Canada may exit Kyoto pact to save $$$$$

[Christian Klippel]

How does that follow at all? "Only optimal temperature" doesn't in any way imply "only viable temperature for human life", it simply implies that there is a temperature which is better, from our perspective, than others.

Moreover, in context it implies an average global temperature that is optimal, not that the temperature everywhere on the globe should be the same.

Well, that's the problem with averages. If place A has -20°C, and place B has +40°C, we have an average of +10°C. If place A now gets to -30°C, and B to +50°C, we still have +10°C average. Then, what is the so-called "only optimal temperature" in the end?

Why is this temperature better than others? Because it's the one we've (meaning life on this planet, and human life in particular) already adapted to. It's the one that all our infrastructure is built upon. If the climate changes, ecosystems will have to adapt, some will migrate northward, others will die out, etc. Similarly our farming practices will also have to change: farmers who are now accustomed to growing wheat will have to change to rice (or whatever), which means major changes in their way of life. Those changes come at a cost.

But life, and humans, have already adapted to a big span of different temperatures and climates. Again, that's the thing where averages simply fail, because its just that: an average. There are hot places on this planet where people live, and cold places where people live. Each of them has a locally completely different average temperature already, and they live by just fine.

Yes, change involves cost. No doubt about that. However, implementing stuff like Kyoto also involves cost. But the thing is: change will happen, no matter what, that's a thing that is certain. That Kyoto will really help is not certain at all. In fact, it is unlikely that globally things will get better due to that.

So we have the choice of spending money into implementing Kyoto _and_ adapting to change, or spend all that only into the adaption.

The point being? All else being equal, change costs money. Even if the total potential output is the same, rearranging what grows where, what industry is located in what country, etc. means major investments in infrastructure (and the scrapping of a great deal of same).

Indeed. It could mean that we loose a bit of our wealth, and some as-of-now third world countries gain some wealth. So what? Nature has a simple, universal rule: adapt or go extinct. Who do we think we are to try to exclude ourselves from that?

Now, it's possible that all else is not equal, and that the benefits of a particular change outweigh the costs involved in changing industry and agricultural practices, but I haven't seen evidence for such a positive total increase in value due to climate change.

Right. However, there is no evidence to the contrary either. All we have now are speculations going to both ends. We simply do not, and can not, know what the overall outcome will be until that outcome actually happens.

If we don't know either way, that's fine, but it leaves us with that total value as likely lower as higher, and again the only certainty is the cost involved in the change.

That cost, by the way, is born by ecosystems as well as by human industry and agriculture. The only difference being that they are likely in an even worse position to deal with them, as they lack the ability to plan, study the problem, and even come up with solutions. At best they can get lucky (ie, the northern boarder of a forest becomes a better habitat as quickly as the southern boarder because a worse one, and the forest simply migrates north.

But again, we simply don't know all that. And the cost involved in the change isn't so certain either. The only certain thing, again, is that change will cost some money. It does so no matter which direction it goes. But no one knows how much it will cost, what the extent of those changes is, etc.

As i said above. We can throw money at Kyoto and create strategies for adaption to the changes at the same time. Or we can simply focus on the changes alone. The former means that both only get a kind-of half-hearted attention and support, because you can spend a sum of money only once. The latter will focus on adaption only, giving more resources to it, allowing the possibility to have those plans in place much earlier. And again, change will happen no matter what, Kyoto or not.

I mean, really. Look at the meager few percent that some nations were able to reduce CO2 emissions under Kyoto. Now look at the increase of emission from countries like China. So, we are putting loads of money at implementing Kyoto, with an overall no-effect, since the emissions from other countries eat up our reductions in no time. This inevitably means that change will happen.

Personally, i prefer to put my efforts and money into developing and implementing strategies to cope with that change, instead of pumping that into more or less futile efforts that look good on paper only.

But of course, YMMV, and this is just my opinion.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Roboramma]

Well, that's the problem with averages. If place A has -20°C, and place B has +40°C, we have an average of +10°C. If place A now gets to -30°C, and B to +50°C, we still have +10°C average. Then, what is the so-called "only optimal temperature" in the end?

