Climate Change Thread

[UnkNuk]

Canada tops China in global rankings for battery supply chains, research firm says

 

Canada dethroned China last year as the world’s most promising jurisdiction for manufacturing lithium-ion batteries such as those used in electric vehicles, according to a global ranking released Monday.

 

While Canada produces barely any batteries today, BloombergNEF, a research organization focused on low-carbon technologies and commodity markets, singled it out as the best placed of the 30 countries it monitors to participate in future global battery supply chains. The strength of its raw materials sector, recently announced large cell manufacturing plants, and rising domestic demand for batteries all helped push Canada ahead.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canada-china-lithium-batteries/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Morning Update&utm_content=2024-2-5_7&utm_term=Morning Update%3A India won’t assist probe into Sikh activist’s slaying until it sees evidence%2C High Commissioner says&utm_campaign=newsletter&cu_id=t7%2BP3rI%2Bt%2FYx5Iui%2B6yRZxVYYZ6TE%2BGK

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

A good read that raises important points:

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/02/08/Canada-Daunting-Path-Net-Zero-Carbon/

 

Excerpts:

Quote

Hughes, a geoscientist and resident of Cortes Island, looked at what changes are needed in the nation’s energy mix to meet that goal. He found that the scale of change is mind-boggling. Moreover, the transition to net zero by 2050 hasn’t really begun yet.

 

According to recent projections by the Canada Energy Regulator, or CER, industry will have to:

 

• scale up wind and solar production by more than 10 times;
• increase controversial carbon capture and storage by 34 to 39 times;
• beef up direct air capture (a nascent technology) by 4,600 to 5,500 times its current world capacity;
• increase hydrogen production to 12 per cent of energy supply from nearly nothing;
• nearly triple nuclear power;
• reduce per capita energy consumption by up to 40 per cent;
• decrease fossil fuel production by up to 70 per cent; and
• triple the ability of Canadian forests to sequester carbon.

Quote

To add to the challenge, by Hughes’ analysis the Canada Energy Regulator projections include a whole bunch of questionable assumptions, and they do not mention real-life obstacles such as crumbling supply chains, populist politics, incompetent elites, technological disruptions, metal shortages for renewables and global inflation.

 

Future projections also ignore the open resistance by Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are dependent on fossil fuel revenue, to any substantive change in the energy mix.

 

Hughes said he wrote the report for one reason: “My objective is to provide policymakers and the public with an understanding of the scale of the problem so they can appreciate the scale that any solution is going to have to take. Only with understanding and buy-in can the necessary changes be implemented.”

 

He also wanted to put the math all in one place for people for easy reference.

Quote

Fossil fuel consumption drives economic and human population growth. As Hughes notes, half of the oil consumed by humans has been burned in the past 27 years; half of the gas in the past 21 years; and half of the coal in the past 37 years. Since 1800, annual energy consumption has increased 32 times.

 

Meanwhile population has increased eight times and gross domestic product or GDP has increased 114 times. Clouds of carbon emissions have increased 1,321 times.

 

As a result, half of the world’s 1.77 trillion tonnes of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have been released in the past 30 years. Fourteen per cent have been emitted since the landmark Paris Agreement of 2015. Per capita energy consumption has also increased 3.9 times since 1800 due to the rapid growth in consumption of fossil fuels.

 

To date, renewables haven’t made much of a dent in energy consumption or per capita fossil fuel use, notes Hughes. Renewables have “only served to increase overall energy consumption.” In 2022 fossil fuels still accounted for 82.9 per cent of total world energy consumption.

Quote

The next big if concerns controversial carbon capture and underground storage, or CCS — the building of facilities to capture and bury carbon under the ground for thousands of years. Even the International Energy Agency admits “the history of CCS has largely been one of unmet expectations. Progress has been slow and deployment relatively flat for years. The current level of annual CO2 capture of 45 megatons represents only 0.1 per cent of total annual energy sector emissions.”

 

According to the CER’s net-zero scenarios, industry would have to add 1.5 to 1.8 times Canada’s total current CCS capacity every year from now until 2050. Hughes doesn’t think that’s desirable or realistic.

 

Why not reduce dependence on fossil fuel even more instead? he asks.

 

Direct air capture raises similar problems. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently called the infant technology dangerous and stupid.

