News   Nov 18, 2024
Tower Crane Installed at 1071 King West While Building Gets Height Bump
 937     1 
News   Nov 18, 2024
City of Toronto Introduces Measures to Protect Renters and Boost Affordable Housing Supply
 446     0 
News   Nov 18, 2024
Canada Lands Company Submits Application Outlining Downsview West District
 1.4K     1 

The Climate Change Thread

La Nina develops during peak hurricane season

See link.

PHOTO-LaNin%CC%83a_winter_flat_updated_NOAA-1125x534_1.png
 
Hello folks. Recently recorded a podcast with Tim Gray from Environmental Defence Canada and we talked mostly about urban sprawl and the impacts that has on the environment and quality of life. We also talked about the 413 Highway proposal if anyone is interested. The podcast website is here and it's also on all streaming sites under the name "City & Crumpets". I post new episodes on the site and on my twitter @CityAndCrumpets too if interested. Feedback welcome.
 
Carbon tax must rise if Canada is to meet Paris emission targets, PBO says

See link.

The parliamentary budget officer says the federal carbon tax would have to rise over the coming years if the country is to meet emission-reduction targets under the Paris climate accord.

The issue is by how much and whether the costs are shared broadly.

The carbon tax is already set to rise to $50 per tonne of emissions by 2022 and the Liberals have not said what the path for the levy might be after that.
Click to expand...

In a report this morning, budget officer Yves Giroux estimates the tax will have to rise to $117 per tonne by 2030 if it is applied to all industries.

But if the government caps the levy at $50 per tonne for big industrial emitters, households and other sectors of the economy would have to cover the difference, requiring a levy of $289 per tonne in 2030.

The scenarios envisioned by the budget office assume the federal fuel charge applies to all provinces and territories post-2022, and that carbon taxes are the only measure used to close the emissions gap.
Click to expand...

Raising the carbon tax is one way to help pay for CERB and other COVID-19 incentives. To help the people without work, we may have to raise the price of gasoline taxes and other taxes to help pay for it.
 
This is a bit of a tightrope. The federal government can only lean so hard on the oil and gas sector before Alberta really blows a gasket.
 
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5763762

An article about the Federal government developing of small-scale nuclear reactors.

If Canada had real foresight and a proactive culture we should have not been thinking about researching this now, we should have already had these operating in the field.

I know environmentalists hate nuclear but Canada is well suited for this energy source and it is a realistic transitional phase if we are serious about reducing emissions.

If we are serious about reducing greenhouse gases and realistic about the importance of nature resource development and the challenges of reducing the need for transportation fuels in a country the size of Canada, small nuclear is potentially important; This at least as a transitional phase
 
TrickyRicky said:
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5763762

An article about the Federal government developing of small-scale nuclear reactors.

If Canada had real foresight and a proactive culture we should have not been thinking about researching this now, we should have already had these operating in the field.

I know environmentalists hate nuclear but Canada is well suited for this energy source and it is a realistic transitional phase if we are serious about reducing emissions.

If we are serious about reducing greenhouse gases and realistic about the importance of nature resource development and the challenges of reducing the need for transportation fuels in a country the size of Canada, small nuclear is potentially important; This at least as a transitional phase
Click to expand...

Environmentalists don't 'hate nuclear'

What we ask is a simple questions, which require straight-forward answers.

Notably:

1. How will any waste be safely disposed of? (Canada still lacks a single, permanent repository for nuclear waste); moreover, no storage medium has been identified which has a lifespan equal to that of said waste; as such the waste will have to be transferred multiple times over its life.

2. Is the environmental footprint of the mining of uranium being appropriately considered?

3. What are the consequences of comparatively frequent, repeated leaks/releases of tritium-laced water in the case of the CANDU reactors? (there have been large fish kills)

4. In the case of small-scale, portable reactors, the risks are lower, the waste less; but neither of these go away all together, the questions around risk-mitigation and waste disposal remain to be answered.

5. Is the cost being accurately calculated? When we see the posted cost of nuclear power; that invariably omits the capital cost of construction on large facilities. Even with smaller facilities, is the liability cost of
an accident/crime being fairly attributed to the cost of power? (answer, no, the cost of Pickering/Bruce/Darlington) does not properly weight any liability in the even of a problem.

6. Is the cost of long-term storage of waste factored into the cost of power (answer: no)

7. Finally, are there cheaper, lower-risk technologies available today? (answer: yes)

There's no hate involved, there's math; along with an appropriate degree of caution.
 
TrickyRicky said:
I know environmentalists hate nuclear
Click to expand...
Which is just dumb. Provided we have no Chernobyl or Fukushima like accident, nuclear is the best for the environment. Canada is massive and almost entirely unpopulated (density of about 4 people per square kilometer), so we have plenty of space to bury the nuclear waste. And before you say solar, that also depends on nuclear energy, from that orb in the sky.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Which is just dumb. Provided we have no Chernobyl or Fukushima like accident, nuclear is the best for the environment. Canada is massive and almost entirely unpopulated (density of about 4 people per square kilometer), so we have plenty of space to bury the nuclear waste. And before you say solar, that also depends on nuclear energy, from that orb in the sky.
Click to expand...

This is a silly comment.

My post above lays out why; but the Admiral, having blocked me, didn't read it.
 
Anyways, high level waste is a problem - but from the looks of it we are approaching the point where putting them in space (more specifically, geologically inert moon) is a viable possibility.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
As someone who is pro (within reason) nuclear, I take issue with that statement - nuclear fusion in the sun is utterly different from nuclear fission of transuranic elements.
Click to expand...
Just a little fun there. Perhaps one day we’ll have fusion power, but AIUI that’s a long, long way off.

My main point is that provided we have no Chernobyl or Fukushima like accident, nuclear seems to be the best environmentally-friendly choice for mass scale power generation. We certainly have the space for the waste.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1331401463495475200

Open Letter to Biden: Canada Doesn't Want KXL

We want to make it clear that all across Canada, people support your promise to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline.

As we write this, Canada's fossil fuel industry and their friends in government, have already started an all-hands-on-deck lobbying effort to get you to change your mind. But they do not represent us all. In fact, they don’t even represent the opinion of most people in Canada. The overwhelming majority of us are deeply concerned about climate change and support a rapid transition away from fossil fuels.

Like you, we believe this is the moment to tackle the climate crisis and create millions of green jobs. And, we know that building the Keystone XL pipeline doesn’t do either of those things. This pipeline is still what renowned NASA climate scientist James Hansen called it nearly a decade ago – “a fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet”.

You and former President Barack Obama were right when your administration rejected Keystone XL back in 2015. Now, it’s time to do the right thing again.

Cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline is a necessary part of ensuring that both the United States and Canada do our parts to meet the climate crisis. We ask that you do what’s right and stop this pipeline once and for all.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top