The Climate Change Thread

[Jasmine18]

It‘s the only way to do it. Otherwise as domestic manufacturers avoid Canada’s carbon taxes by moving overseas, Canadians are simply transferring their pollution output to other countries.

It’s the same as labour standards. What’s the point of improving wages and conditions in Canada if the products once made in Canada are now made overseas, with the low wages and poor conditions that we started with?

Shh stop exposing progressives as indirectly supporting neoliberal economic principles...

its like how they fight for labour rights and then support open borders to bring in illegal workers to be exploited.

 

[Irishmonk]

Australia's GHG emissions are tiny, about 1% of the global total - whatever they do internally makes little difference. The most powerful thing the first world nations can do to fight climate change is act with their wallets. And that means stop buying stuff made in the heavily polluting developing and third world. Yes, the USA as the second largest GHG emitter also needs to change, and they have, even under Trump with current emissions below the highs of the 1990s.

Political change and technological advances in the USA will likely see a continued decline of GHG there. But for the developing world and especially China, only a climate tariff will force the largest total GHG emitters to change their ways. So forget about marching for climate action at home, where Canada is about 1.6% of total GHG, but instead demand USMCA and EU politicians put a carbon tariff on goods from the developing world and China.

China's per capita GHG emissions are still much lower than Canada's. Same for all of the deveoping countries who are presently digging themselves out of poverty. Why should they have a different set of standards imposed on them by the west?

 

[Jasmine18]

China's per capita GHG emissions are still much lower than Canada's. Same for all of the deveoping countries who are presently digging themselves out of poverty. Why should they have a different set of standards imposed on them by the west?

Because the ironic thing about climate change is that as the more people become middle class, the worse it is for the planet.

 

[Irishmonk]

Because the ironic thing about climate change is that as the more people become middle class, the worse it is for the planet.

More of a bummer than an example of irony. But, seriously, we can't be bitching about China's and India's growth on one hand, and then refusing to consider harsh restrictions on our own GHG emissions regardless of the economic impact it may have on our growth

Our dumb ass Premier has recently blown millions of dollars to cancel green energy projects. Actions like this diminish our credibility when it comes to leading by example. Developing countries have as much right to be pissed and defiant towards us as the younger generations who will be dealing with our mess long after we're gone.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It‘s the only way to do it. Otherwise as domestic manufacturers avoid Canada’s carbon taxes by moving overseas, Canadians are simply transferring their pollution output to other countries.

It’s the same as labour standards. What’s the point of improving wages and conditions in Canada if the products once made in Canada are now made overseas, with the low wages and poor conditions that we started with?

That is why if I was doing trade negotiations with other countries, I would request that those other countries improve their wages and working conditions first. Such as a minimum wage tied to inflation. (We're looking at you Doug Ford and Jason Kenney.)

 

[Admiral Beez]

China's per capita GHG emissions are still much lower than Canada's. Same for all of the deveoping countries who are presently digging themselves out of poverty. Why should they have a different set of standards imposed on them by the west?

Stop it with the per capita chatter. It's the country's total damage to the globe that matter, not how many people they have.

If my house has ten people in it, and your house has two people, and my house is heated by burning coal and yours is heated by geothermal, with my house dropping soot over the neighbourhood, impacting everyone's breathing and quality of life I can't claim the upper hand by saying if you divide my coal soot by ten people my impact on the neighbourhood is negligible. No, the neighbours would yell, we don't care if you have 200 people in your house, you're bad for the neighbourhood and must change. I can't then reply, well, my nine housemates and I have low incomes, but we hope to afford a better heating system in 20 years, and that it's morally right to let us pollute because 50 years ago when you got your houses you heated them with oil until you had the money to go to less polluting heating systems.