 

“Unlike other climate technologies, the only way to make air capture a business is with oil production and perpetual giant subsidies. Misallocating resources to air capture makes the planet hotter. The only winners are the recipients of the subsidies and the builders of the boondoggles,” say the authors.

Quote

Canadian forests cannot triple their ability to sequester carbon (as the Canada Energy Regulator’s scenarios envision) without major changes in industrial practices. As Hughes reports, they have become major carbon emitters, not sinks.

 

The carbon released from last year’s wildfires exceeded the country’s total GHG emissions. “Clearcuts replaced with combustible monocrops” have compromised the ability of forests to capture carbon from the air, reports Hughes.

 

Lastly, Canadians will have to use much less energy to prevent an acceleration of the climate crisis. And that means an end to economic growth.

 

“Mother Nature has other priorities,” Hughes told the Tyee. “We are going to have to accept contraction, unfortunately. It has been a slice. But the math does not work for continuous growth.”

 

[The Arrogant Worms]

Critical Atlantic Ocean current system is showing early signs of collapse, prompting warning from scientists

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/09/climate/atlantic-circulation-collapse-weather-climate/index.html

 

 

[4petesake]

On 2/8/2024 at 1:46 PM, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

A good read that raises important points:

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/02/08/Canada-Daunting-Path-Net-Zero-Carbon/

 

Excerpts:

 

Here we are in the early days of February and we have 92 active wildfires in BC with 88 of them in the Prince George region. It seems that even PG winters are no longer enough to snuff out holdover fires.

 

https://www.myprincegeorgenow.com/191747/featured/88-wildfires-remain-active-says-prince-george-fire-centre/

 

[Boudrias]

Interesting Wall Street Journal article. Sorry no link. Gist was that EV transition is stalling. EV registration down 29%. Hybrid registration down 35%. USA numbers I assume. The article says both the USA and Canada are reducing subsidies for car purchases. Stated that millions of EV cars have been abandoned in China. Pictures of parking areas full of EV cars. Stated that Canada had subsidized EV battery production by $36 Billion and that car purchases by $5000 per unit. I live in a rural area so I do not see many EV's. A friend has a Tesla and loves it. But everytime he needs a upgrade or repair it is a 5 hour drive to Kelowna. 

 

Michael Mann the climate scientist who's cred was questioned ( the hockey stick ) has won a defamation lawsuit against Mark Steyn and the National Review to the tune of $1,000,000. Good on him for defending himself in court. Unlike the NDP I don't believe those who question global warming should be muzzled by law. Only by evolving the level of knowledge will any consensus by developed. Sometimes that means legal action in the courts.   

[Alflives]

54 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Interesting Wall Street Journal article. Sorry no link. Gist was that EV transition is stalling. EV registration down 29%. Hybrid registration down 35%. USA numbers I assume. The article says both the USA and Canada are reducing subsidies for car purchases. Stated that millions of EV cars have been abandoned in China. Pictures of parking areas full of EV cars. Stated that Canada had subsidized EV battery production by $36 Billion and that car purchases by $5000 per unit. I live in a rural area so I do not see many EV's. A friend has a Tesla and loves it. But everytime he needs a upgrade or repair it is a 5 hour drive to Kelowna. 

 

Michael Mann the climate scientist who's cred was questioned ( the hockey stick ) has won a defamation lawsuit against Mark Steyn and the National Review to the tune of $1,000,000. Good on him for defending himself in court. Unlike the NDP I don't believe those who question global warming should be muzzled by law. Only by evolving the level of knowledge will any consensus by developed. Sometimes that means legal action in the courts.   

Climate is certainly changing and we (people) are making it happen way faster than it would naturally. But having these EV’s isn’t going to make a bit of difference. They are such a scam. Better to improve transit. Spend the money on that. Get people out of cars and trucks that don’t really need to drive. People living in big cities, that have good transit, shouldn’t even need to drive much. 

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Climate is certainly changing and we (people) are making it happen way faster than it would naturally. But having these EV’s isn’t going to make a bit of difference. They are such a scam. Better to improve transit. Spend the money on that. Get people out of cars and trucks that don’t really need to drive. People living in big cities, that have good transit, shouldn’t even need to drive much. 

