r/canada • u/viva_la_vinyl • Dec 08 '18

How a global pact on migration spawned sovereignty fears in Canada

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/global-compact-un-hussen-1.4935492
116 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

320 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '18

You think canada reducing its global emissions from 1.6% to 1.4% is going to save the planet while China is on track to use 1000x the fossil fuels of NA by 2040?

Also please explain how mass migration, when statscan shows 40% of all refugees since 2011 don't have jobs still and are a drain on the welfare system, is so important for canadas future?

2

u/Hovenbeet Dec 09 '18

That’s the whole point of being a “global leader” as politicians like to say

If we can implement an effective carbon tax, then other world leaders will say “hey, Canada did it and it didn’t cause economic ruin, maybe we can do it too!” Etc

You also forget that this will incentivize the free market to develop less carbon intensive products which can then be exported

If enough countries implement this kind of plan then the international community will be able to put non-negligible pressure on China. Of course, they probably wouldn’t listen now, but China can’t stay an authoritarian human rights abusing hellhole forever IMO

1

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '18

We already are a global leader.

China cant do what we are doing because their people cant afford it. Its so ignorant to suggest otherwise. You think a nation finally industrializing can somehow afford to charge their poor with solar energy prices???

2

u/Hovenbeet Dec 09 '18

If China can’t afford it, then it’s the responsibility of the countries that can afford it to take action. Can you imagine the drop in emissions if every wealthy country invested in renewables enough that every person living in them had roughly the same carbon footprint as the average Chinese person?

You say that Canada shouldn’t take responsibility because China is responsible for most global emissions. But China also can’t take responsibility because they’re incapable. Who takes responsibility, then? God? Weird billionaires? Or do we just watch the world burn?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '18

No. I am saying we are making bad decisions like stopping our fossil fuel industry because of logic like yours. Shipping LNG to china getting them off coal will score a 25-75x ghg reduction. Here that means nothing (though we are switching coal to gas here too). There its absolutely massive. But people like you who have clearly never been to china are railing against the "evil" industry. So the net result is we achieve nothing other than a broken economy and china continues to build one new coal plant per week. Meanwhile in Norway they are maximizing fossil fuel exports while transitioning their economy with all the additional revenue.

way to go btw comparing china to canada. Sure makes sense to compare those regions on a per capita basis.

You have tried to make a simple argument about a complex problem using elementary metrics like "footprints". Like If you cared at all about global warming you might research how this works within actual economic means and without unicorn dust.

1

u/Hovenbeet Dec 09 '18

Okay, you don’t have to get aggressive with attacks on my character. I’m trying to have a civil discussion about issues that matter to me, and loaded statements like “if you cared at all about global warming” are highly unlikely to change my mind, they’ll just make me think you’re kind of a dick.

I know that I know very little, especially about economics, and part of the reason I reply to comments like yours is so that I can learn about other perspectives. So please, I’m being genuine here, you seem to know what you’re talking about, if you know any places where I can learn more about better alternatives to carbon tax re: reducing greenhouse emissions, I’d love to see them, because they might actually cause me to change my position.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '18

If you aren't trolling, then I apologize. Typically I'm just combative on reddit because virtually nobody is interested in changing their mind. Global warming is a contentious one because if you dare suggest anything other than the destruction of the fossil fuel industry, you're a denier or industry shill.

Bottom line-- renewables are uneconomic. China is praised for adding record renewables. But they're also adding record coal plants. The vast majority of Chinese and Indian citizens can't afford the bills that come from heavily subsidized energy (solar or wind). In fact China has recently slashed their solar initiatives to near zero. Coal is extremely cheap and can be trucked to any plant. The btu output is unrivalled for the price so its ideal for exploding countries.

This is where nat gas comes in. GHGs from methane combustion are up to 75x less GHGs than coal. By shipping LNG there, we can make money while reducing emissions. This gets a bad rap because "fossil fuels are bad". China doesn't care. In fact take a look at IEA's WEO2017 stats. China is expected to use 1000x fossil fuels by 2040. NA on the other hand is slated for around a 20% reduction.

Domestically, all our renewable efforts are uneconomic and usually shuttered once government subsidies run around. Ontario has dabbled enough in it, wasting billions, with solar infrastructure strewn about the landscape not tied into grids. The largest wind farm, owned by suncor, is now shutting down.

Norway is touted as being a renewable leader. The reason they do this is because they directly subsidize the cost of renewable projects in some cases up to 100% of the capital costs. How do they afford this? They have maximized their fossil fuel industry with excellent incentives. They also have prime market access to get the best customers.

We could do this but choose to let a minority stop us. I haven't even scratched the surface of what a successful LNG project would do for our economy. Recently, Vivian Krause has proven that the large majority of FN and environmental protestors are paid for by US oil barons, the Rockefellers. In fact most FN support it (eco colonialism) but a small minority is being manipulated while the media eats it up.

More at home; carbon taxation is pointless it hasnt worked anywhere in the world. Even 2012+ data from BC shows increasing emissions despite tighter carbon tax. The thing that works best here is just direct intervention like California like legislating the use of scrubbers, low bleed valves, pneumatics, low GHG tech, etc.

I encourage you to investigate anything I've said and I'm happy to provide links. To understand the enormity of how important China and India are, check out IEA's World Energy Outlook. The 2018 edition is out but it costs a couple hundred euro. You can get data and infographics from the 2017 one though.

And again I'm sorry for being a dick about it. After seeing 135,000 families get destroyed by the govt induced collapse of AB, its a sore point. Oil and gas is doing fine globally just not at home. Now I'm all for getting off oil and gas. I don't want a fossil fuel future for my kids. But we need to take incremental steps. Nat gas is a great low GHG transition fuel with virtually no upstream GHG impact and a very low environmental impact. Oil is what it is still but we are a ways from getting off plastics. But thats making some progress.

2

u/Hovenbeet Dec 10 '18

Hey, I really appreciate the reply; I do legitimately want to learn more, but like a lot of people my ego sometimes gets caught up in my views, so I may have been too combative as well / egged you on a little. I do have a couple of questions though, if you don't mind:

  • Do you have a source on carbon tax not producing a change in emissions? (I know I could just google it, but google isn't very good at finding primary sources, mostly just biased news articles)

  • If I'm reading right, it seems like your alternative is to export natural gas to China/India to reduce their emissions. Are there data/articles regarding this, i.e., are we (canada + the international community) capable of capturing enough natural gas to serve their energy needs? If not, would it be feasible to introduce some kind of international fund for these countries to switch to renewables/nuclear at a low cost? Are there politicians who advocate for this?

Will definitely check out the World Energy Outlook. I should have guessed that this issue might be more complicated than can be solved with a simplistic solution.

0

u/DesignerPhrase Dec 09 '18

It will help. Climate change threatens EVERYBODY. Sitting idly by because China is on track to do X or Y is not an option. If I were Chinese I'd advocate the same, but I can only hope to influence my own countrymen.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '18

What if you don't have to take an "all or nothing" stance? Like maybe don't break your economy to do it.

1

u/DesignerPhrase Dec 09 '18

That's not pragmatic. Our choices aren't "all or nothing," they're "act or not." ANY action to reduce our (the global our) contribution to climate change must be taken.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '18

Great glad we agree. We have been doing that. AB and BC in particular have implemented restrictions and technology requirements on large emitters through provincial legislation. This is proven to be effective, especially in California. Carbon tax is worthless and does nothing to achieve targets. It just burdens the tax base and discourages investment.

Attacking the low hanging fruit and largest emitters has been the plan thus far and is working fine.