That's fine, but I don't see your point. Yes, climate change can occur without average temperature change, and that sort of climate change can still lead to changes in local environments that mean ecosystems, industry, and agriculture have to adapt.
The doesn't suggest that our current climate isn't optimal. My personal viewpoint is that our current climate likely isn't optimal, but we (and the earth's ecosystems) are optimized to it, thus any change in it requires changes in our optimization strategies (and those of ecosystems).

There are hot places on this planet where people live, and cold places where people live. Each of them has a locally completely different average temperature already, and they live by just fine.

Yes, but they are different people with different cultures and different ways of life. I doubt americans want to live like mexican, or that mexicans could easily adapt to living like americans. Vikings lived fine in Greenland for a while, but while the Inuit dealt fine and even thrived with the local climate change that occured there, the viking colony didn't survive it. Why? Because their culture and way of life was already adapated to those conditions, while the vikings simply weren't. It's not the conditions that are not amenable to human life, or even thriving settlement: it's the way of life combined with the conditions.

Nature has a simple, universal rule: adapt or go extinct. Who do we think we are to try to exclude ourselves from that?

Nature has no rules, it just is. If we want to change the environment so that it's not necessary to adapt, who is anyone to say we shouldn't? And if we want to avoid changing the environment for that same purpose, again, why shouldn't we do so?

 

[Christian Klippel]

That's fine, but I don't see your point.

The point is that aiming for some arbitrary global "only optimal temperature" is nonsense, since there is no such thing as a single temperature for the whole planet. It varies greatly from place to place, with nature (including humans) being used to that already.

[snip...] thus any change in it requires changes in our optimization strategies (and those of ecosystems).

It will change anyways. There is no way around that. We need to adapt ourselves and our strategies anyways. It is pretty much impossible to have the world agree on what to do about emissions. A lot of countries have emerging industries, growth, etc. They simply can not afford to implement our fancy "save the climate" ideas. They will do what they want to do anyways. And there are _lots_ of them, and some are really, really big, like China. Sure, we can throw bunches of money to reduce our emissions locally by some few tons. But that doesn't have any real effect at all as long as those other countries increase their emissions many times over. Just China alone has increased theirs by over 100%. And they are just beginning!

Climate does not know borders. It's a global thing. Saving a bit here while over there multitudes of that saved amount are spewed out shows how futile that is.

Change will happen. We better start preparing for that right now instead of fighting the windmills of stopping that change.

Yes, but they are different people with different cultures and different ways of life. I doubt americans want to live like mexican, or that mexicans could easily adapt to living like americans.

Probably not easily. But it goes to show that such an adaption already happened elsewhere, that it is possible to live and grow under a wide range of different conditions. That makes it a proven fact that things can go well under different conditions.

On the other hand, the amount of change that will happen, the consequences that may arrive from that, what effects of our efforts to tweak that will have, etc., all that is just speculation at this point. No proven, hard facts there. Only that climate will change, and that we contribute to that. And even with that, only the former is really sure, because for the latter we still don't really know how much effect out contribution really has. Again, that is shown by the predictions that year after year have to be revised towards the "lower impact" end.

Nature has no rules, it just is. If we want to change the environment so that it's not necessary to adapt, who is anyone to say we shouldn't? And if we want to avoid changing the environment for that same purpose, again, why shouldn't we do so?

Because we simply do not have the power to do that. Despite of what many humans think they can do or what they are, we are just some evolutionary branch that came to be and will go away one day. We simply do not have the means nor the "importance" to control this planet and it's climate.

All we can do is oh-so-slightly change it. Simply us being here and breathing will change the climate in the long run, no need for industry or other fancy stuff. The only way to make sure that we don't have any impact on this planet anymore is to go extinct right now. But i'm pretty sure that this is not what you have in mind.

Again, things _will_ change, no matter what we do. In the grand scheme of things we only have very, very little power to make any meaningful changes. At least not given the fact that no one has absolute power and control over what people do.

But again, this is my opinion, and i'm happy that others have a different one. I'm simply tired of chasing some magic dragon that we will never be able to catch anyways, no matter how close we think we came to it this time. It's already costing us (and thus, me) large sums of money. Thrown away for little to no effect at all. While workable plans to cope with certain changes are pretty much non-existent.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

And just to give you some idea why i think its pretty fruitless, here's an excerpt about CO2 emission changes over the past years that was presented in the news:



Mind you, India and China is just starting their growth.

Here you can see those trends as published by PBL Netherlands.