 

unfortunately we really don't like to invest in proper transit. Its ridiculous that there isn't a train line running down the #1 from Hope to Vancouver by now, e.g. Look at the incredible amount of whining and nimbyism just to get a skytrain to UBC, and its not even going the whole way. 

 

I drive the sea to sky several times per week, I shake my head that there isn't a proper train to whistler, e.g. So many other places in Europe and Japan have transit to its major sites like this, but us? nope car is king. 

 

Edited February 10 by Bob Long

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

unfortunately we really don't like to invest in proper transit. Its ridiculous that there isn't a train line running down the #1 from Hope to Vancouver by now, e.g. Look at the incredible amount of whining and nimbyism just to get a skytrain to UBC, and its not even going the whole way. 

 

I drive the sea to sky several times per week, I shake my head that there isn't a proper train to whistler, e.g. So many other places in Europe and Japan have transit to its major sites like this, but us? nope car is king. 

 

 

There's also a beancounter mentality that's preventing infrastructure projects like rail and reliable meaningful public transit from happening.  Because our population is too small in the city centres and too spread out outside them, and the distances to cover are so large and geographically challenging, we don't have the critical mass to be able to justify funding these infrastructure asks.

 

Try selling a rail project costing in the billions to shuttle people from the coast to the mountains, when ridership would likely only be 20-30% of seating capacity if more frequent than daily outside of holiday / tourist season.  If public funds were used, taxpayer organizations would have a field day with the governments involved; if it was a private endeavour, it would be priced outside of most local residents' range of affordability.

 

And that's not even taking into account nimbyism.

[Bob Long]

23 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

There's also a beancounter mentality that's preventing infrastructure projects like rail and reliable meaningful public transit from happening.  Because our population is too small in the city centres and too spread out outside them, and the distances to cover are so large and geographically challenging, we don't have the critical mass to be able to justify funding these infrastructure asks.

 

Try selling a rail project costing in the billions to shuttle people from the coast to the mountains, when ridership would likely only be 20-30% of seating capacity if more frequent than daily outside of holiday / tourist season.  If public funds were used, taxpayer organizations would have a field day with the governments involved; if it was a private endeavour, it would be priced outside of most local residents' range of affordability.

 

And that's not even taking into account nimbyism.

 

It is a bean counter mentality, sadly. The bean counters shouldn't be allowed anywhere near strategic planning other than to answer basic cost questions.

 

There's no thought at all about the potential for new homes by stations e.g. up the sea to sky, or east down the #1.

 

We'll probably just have to wait for self driving EVs.

[Alflives]

29 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

There's also a beancounter mentality that's preventing infrastructure projects like rail and reliable meaningful public transit from happening.  Because our population is too small in the city centres and too spread out outside them, and the distances to cover are so large and geographically challenging, we don't have the critical mass to be able to justify funding these infrastructure asks.

 

Try selling a rail project costing in the billions to shuttle people from the coast to the mountains, when ridership would likely only be 20-30% of seating capacity if more frequent than daily outside of holiday / tourist season.  If public funds were used, taxpayer organizations would have a field day with the governments involved; if it was a private endeavour, it would be priced outside of most local residents' range of affordability.

 

And that's not even taking into account nimbyism.

Where are these “beanie baby’s” when government is subsidizing EVs in the billions? Those (wasted) billions would have been much better used, to help with our effect on climate change, building transit infrastructure.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

46 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

It is a bean counter mentality, sadly. The bean counters shouldn't be allowed anywhere near strategic planning other than to answer basic cost questions.

 

There's no thought at all about the potential for new homes by stations e.g. up the sea to sky, or east down the #1.

 

We'll probably just have to wait for self driving EVs.

 

But it's not specifically beancounters though - it's the mentality.  And that mentality impacts the political decisions, because the electorate would be the ones weighing the cost of additional taxes or high fares against the convenience of another mode of travel.  Good luck running an election campaign on promises of major infrastructure projects that result in significantly increased taxes for decades - it's political suicide.

[aGENT]

37 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

But it's not specifically beancounters though - it's the mentality.  And that mentality impacts the political decisions, because the electorate would be the ones weighing the cost of additional taxes or high fares against the convenience of another mode of travel.  Good luck running an election campaign on promises of major infrastructure projects that result in significantly increased taxes for decades - it's political suicide.

