Discussions

Who bought these carbon credits? I am guessing the taxpayers did.  
Also as I have stated before, how do you write a cheque to mother nature to pay for emissions?

Paid carbon credits.  
 
Where did the money go to?  
 
We are getting taxed for carbon emissions but what about the biggest polluters like Korea and China?  
 
While watching the ladies curling in Korea they had to wear masks to cross the street from hotel to curling rink. What city in Canada do you have to wear a mask other than a bank robber?

If any country could do better, it has to be Canada. We have an amazing track record of punching far above our weight when we focus, lead the world in nuclear reactor technology, have been a huge presence in satellites and aviation and all the sciences.  
 
We are also rich enough to be leaders without much sacrifices.  
 
As pointed out by the Green party and others, the time for transition is now, and it will actually create significant employment. If we carry on with the old model long enough, we will find ourselves buying the tech from abroad and playing catch up, or high and dry in a resource pinch, most importantly oil shortage.  
 
As someone had mentioned on another thread, stepping up to higher energy efficiency just means lower costs of living for the consumer in the long run. I know I would be very proud to have a net zero home, instead of sucking up heating bills each winter, or wondering when the next fuel price spike is coming.  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-10-05 14:11:40

financial burden for the rest of the world? BS!  
India and China are the worst polluters in the world so how about they try to help the cause?  
 
Edited by Johnbisonbear, 2019-10-05 14:17:23

I believe we are working on ways to increase efficiency all the time. I do not know if we are transitioning away from fossil fuels completely but we are certainly transitioning to a place of increased options and choice.  
 
I addition to trying to be world leaders on green technology, we are already world leaders in the extraction of fossil fuels (needed during transition) with the least environmental impact and we are still working on ways to improve that.

That perspective is just a race to the bottom, and disaster.  
 
Why should we pay taxes, when there are millionaires and corporations who pay none, and regularly get big government handouts?  
 
Why should we drive within the law when others break traffic rules?  
 
We should do these things because we know they are right for the greater good and bettering the world we want to live in.  
 
And speaking strategically, we should do it so we don't find ourselves high and dry or in a cost pinch for resources, or shut out / penalized in various markets. Even oil corporations have asked for a price on carbon, they want the security of knowing what to plan for over one to two decades.  
 
And, as pointed out, we are well situated to turn the period of change into greater wealth and stability for our nation.  
 
We shouldn't be following the lead of the most careless actors. The writing is on the wall on this one, adapt or perish.  
 
Also, it should be plain to anyone that if we don't institute change, we have zero grounds to ask others to, or the ability to show the better way. Nothing brings followers better than greater efficiency.  
 
Lastly, keep in mind that per capita Canada is near the most polluting nation on earth. It has been estimated that if everyone on the planet lived like north Americans, we would need 5 planets to supply us now, never mind the longer term. The 3rd wotld is an issue, but not nearly on the scale of waste and damage as we've built into our culture, and obviously people are very upset about having subject to any reigning in / questioning.  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-10-05 14:59:53

"we are already world leaders in the extraction of fossil fuels (needed during transition) with the least environmental impact and we are still working on ways to improve that."  
 
That sounds so attractive, though it is utterly false.  
 
The same logic is often expressed by drug addicts - I don't have a problem, I've got a handle on it, I've got a long term plan, etc, etc.  
 
To produce 2 barrels of tar sands synthetic oil using natural gas takes the energy equivalent of one barrel of good oil. There is no magical way to overcome the fundamental energy math. And now that the strip mining is largely exhausted, the theoretical remainder of the deposit will cost more, as it requires steam heating of the earth with natural gas boilers. In fact, natural gas is not an endless commodity, so licensing of nuclear reactors has been initiated, to use clean nuclear power to heat the earth instead, the remaining natural gas supplies will be needed to hydrogenate the tar, or for other purposes.  
 
Recently reported air emissions monitoring of the region showed that the industry is burning far more fuel in their mining than they admit. So, their bottom line costs are much higher than they let on, and instead of working impossible chemical and energy magic, it was easier to just lie. Classic greenwashing.  
 
