coastlines. Keep in mind coastal cities exist with daily tide level changes that are greater than the 100 year rise!

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/201...evel-rise.html

http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/19/n....2Ybj3KM4.dpbs

[lio45]

Originally Posted by lake of the nations

For those who haven't seen this map that shows how climate change will redraw coastlines, it seems that Richmond will be the biggest loser in the country. Canada as a whole is quite spared when compared to other countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, China, etc., where tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people will likely have to move.

http://choices.climatecentral.org/in...b=extreme-cuts

These maps crack me up because they always forget to tell many of the residents of the Netherlands that contrary to what they might think, they're actually under water in 2015.

Your "will redraw coastlines" should be "would redraw coastlines in the absence of action" to be accurate.

If you look at the total market value of Richmond, BC, clearly everyone will chip in for a dam tax instead of losing everything.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lio45

If you look at the total market value of Richmond, BC, clearly everyone will chip in for a dam tax instead of losing everything.

Dam tax, damn tax or damn dam tax?

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Luxury or not every year Calgary only maxes out the grid on the hottest summer days..

i believe 2015 was the first year we hit a maximum power usage in the summer, it's usually a maximum in January. The important concept is maximum energy use, in Calgary that is primarily burning natural gas for heat (about 3 x the amount of electrical energy used) which I think we can all agree is a maximum in the winter!

https://www.westerndirect.ca/learnin...-record-levels

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-526-...artie1-eng.htm

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by jawagord

There are many junk science websites out there making exaggerated predictions on sea level rise. Al Gore predicted 20 ft rise in the near future 10 years ago in the Inconvenient Truth, total BS. The IPCC predicts 1 - 2 ft in 100 years. Current scientific measurements shows even less 0.8 ft/100 years and a good portion of the rise unrelated to global warming. I suggest everyone should read some of the contrarian websites to get some perspective on this subject. Sea levels have been rising for the past 10,000 years but your entire life will go by without any noticeable change in coastlines. Keep in mind coastal cities exist with daily tide level changes that are greater than the 100 year rise!

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/201...evel-rise.html

http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/19/n....2Ybj3KM4.dpbs

You don't even have to go to "contrarian websites" really. It is in black and white on NASA's web site as well:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses

[MonctonRad]

Direct quote from this NASA research paper:

The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away

Who ya gonna believe, NASA or David Suzuki????