Look at the very, very small dent "we" make by reducing CO2 emissions, compared to the really, really big increase caused by emerging/developing industry nations. And you can be sure that there is no chance in hell that they are going to give up their development plans.

Now put that in perspective to what achieving that miniscule dent has already costs us. Then think about where a lot of our stuff (electronics, white goods, etc.) come from nowdays. I would say that it is pretty hypocritical to claim that we reduced anything at all, while at the same time we produce less stuff locally and instead import more and more from those countries. Because in the end that just means that what we consume and use doesn't produce CO2 locally anymore during production, we simply shifted that output to some countries elsewhere. But of course that tactic makes it easy to point at some country and claim "You are bad! You increase CO2 emissions! Look at us, we do the right thing and decrease them! Shame on you!"

And those trends also show something else, more or less indirectly: Over a decade ago until now i see prediction over prediction from so-called "climate scientists", which claim that even if we would stop increasing emissions, and would freeze the level at the current output, climate would change in this or that way, temperature would rise by so-and-so many degrees, etc. But the reality is that emissions have increased and increased, and the changes were not even remotely as much as predicted if that increase in emission never happened.

That simply makes no sense anymore. There is no reason for me to believe all that any longer, at least not to the extent they want to sell me that crap. It only shows that their models are faulty at best, and that all they do boils down to guesswork which so far has been proven wrong over and over again when it comes to their "predictions".

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Roboramma]

The point is that aiming for some arbitrary global "only optimal temperature" is nonsense, since there is no such thing as a single temperature for the whole planet. It varies greatly from place to place, with nature (including humans) being used to that already.

But no one has ever suggested someone making the whole world the same temperature. That wouldn't even be possible, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. Maintaining the current average global temperature is what's talked about, or at least limiting that average getting too high, and that means negating, as much as possible, climate change everywhere, it certainly doesn't mean making things hotter in one place and colder in another.

I don't really have any idea where you got the idea that someone was suggesting doing anything other than maintaining the status quo with respect to global climate.

It will change anyways. There is no way around that. We need to adapt ourselves and our strategies anyways. It is pretty much impossible to have the world agree on what to do about emissions. A lot of countries have emerging industries, growth, etc. They simply can not afford to implement our fancy "save the climate" ideas. They will do what they want to do anyways. And there are _lots_ of them, and some are really, really big, like China. Sure, we can throw bunches of money to reduce our emissions locally by some few tons. But that doesn't have any real effect at all as long as those other countries increase their emissions many times over. Just China alone has increased theirs by over 100%. And they are just beginning!

Well, emissions will level off at some point: we'll run out of fossil fuels (or they'll become too expensive relative to other alternatives). Personally I think improvements in technology can get us to lower emissions before we get to that point.
I think nuclear is the only technology that really has the potential to do that on the scale required, however.

As for change will happen: I'm with you on that front, unless we start doing some major geoengineering. Apparently it can be done relatively cheaply, and as I see it you don't need a global consensus, although I admit that one country unilaterally undertaking that sort of project has it's own problems.

 

[Christian Klippel]

But no one has ever suggested someone making the whole world the same temperature. That wouldn't even be possible, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. Maintaining the current average global temperature is what's talked about, or at least limiting that average getting too high, and that means negating, as much as possible, climate change everywhere, it certainly doesn't mean making things hotter in one place and colder in another.

I don't really have any idea where you got the idea that someone was suggesting doing anything other than maintaining the status quo with respect to global climate.

But thats the thing, in my opinion. A global average is just that: a global average. It says absolutely nothing about local temperatures for each country. Maintaining that average also includes, by definition of the word average, making one place colder and the other one warmer.

What they really mean, i think, is to keep up the status quo of the temperature profiles around the globe, place by place. Either way, it's not going to happen, it will change one way or the other, and there is simply nothing we can really do about that. It has happened many, many times before, without us, it happens now, and it will continue to happen in the future.

But as already said, this is just my opinion.

Well, emissions will level off at some point: we'll run out of fossil fuels (or they'll become too expensive relative to other alternatives). Personally I think improvements in technology can get us to lower emissions before we get to that point.
I think nuclear is the only technology that really has the potential to do that on the scale required, however.