As for conventional drilling, it is estimated that well clean up in Alberta will take about 2,000 years at the current rate, and the provincial overseer has failed to collect remediation funds / bonds. They will never clean up.  
 
So much for the tale of responsible and innovative industry in transition. Anyone familiar with the history of resource extraction in Canada knows better than that fairy tale.  
 
And, on top of that, the planet simply can't afford the pollution, regardless of what lifestyle we built ourselves into, much like a crack addict with a credit card...

Yes, we are high ranking amongst polluting nations. We are very energy and resource intensive, largely because of tar sands extraction, and other resource activities.  
 
While I agree that farming under pasture, or zero till can capture some carbon, as an organic component it is continually volatilizing, so after a while it is just a stasis. The sad fact is that our modern agricultural system consumes roughiy 10 calories of fossil fuel energy per calorie of food. That's just a fancy way of eating oil. Draft animal farming typically took one calorie of food and feed energy to produce 2 of food. Otherwise farming never would have existed. Our modern farming actually starts down oil and gas wells.  
 
A big part of the problem is obviously the long supply chains and delivery to people concentrated in cities. They say the average food item in north America has traveled 1,500 miles.  
 
It has been estimated that without natural gas based nitrogen fertilizer and fuels, some 3 billion people could be sustained on earth at starvation levels with our current farming system.  
 
As for our energy sources, Manitoba and Quebec are blessed with ample hydro, and not many other provinces. Our neighbour Saskatchewan is reliant on brown coal plants, Alberta is even less able to generate power from green sources.  
 
So, far from "twaddle"...  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-10-05 16:24:58

Canada has always been a major player in new technology. Unfortunately, that takes foreign investment. The current Liberal government, with it's agenda on gender equality, comparative wages throughout the world, insistence on wrist slapping other countries in regards to civil rights, will not attract offshore money. Take our current issue with China that has hindered our farmers being able to sell grains. People don't realize it, but we are currently slipping in respect from the world stage, and it will cost taxpayers dearly.

I don't follow why one of the wealthiest nations on earth needs to rely.on foreign investors. We have a lot of our own billionaires, pension and wealth management funds, chartered banks and government investors.  
 
I also don't follow the relation to the liberal party, and the claimed international social agenda seems more like a bit of a reach.  
 
We have been a technology leader any time we have made it an o:bjective. And we are the envy of mostof the world for natural and technological resources.  
 
As for farming, I'm certainly not advocating a return to horse farming, never mind that no one has the skills, we would have to give up roughly 1/3 of the arable land for pasture and animal feed.  
 
None of that changes the facts that we are grossly outside of any sustainable energy budget, and essentially eating fossil fuels at a maniacal rate.  
 
Biofuels could possibly sustain agricultural machinery, syngas is more viable. The loss of nitrogen fertilizers when natural gas runs low isn't a recoverable scenario though, we will have to accept legume crop rotations and generally lower yields.

There was the mention of energy calories and food calories, just for the record they are different calories, a food calorie is much larger than an energy calorie.

Good point. Not sure about the units of comparison. Since it was associated with the comparison to traditional muscle power farming, I expect that it is all using the same units.  
 
And, in ISO, I thought a calorie was a standard unit of measure.