How did/does much of Europe do it? It's astronomically expensive to own and drive a car in most European countries, especially major cities. They have excellent transit and train systems. Their voters didn't seem to revolt. Just public mentality?

[Bob Long]

56 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

But it's not specifically beancounters though - it's the mentality.  And that mentality impacts the political decisions, because the electorate would be the ones weighing the cost of additional taxes or high fares against the convenience of another mode of travel.  Good luck running an election campaign on promises of major infrastructure projects that result in significantly increased taxes for decades - it's political suicide.

 

Nah, we just need leaders with balls and vision who aren't afraid of development.

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Nah, we just need leaders with balls and vision who aren't afraid of development.

An educated, rational electorate focused on long term welfare would help... I'm not encouraged by current, emotional polling numbers.

[Boudrias]

24 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Nah, we just need leaders with balls and vision who aren't afraid of development.

Discounting 'bean counters' won't get you anywhere. You cannot listen to news today without hearing stories of people who cannot afford to make ends meet. The debt service charges at all levels of government will likely exceed $100 billion in 2024. The 'bean counters' will ask where is the money coming from? Hard decisions require good planning before they are made. We are at a point now where the credit card is being declined. Unfortunately to many people think this cannot happen. In the USA there are questions about how much American debt will be bought as their bonds roll over. 

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

Discounting 'bean counters' won't get you anywhere. You cannot listen to news today without hearing stories of people who cannot afford to make ends meet. The debt service charges at all levels of government will likely exceed $100 billion in 2024. The 'bean counters' will ask where is the money coming from? Hard decisions require good planning before they are made. We are at a point now where the credit card is being declined. Unfortunately to many people think this cannot happen. In the USA there are questions about how much American debt will be bought as their bonds roll over. 

 

We need more homes and development. Having much better public transportation is key to that, for people who want to live in major cities.

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

An educated, rational electorate

 

[UnkNuk]

It'd be interesting to know how much money people in Greater Vancouver spend in total on auto transportation - the price of the cars, the insurance, the gas, the repairs.

 

And then see what kind of rapid transit system that amount would buy.

[Spur1]

49 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

It'd be interesting to know how much money people in Greater Vancouver spend in total on auto transportation - the price of the cars, the insurance, the gas, the repairs.

 

And then see what kind of rapid transit system that amount would buy.

I ball parked it at $250,000,000,000 for the lower mainland per year. 

Edited February 11 by Spur1

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

12 hours ago, aGENT said:

How did/does much of Europe do it? It's astronomically expensive to own and drive a car in most European countries, especially major cities. They have excellent transit and train systems. Their voters didn't seem to revolt. Just public mentality?

 

Critical mass is a huge factor.  BC's geographic footprint (topography aside) is approximately the same as France and Germany combined but the present population of F&G is about 30x that of BC.  If car ownership there was as pervasive as it is here now, I'm sure all the major cities would be stuck in gridlock most days of the week.

 

They also have the unique situation of having a lot of their major city infrastructure bombed out about 80 years ago after years of war, so I would think a good chunk of it had to be rebuilt.  But it's primarily due to population density and starting early - we've built on the concept of sprawl, because our population (and population density) has historically been significantly less than that of Europe.  When the Europeans were building their first subway systems in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the combined population of France and Germany was in the 100 million people range; BC's population was about 150k to 200k; postwar (ie. before 1950ish), the populations were 105 million vs. around 1 million respectively.  Even now, it's around 150 million vs. just over 5 million.  They've always had the incentive to build good and efficient transit/train systems - otherwise, people really wouldn't be able to get around easily.

 

Same idea for Asia.  In HK, the footprint is about the same as the Metro Vancouver area, but the population in HK is about 3x that of Metro Vancouver.  BC's area is about 2.5x that of Japan, but Japan's population is 25x that of BC.  As with Europe, the sheer population density makes it necessary to build efficient and pervasive transit networks.

[Ilunga]

" Atlantic Ocean circulation nearing ' devastating ' tipping point study finds "

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/atlantic-ocean-circulation-nearing-devastating-tipping-point-study-finds

 

" Using computer models and past data, the researchers developed an early warning indicator for the breakdown of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), a vast system of ocean currents that is a key component in global climate regulation. "

 

 

 

On another note being an old ski-bum my google " feed" has been flooding me with articles about how shitty the Northern Hemisphere winter has been in regards to snowfall in so many places.