That's certainly true. I'm inclined to think that no matter what, all of the fossil fuel resources _will_ be used up at some point anyways. We may slow down that usage, but i'm sure that we can't stop it until its all used up. Which in turn would also mean that sooner or later, the final outcome would be the same, more or less. I don't see a difference between burning up one ton of coal per year for ten years, or burning up 10 tons of the same coal in one year.

That is why i think the effort and money is better spent in developing and implementing strategies to cope with that situation, because it inevitably will occur.

And yes, i also think that nuclear is pretty much the only option to slow that process down. Probably not avoid it altogether, just slow it down "enough".

But then, stupid things happen, like in Germany, where due to some stupid panic reaction they shut down the nukes, replacing them with the dirtiest way of producing energy from coal. Which in turn is causing us to miss our "climate protection goals" by a long shot, effectively nullifying all the efforts that we have put into that protection so far. In other words: We pretty much have burned a lot of money and economy for nothing.

As for change will happen: I'm with you on that front, unless we start doing some major geoengineering. Apparently it can be done relatively cheaply, and as I see it you don't need a global consensus, although I admit that one country unilaterally undertaking that sort of project has it's own problems.

True. But then the next question is what the effects of such geoengineering would be in the mid- to long-run. On paper it looks all nice, but so far it has never be done on a big scale, and no one can know what impact it will have. In the worst case we may be able to "improve" the global climate for a while, until it completely collapses because of some unforeseen side effects. On the other hand we may be able to create our very own version of a paradise that will last for a very, very long time. Not sure if anyone is willing to take that risk.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Furcifer]

Before this gets too far off topic and merged with the AGW thread it's important to note Canada has had less heating degree days and record crops in the past 30 years. Apparently, at least for Canada change is looking good.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You know you're dealing with towering intellects when people quote dead comedians as a response to complex policy issues. Real towering intellects

You don't want to talk about policy either. You are the one crying that we have ten years left to save the world. There's only one or two countries in the world that have almost completely eliminated carbon based generation from their public grids and both have done it through heavy reliance on nuclear (France @ 80% nuclear and Sweden @ 45% nuclear/40% hydro).

France built 56 nuclear reactors in 15 years under a policy that all but ignored the basic principles of democracy. With the time scale provided and the level of action needed, you have effectively been calling for another Messmer Plan while at the same time rejecting any suggestion that we repeat the success of the Messmer Plan.

 

[Furcifer]

France built 56 nuclear reactors in 15 years under a policy that all but ignored the basic principles of democracy. With the time scale provided and the level of action needed, you have effectively been calling for another Messmer Plan while at the same time rejecting any suggestion that we repeat the success of the Messmer Plan.

I don't know much about the history of nuclear in France, but it looks like they took the opportunity to capitalize on people's fears of an energy crisis.

Lacking some catalyzing event like that I don't see you getting this pushed through the senate anytime soon.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I don't know much about the history of nuclear in France, but it looks like they took the opportunity to capitalize on people's fears of an energy crisis.

Lacking some catalyzing event like that I don't see you getting this pushed through the senate anytime soon.

I agree with you.

I've also said before that a real push towards nuclear might take a "catalyzing event" or even a series of them.

Public memory of the California energy crisis of 2000-2001, the 3-day New York/Ontario blackout of 2003 and the summer of 2008 which saw oil go from 80$ a barrel to 140$+ may have been obscured by things like 9/11 and the current recession, but if similar events occurred again, we would see a well primed political climate for another Messmer Plan.

 

[Roboramma]

I agree with you.

I've also said before that a real push towards nuclear might take a "catalyzing event" or even a series of them.

Public memory of the California energy crisis of 2000-2001, the 3-day New York/Ontario blackout of 2003 and the summer of 2008 which saw oil go from 80$ a barrel to 140$+ may have been obscured by things like 9/11 and the current recession, but if similar events occurred again, we would see a well primed political climate for another Messmer Plan.

Which is why I'm skeptical of things like "peak oil": we have a replacement technology, and even if their predictions take place, that is exactly the kind of "catalyzing event" that will help us to implement that technology.

If the worst predictions of global warming start to materialise that may also serve to put nuclear into a different light in the minds of many.

ETA: But it would be nice if we could get our **** together before things get bad, rather than during. We'll see, I suppose.

 

[Furcifer]

ETA: But it would be nice if we could get our **** together before things get bad, rather than during. We'll see, I suppose.