This seams to be “your” thread and, being a high school dropout, I obviously have much less education than you do so I maybe shouldn’t comment. Garrytait you are right that corporations don’t pay taxes, (although millionaires do) but corporations don’t. Their property taxes, heating/cooling, water bills, PST, GST, snow clearing, window washing, income tax, advertising and benefits they remit on behalf of employees, etc. etc. all goes into the ‘expense’ column. When a company determines the market price for the product they sell to the consumer, their ‘expense’ column determines at what price the product will be marketed in order to allow for a profit...10%, 20%, 40%....whatever, or at least that’s how mine works... but the fact of the matter is that only consumers (those buying the end product for use) pay taxes. If you encourage your political candidate to implement higher taxes for Businesses and large Corporations, be prepared to pay more taxes as a consumer because that’s how it works.  
And garytait for you to point out that Canada ranks high among countries that contribute to pollution on a per capita basis is...well...no reason for us to necessarily feel bad - although I’m sure we could do better. But you must also realize that Canada is one of the wealthiest countries in the world when it comes to Natural Resources. Of course mining, forestry and energy (oil and electric power) are our 3 biggest ones and in order to harness / recover them and bring them to the manufacturing / consumer / export level is where the pollution is created, so you would not have the same challenges in a country that relies on...say tourism or fruit production for income. Natural resources require more processing, as well they are possibly the biggest contributor to a countries GNP.  
I might add that it is only because of Canada’s plethora of natural resources that we are (unfairly if you go by per capita) even on the pollution list instead of on the list of the World’s most financially troubled countries. With the out-of-control spending of our Liberal Government, were it not for our natural resources we would certainly be heading up a different economics related list with countries like Greece, Ukraine, Venezuela, etc.

People are all about fossil fuels=bad yet fail to realize just how much of their lives depend on fossil fuels. Plastic is fossil fuels. Most of your clothes are plastic based (Polyester is plastic). All of your electronics are plastic based. Your house relies on plastic for plumbing, for protecting electrical wiring, and to make it energy efficient. Even siding is often plastic.  
Most new vehicles have a ton of plastic.  
 
When political parties yammer on about fossil fuels and going green, they aren't really going green or eliminating fossil fuels. It is just a platform to get people riled up about and to use to manipulate votes.  
They yammer about the need for recycling then put it all on barges and try to ship it somewhere else in the world to be thrown in a garbage dump.  
 
If political parties were truly interested in environmental concerns or reducing C02 emissions, then they would invest some of those carbon tax dollars not only into planting more trees, but also into inventions that revert plastic back into fossil fuels. There are actually a few different ones, but this is a link to my favourite one that I have seen.  
 
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/plastic-to-oil-f

Plastics can be burnt, recovering roughly the pound per pound equivalent of oil. That never gets close to even when it takes roughly 5 pounds of crude to make one of plastic. And then there's the energy expended in the collection and transport to some point where they can be used again, so the ratio is far worse than 5:1. This highlights the Reduce, and Re-use options, Reduce being by far the best. Wasting an irreplaceable resource isn't intelligent.  
 
Yes, plastics are essential for many things in our world, modern medicine is another aspect hard to imagine without. So if future generations are to have the essential items at any affordable price, we have to stop squandering the resource like there's no tomorrow. (Fossil fuels are peak or post peak now, from now on the resource becomes scarcer). That's the real basis for the "yammer" - the earth isn't like some caramel candy with a center of limitless petroleum. The market is strongly signaling scarcity with annually rising prices... The fact that we are looking at a tar deposit as a bonanza indicates that the better options are basically squeezed dry. It needs to be understood that our pump prices would be far higher yet, if it wasn't for tax subsidies to the oil industry. The truth is much of western Canadian oil extraction isn't viable without subsidies already.  
 
Planting trees is another greenwashing issue. Trees historically have grown well on their own. Unfortunately now practically all north American forest biomes are giving up carbon, because they are stressed by climate change, drought, fires, and adverse insect and weather events. There's enough biomass tied up in permafrost ground to more than double CO2, and it is thawing, I've seen it myself on the ground. It seems likely that a sleeping giant is awaking, a feedback loop that we can't control.  
 
As far as where the "carbon tax" dollars, or more fairly, price on carbon, dollars are going, it's my understanding that they are dedicated to increasing energy efficiency and emissions reductions. For people who believe in the principles of the free market, I can't see a more logical way to signal the cost of global atmospheric pollution and the need for rationing of a scarce and valuable resource than by increased price. Then let the market signals and natural competion and innovation sort it out.. It has been estimated by economists that to make a viable influence on consumption habits a cost of $200 per ton of CO2 is needed...

"There is no way that per capita Canada is the most polluting nation on earth, stop believing all of the mainstream and social media lies."  
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita  
 
What I won't listen to is lies put forward by the uninformed. All evidence says you are wrong.