Are we in the west supposed to take the GHG and climate change hit so that the developing countries can continue to "dig themselves out of poverty"? How long will that take? China is a leading technological power, and pollutes not because it must, but because it can. The Indian subcontinent has been independent and actively industrializing and exporting for over 70 years. Those countries can have a different set of standards if they want, but that doesn't mean Canada has to buy their products. And besides, the largest emitter is not in the developing world, it's the USA.

Imagine a country that still had slavery (some actually do, such as Thai shrimp boats). Would the west say, well, we'll continue to buy your products made by slaves because we in the west once founded and grew our prosperity through slavery? No chance. Why is climate change different? If GHG are today's abhorrent human activity, as slavery once was, why are GHG bad for the west, but acceptable from the others? If Canada was willing to ban or heavily sanction South African products to force change on apartheid irrespective of the economic impact it would have, why not for GHG? I call for carbon tariffs now.

 

[BurlOak]

China's per capita GHG emissions are still much lower than Canada's. Same for all of the deveoping countries who are presently digging themselves out of poverty. Why should they have a different set of standards imposed on them by the west?

Of the top 40 world economies, Canada is 2nd to Denmark in lowest GHG's per km2.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Of the top 40 world economies, Canada is 2nd to Denmark in lowest GHG's per km2.

hahahaaaaa....you kill me.

That's not an even remotely useful metric. Get that rubbish out of here, you're scuffing up the floors with that vomit.

Look, I'm starting to think anyone over the age of 50 doesn't get a say in how we behave in order to effect the climate in future.

Fossils burning fossils and having a laugh about it. Cool story.

 

[BurlOak]

hahahaaaaa....you kill me.

That's not an even remotely useful metric. Get that rubbish out of here, you're scuffing up the floors with that vomit.

Look, I'm starting to think anyone over the age of 50 doesn't get a say in how we behave in order to effect the climate in future.

Fossils burning fossils and having a laugh about it. Cool story.

The only reason GHG per capita is used is because it makes the European nations look better.

If we assume that CO2 continues to go up and we will run out of O2, it might be useful. If we believe in photosynthesis, and the plants, trees, remove CO2, then countries would get credit for their land area (that are vegetated). By not including area, Canada gets punished for it's great distances, but doesn't get credit for the trees that grow between these distances.

The truth is that maybe the best measure is GHG per capita per km2. In this measure, Canada is the 18th best in the world, and better than any European Country.

 

[SunriseChampion]

The only reason GHG per capita is used is because it makes the European nations look better.

If we assume that CO2 continues to go up and we will run out of O2, it might be useful. If we believe in photosynthesis, and the plants, trees, remove CO2, then countries would get credit for their land area (that are vegetated). By not including area, Canada gets punished for it's great distances, but doesn't get credit for the trees that grow between these distances.

The truth is that maybe the best measure is GHG per capita per km2. In this measure, Canada is the 18th best in the world, and better than any European Country.

No. The only metric that matters is total GHG and by that metric all of humanity has fucked up and needs to pull their collective head out of their collective arse and stop acting like spoilt little children (an especially bad look on people of your vintage) and get shit done to improve the prospects of future generations.

It couldn't be more simple.

This dick-wagging about per capita and per km2 and industrialised or not and how much here and there is all a bit much.

I know people like you are over the hill and closer to their twilight but that doesn't mean you send it all to shit because your life is effectively over. Others are yet to fulfill their life's potential. The least your selfish generation could do is not make it completely ridiculous for them.

 

[PinkLucy]

Could you not lump all of us who are over 50 together. Some of us, many of us, do care. And climate change isn’t any one generation’s fault. Humans have been abusing the earth for multiple generations. My kids kept telling me to chill out, it wasn’t that bad, but now that they are procreating, they have suddenly become concerned about their environmental impact.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If we assume that CO2 continues to go up and we will run out of O2, it might be useful. If we believe in photosynthesis, and the plants, trees, remove CO2, then countries would get credit for their land area (that are vegetated). By not including area, Canada gets punished for it's great distances, but doesn't get credit for the trees that grow between these distances.