I think we are. I'm in Ontario and if I'm not mistaken the current plan is to phase out coal by 2015. I believe we currently have the capacity to meet demand without coal for something like 22 hours per day. That's not to shabby in my opinion. And I should remind people Ontario is home to about 1 in 3 Canadians.
Is it really any wonder we pulled out of Kyoto?

 

[Roboramma]

I think we are. I'm in Ontario and if I'm not mistaken the current plan is to phase out coal by 2015. I believe we currently have the capacity to meet demand without coal for something like 22 hours per day. That's not to shabby in my opinion. And I should remind people Ontario is home to about 1 in 3 Canadians.

The highlighted bit's not all that surprising considering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_in_Canada

Canada is the world's second largest producer of hydroelectricity in the world (after China), and one of few countries to generate the majority of its electricity from hydroelectricity (59% in 2006). In 2007, Canada produced 368.2 terawatt-hours of electricity using hydroelectric dams, 11.7% of all the hydroelectricity generated in the world.[1] Some provinces and territories, such as Quebec, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador and Yukon, produce over 90% of their electricity in this manner.

I can't find the number for Ontario's hydroelectric power as a proportion of total energy production, but I'm under the impression it's quite high.

But hydro doesn't have much room for growth. Anyway, the 2015 phasing out of coal would be wonderful. Do you know what's meant to take it's place?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm in Ontario and if I'm not mistaken the current plan is to phase out coal by 2015.

By "2015", I'm assuming you mean a quarter past 8:00 this evening (as written in 24 hour time).

Ontarios electricity generation for the last hour has been 10,000 MW nuclear, 3944 MW hydro, 2366 MW gas and only 196 MW coal.

You could "phase out" coal by telling Kitchener to go to bed a half hour early.

 

[Furcifer]

Anyway, the 2015 phasing out of coal would be wonderful. Do you know what's meant to take it's place?

Lambton, Nanticoke and Mississauga are to be converted to biomass or have the furnaces shutdown by 2014 or 2015. I believe these 19 units are the last in Ontario.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

But hydro doesn't have much room for growth. Anyway, the 2015 phasing out of coal would be wonderful. Do you know what's meant to take it's place?

The less than 200 megawatts of coal are being replaced by 4800 megawatts of new nuclear reactors:

An independent panel appointed by the Canadian government has concluded that the construction of up to four new reactors at the Darlington plant in Ontario is unlikely to cause adverse environmental effects. The government must now decide whether or not to allow the project to proceed.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) submitted its licence application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) in September 2006 for the construction of four new units at Darlington, adding up to 4800 MWe of generating capacity.​

 

[Furcifer]

By "2015", I'm assuming you mean a quarter past 8:00 this evening (as written in 24 hour time).

Ontarios electricity generation for the last hour has been 10,000 MW nuclear, 3944 MW hydro, 2366 MW gas and only 196 MW coal.

You could "phase out" coal by telling Kitchener to go to bed a half hour early.

I seem to recall someone saying it's only peak, peak hours we need coal. From like 4-6PM or 5-7PM, something like that.

Right now we're getting 196MW from coal and 309MW from wind. And of course a whopping 10049 from nuclear

Say what you will about Canada but that's an impressive energy profile

 

[Roboramma]

The less than 200 megawatts of coal are being replaced by 4800 megawatts of new nuclear reactors:

An independent panel appointed by the Canadian government has concluded that the construction of up to four new reactors at the Darlington plant in Ontario is unlikely to cause adverse environmental effects. The government must now decide whether or not to allow the project to proceed.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) submitted its licence application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) in September 2006 for the construction of four new units at Darlington, adding up to 4800 MWe of generating capacity.​

Cool, a definite step in the right direction.

 

[WildCat]

our species may very well not prosper in greenhouse earth conditions.

Of course we will, we've weathered far worse climate changes in the past.

 

[bit_pattern]

Of course we will, we've weathered far worse climate changes in the past.

Oh yeah, when exactly? If you want to 'survive' in a cave like the way we survived the ice age then you can go off and live in a cave while the rest of us do something about trying to maintain some semblance of the stable climactic conditions that endured throughout the Holocene and in which the entire sum total of human civilisation evolved within. How do you feed 7 billion people when you change the environment in which our staple crops are adapted to? It's meaningless to say 'we' have survived anything. Our progenitors that survived the ice age were very different people to what we are today.