'per capita' would indicate 'per person' ...so  
if you have a county with 300 people and they produce 100 tons each of carbon ,,,living beside another country with 1 person , producing 110 tons of carbon ,,,PER CAPITA says the 1 person is the problem .. however, if that one person reduces his to zero tons it will mean absolutely NOTHING on the global scale. Remember folks, ...we have no people . We are not able to effect the problem to any degree. (even if you agree there is one)Tax all you want, there are not enough people here to influence the globe. The problem faced by the world is 8 billion people compared to our 37 million.

As previously mentioned, we are far over any reasonable energy budget. If all the world's population lived like us we would need 5 or more planets to handle the resource draw.  
 
If that isn't a good clue that what we are doing is unsustainable, then what else can be said? It is amazing what sort of push back and denial there is when it becomes apparent the style of living is far over budget. The planet can't sustain the abuse. One million species face imminent extinction from our conduct to date.  
 
So the position is that not only is this fine, but we should keep on, and do more, maybe as much as we can. As if we live in a magic world without consequences.  
 
And if that gambit is wrong, or more people want to follow our example, how long can the game last before it ends badly? It seems this is a very high stakes gamble based on personal privilege with no precautions.  
 
If any nation is able to do better, it would be a country like Canada. There will always be a bad actor to deflect personal responsibility. Kids engage in that type of ducking of personal responsibility. I don't see it as an admirable behaviour for adults to engage in.

can you tell me about your carbon footprint? What you drive etc

Now you sound like someone who backs up talk with actions. A nice mix of common sense and concern. Tempering theory with reality. Thank you for sharing.

I drive a japanese 4 cylinder vehicle from the 90s, they figure that a vehicle should be kept on the road roughly 20 years, as near half of the lifetime carbon footprint is from smelting steel, melting glass, etc. I drive roughly 10 - 15,000km per year.  
 
Though I speak Spanish fluently, I have not flown anywhere since 1994. I also have land under native prairie, but I don't believe that the carbon continues to accumulate significantly past roughly the 10 year mark, most soil doesn't turn into peat over centuries. I do believe that pastoralism is the most sustainable agricultural system ever developed. Etc.  
 
I also think the carbon offsets is a scam or greenwashing. The EU had a scandal over their carbon credit system, but I think it is more legitimate now.  
 
I highly doubt that I am living carbon neutral or close, but I do suspect that we have to get there soon or face a disaster in which nature will severely reduce the human population. So it's a priority for me.  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-10-07 01:42:10

1. "Per capita" means per person.  
2. We're a country of 37 million.  
3. Based on the "data" (really?), our singular impact is meaningless.  
4. China has a huge population (1.4 billion).  
5. If they're not going to do anything (they are), then why should we bother?  
 
If we will not lead, then who should we follow?

I beg to differ on the inviolable and ever right nature of the "economy", or that government intervention always leads to disaster.  
 
WWII, and heavy handed state control and investment led to the greatest period of prosperity post war that people have ever seen, as just one example.  
 
Economies are always social constructs. What happens without rules / minimum standards of conduct ? Slavery was widely practiced. Child labour. No paying of taxes. Selling of adulterated or dangerous products, like when the British forced China open to their opium trade.  
 
So an economy can be practically anything under the sun, and over time and different cultures has been many things. Therefore there is no such thing as letting the economy decide how things go down, people always decide what priorities and to what extent they allow things, aiming for the greatest good for society.  
 
At the present time we know clearly that the planet we rely on for life can't function properly or long term if we allow the atmosphere to be used as a free dumping ground. So it's becoming a significant national priority to send the signal to curtail the waste of fossil fuels. The end result will be greater efficiency, but only at a much higher price on carbon.

...Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.  
 
Most of what we use isnt produced local or on this continent. If it was, we couldn't afford it.  
 
So, basically, your advice is to....hope.  
 
Society has made it clear that we are addicted to our comfort and complacency.  
 
Let's try doing things differently now before we have to to things differently later. Either way, it'll be pricey.