The truth is that maybe the best measure is GHG per capita per km2. In this measure, Canada is the 18th best in the world, and better than any European Country.

Yes, we also have massive amounts of permafrosts, which releases CH4, a much more potent GHG than CO2 when warmed up - and guess what - it is warming up. You can't really can't have your geographical cake and eat it too. Some amount of credit to encourage stewardship of carbon sinks (and reforestation) is one thing - to use it as an excuse to do nothing/as little as possible about anthropogenic sources is something else entirely

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

When it comes to paper or plastic bags, what feels good for customers may not be the smartest solution for the environment

From link.

In the midst of this plastic festival of consumerism, there are a few shoppers trying to cut back on the waste.

It’s two weeks before Christmas, and Toronto’s Eaton Centre is decked with a 108-foot artificial tree and elephantine reindeer speckled with lights. Shoppers amble by, toting purchases in clusters of bags – a holiday parade of packaging.

There are plastic bags from Hudson’s Bay, Best Buy, Uniqlo and Indigo; paper from Pink, Brandy Melville, Williams Sonoma, Zara, Lush Cosmetics and Banana Republic. Most are destined for the landfill. So, too, is much of the packaging that’s inside them.

In the midst of this plastic festival of consumerism, there are a few shoppers trying to cut back on the waste. But only a few. Nazrana Mahjabeen, 35, is holding a reusable bag from shoestore chain B2, which she has filled with presents for her family. “I’m trying,” she says. “It’s not enough.” Then she holds up a plastic H&M bag.

This twinge of guilt is familiar to many shoppers. After a year of climate strikes and multiple warnings about the urgent need for businesses to respond to climate change, surveys and retailers’ internal research suggest more consumers are thinking about sustainable shopping decisions – even if they aren’t doing much about it yet. It does not take a great cognitive leap for people to hear about an island of plastic in the sea – a floating Dorian Gray portrait for our consumer society – and to cast rueful glances at their own plastic grocery bags, Tim Hortons cups, shampoo bottles and takeout containers.

What we buy is not a small part of the problem: 47 per cent of total plastic waste in Canada comes from packaging, according to a study by Deloitte for the federal environment department. And there is little sign of progress. In a report last year, the International Energy Agency forecast that global oil demand for plastic production would surpass oil demand for road passenger transport by 205

Plastic is popular because it is lightweight, making it inexpensive and more fuel-efficient to ship, and cheap to produce. But its end-of-life footprint is abysmal. Over all, only 9 per cent of plastic in Canada is recycled after use, according to the Deloitte study, which estimated that 3,268 kilotonnes of plastics were discarded as waste in 2016. (That’s the equivalent, in weight, of about 24,000 empty Boeing 787 jets.) Because plastic is not as durable for recycling purposes as metal or glass, demand for recycled plastic is low, which contributes to waste. That problem has intensified since last year, when China said it would no longer buy recycling waste from other countries, including Canada.

Globally, only 14 per cent of all plastic packaging is collected for recycling, and even then, only 2 per cent of it ends up being repurposed as new packaging – while one-third of it ends up as litter somewhere in the environment, including the oceans, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. This British-based charity promotes the development of a more “circular economy,” a term referring to a system that minimizes waste by reusing materials as much as possible and recycling them effectively, rather than a system that relies on using products once or twice before disposing of them. The term is gaining popularity as concerns about climate change mount.

This is a branding problem for retailers and packaged-goods companies that are facing increasing pressure not to be seen as part of the problem.

Pressure is not only coming from consumers. Policy makers have begun insisting that industry play a role in tackling the issue. Earlier this year, Canada’s federal government announced that it wants to ban “harmful” single-use plastics including disposable straws, bags and cutlery as early as 2021. In its announcement, the government said that companies should be “responsible for their plastic waste.”