The increased cost of living idea isn't congruent with the greatest period of north American prosperity ever seen, post war to the early 70s. During that time virtually everything we consumed was made in north America. The highest tac bracket was close to 90%. Corporations paid much higher taxes, governments had much greater roles in the market place.  
 
So in reality what we are doing now has proved to be a failure for most people and a race to the bottom, the opposite of your theory has proved true.  
 
We are producing more wealth as a society than ever, but concentrating it in the hands of fewer than ever. That's not efficient.  
 
So far from hope, the path is already quite well defined.  
 
What will stop society dead is if we fail to produce a surplus of food, or climate effects become so severe that we incur overwhelming societal and infrastructure costs, ie mass numbers of climate refugees, and unprecedented weather events.  
 
The old saying, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem comes to mind...

I do give you credit as it seems like you have been thinking on this for may years and are not just paying lip service. I am assuming that by including your flight history, you are implying that this choice is, at least, partially based on your environmental concerns. If so, this has been top of mind for you for a quarter century which is admirable. However, if you have been working at this for a quarter century and are not close to carbon neutral (your words), how can you tell everyone this needs to be done immediately before it is too late when you are not there yourself. Where is your urgency?  
 
P.S. - we are definitely on the same page regarding carbon credits.  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2019-10-07 10:06:30

"However, if you have been working at this for a quarter century and are not close to carbon neutral (your words), how can you tell everyone this needs to be done immediately before it is too late when you are not there yourself. Where is your urgency? "  
 
This illustrates the growing awareness of just how bad the future will get. 30 years ago there were few clear signs of climate change, and the predictions seemed quite remote, maybe a (permanent) ice free arctic ocean by mid century, etc. Then it became more clear, and now arguably species ending for us and up to 97% of life on earth unless we get into emergency mode.  
 
The problems of reaching carbon neutrality are largely individual effort vs collective. What happened to the Chevy Sprint? That 80s tech would be a low bar to cross today, 100mpg would be in reach. I would definitely be driving such a vehicle, but we don't have the choice. Instead there's nothing like it in the marketplace, and curb weights have ballooned. Extend that example through all the aspects of our lives, train transport vs truck, local manufacturing and supplies... I can't build bridges by myself either, but my life would be drastically different if our taxes weren't devoted to such efforts.  
 
This situation will never improve far enough or fast enough without collective action, that's the bottom line.  
 
I do expect to reach carbon neutrality or be even carbon negative in a while, but I have skills and options most don't...  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-10-07 10:24:02

The reality is, and nothing any of us will change in the least, fossil fuels are NOT going away, or EVER going to see a reduction. Nobody has any item that does not have some ties to a fossil fuel. Even those non fuel burning cars have tires, plastic miles of wire, and need lubrication, all derived from oil in some way. now the batteries from that electric car cause a larger risk to the environment than any fuel spill from a vehicle.  
Now lets bring this back to politics the way this thread started. our Prime Minister has a larger carbon footprint from on trip on one of his 2 jets than any of us personally have in a year.  
We can keep brushing our pet unicorns and chasing rainbows thinking anything will change but it will always only be a thought and dream. The population increases daily at a rate that out numbers our ability to cut our "usage". Cut back our usage by 10% but population increases by 1% with them (new population) saving the same 10% as us still has them using an extra 90%. Unless we can legislate the entire world, all your efforts become meaningless.  
 
Edited by Indadumps, 2019-10-07 11:57:02

You are correct Indadumps. We have a society that relies on products produced from fossil fuels.  
We were taught in school that oil is a by product from plant and animal decay over millions of years. We were always told that oil is a non-renewable resource but can someone explain to me how oil is found 7000 feet below in the Gulf of Mexico, or beneath the Arctic Ocean or even 5000 feet below the ground. Doesn't seem to make sense how that much plant and animal matter got in those places.  
What if oil is a byproduct of a natural occurrence from the heat, gases and pressure from the earth's molten core. Maybe oil is renewable! Maybe the Russians are correct.