Slightly more than half of shoppers reported that they would be more inclined to make their holiday purchases with retailers they see as environmentally conscious, according to a recent Accenture survey of 1,500 Canadians. Sixty-four per cent of those surveyed said they want retailers to offer zero-packaging options. But people don’t always do what they tell surveys they will, and other research indicates that consumers are not willing to pay more or sacrifice convenience for sustainable options. But this does not mean that companies can afford to ignore the problem.

“Consumers won’t share their frustration and say, you should be thinking about this. They will just say, I’ve had enough,” said Diane Brisebois, chief executive of industry group the Retail Council of Canada. “And because it’s a very competitive environment, there will be innovators in the retail sector, who will come up with sustainability practices, including packaging, that will set the bar. Retailers have a lot at stake, have a lot to lose, if they don’t pay attention.”

It is one of the most famous marketing promotions in Canada, but Roll Up the Rim has lost step with the times. Last April, Tim Hortons parent company Restaurant Brands International Inc. blamed weak quarterly results partly on waning interest in the contest. Tims drew criticism from environmental groups for its prize giveaways tucked in the rim of disposable cups. But the company acknowledges that it’s more than just Roll Up the Rim that needs a revamp.

“There were decades when it was okay to have a car without a seat belt … when it was okay and cool to smoke, and that behaviour had to change. We are currently in a society where it’s okay to use and throw away a cup just once. We think that behaviour has to change,” said Duncan Fulton, RBI’s chief corporate officer. The company manufactures roughly two billion single-use cups a year. While they’re made with recyclable materials, municipalities across the country differ in what they accept; the result is that the majority end up in the garbage.

Tims is planning to dedicate more of its marketing spending on a campaign to encourage people to adopt reusable cups. “That’s inevitably going to mean putting more reusable cups into the hands of Canadians,” Mr. Fulton said.

This issue has picked up momentum in a very short amount of time, said Sara Wingstrand, a project manager with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

“Around a year ago, all the focus was mainly on recycling. That was as far as we’d gotten,” said Ms. Wingstrand, who works on the “new plastics economy” initiative, which has persuaded nearly 140 packaging producers, packaged-goods companies and retailers to sign a commitment to make 100 per cent of their plastic packaging either reusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2025. That includes swapping out single-use plastics for reusable packaging where possible.

"A very large share of the companies [in the initiative] are looking into reuse models.”

Reusable packaging is an old idea. The milkman model of returnable glass bottles fell out of fashion with the advent of cheap, disposable plastic packaging. But in many provinces the deposit-and-return system is still kicking for beer and wine bottles. In Ontario, it dates back to the end of Prohibition in 1927, said Ted Moroz, president of the Beer Store, which takes back hundreds of millions of containers each year. Most bottles are sanitized and refilled 15 to 25 times before needing to be recycled, he said. The industry absorbs the cost of the system, through fees paid by brewers, and deposits give consumers an incentive to bring back empties.

“We think that our model is really exemplary of what other industries could and should be doing,” Mr. Moroz said...

 

[BurlOak]

When it comes to paper or plastic bags, what feels good for customers may not be the smartest solution for the environment

From link.

When I saw the headline, I thought the article would be about how GOOD plastic is, because of lower shipping weights (than glass or metal) that require less fuel to deliver and less to recycle on the back end.

 

[BurlOak]

No. The only metric that matters is total GHG and by that metric all of humanity has fucked up and needs to pull their collective head out of their collective arse and stop acting like spoilt little children (an especially bad look on people of your vintage) and get shit done to improve the prospects of future generations.

It couldn't be more simple.

This dick-wagging about per capita and per km2 and industrialised or not and how much here and there is all a bit much.

I know people like you are over the hill and closer to their twilight but that doesn't mean you send it all to shit because your life is effectively over. Others are yet to fulfill their life's potential. The least your selfish generation could do is not make it completely ridiculous for them.

Do you mean total GHG for a country, or for the world. If the former, than Canada will be amazing when Alberta and Quebec separate.