 

Those predictions of 30 odd years ago are coming to pass.

 

[WeneedLumme]

7 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Critical mass is a huge factor.  BC's geographic footprint (topography aside) is approximately the same as France and Germany combined but the present population of F&G is about 30x that of BC.  If car ownership there was as pervasive as it is here now, I'm sure all the major cities would be stuck in gridlock most days of the week.

 

They also have the unique situation of having a lot of their major city infrastructure bombed out about 80 years ago after years of war, so I would think a good chunk of it had to be rebuilt.  But it's primarily due to population density and starting early - we've built on the concept of sprawl, because our population (and population density) has historically been significantly less than that of Europe.  When the Europeans were building their first subway systems in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the combined population of France and Germany was in the 100 million people range; BC's population was about 150k to 200k; postwar (ie. before 1950ish), the populations were 105 million vs. around 1 million respectively.  Even now, it's around 150 million vs. just over 5 million.  They've always had the incentive to build good and efficient transit/train systems - otherwise, people really wouldn't be able to get around easily.

 

Same idea for Asia.  In HK, the footprint is about the same as the Metro Vancouver area, but the population in HK is about 3x that of Metro Vancouver.  BC's area is about 2.5x that of Japan, but Japan's population is 25x that of BC.  As with Europe, the sheer population density makes it necessary to build efficient and pervasive transit networks.

Absolutely right. A lot of the hardcore "kill the internal combustion engine" types live in high density areas and can't or won't imagine what it's like for anyone living in lower density locations where public transit and BEVs are not practical.

[aGENT]

10 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Critical mass is a huge factor.  BC's geographic footprint (topography aside) is approximately the same as France and Germany combined but the present population of F&G is about 30x that of BC.  If car ownership there was as pervasive as it is here now, I'm sure all the major cities would be stuck in gridlock most days of the week.

 

They also have the unique situation of having a lot of their major city infrastructure bombed out about 80 years ago after years of war, so I would think a good chunk of it had to be rebuilt.  But it's primarily due to population density and starting early - we've built on the concept of sprawl, because our population (and population density) has historically been significantly less than that of Europe.  When the Europeans were building their first subway systems in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the combined population of France and Germany was in the 100 million people range; BC's population was about 150k to 200k; postwar (ie. before 1950ish), the populations were 105 million vs. around 1 million respectively.  Even now, it's around 150 million vs. just over 5 million.  They've always had the incentive to build good and efficient transit/train systems - otherwise, people really wouldn't be able to get around easily.

 

Same idea for Asia.  In HK, the footprint is about the same as the Metro Vancouver area, but the population in HK is about 3x that of Metro Vancouver.  BC's area is about 2.5x that of Japan, but Japan's population is 25x that of BC.  As with Europe, the sheer population density makes it necessary to build efficient and pervasive transit networks.

 

I get that... But we should be able to make this work (better then we are anyway) in population dense areas like greater Vancouver/lower mainland, right?

 

I'd also have to think that high speed rail between the major southern cities across Canada could put a serious dent in wasteful air travel, as well as benefits in cargo movement.

 

Beyond that, I was more referring to the public seemingly being more on board with paying higher taxes, for better public infrastructure. A LOT of people here seem to loath the idea.

 

We can see it works well elsewhere, why is there SO much resistance here?

Edited February 11 by aGENT

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

50 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

I get that... But we should be able to make this work (better then we are anyway) in population dense areas like greater Vancouver/lower mainland, right?

 

I'd also have to think that high speed rail between the major southern cities across Canada could put a serious dent in wasteful air travel, as well as benefits in cargo movement.

 

Beyond that, I was more referring to the public seemingly being more on board with paying higher taxes, for better public infrastructure. A LOT of people here seem to loath the idea.

 

We can see it works well elsewhere, why is there SO much resistance here?

 

Trust me, I'm fully in agreement with your sentiment.  The problem is with the short term nature of governments and the long term (and huge cost) involved with such infrastructure projects.  Nobody wants to stick their political neck out to push these types of projects through legislature/parliament, because the potential outcome could be decimation come election day.

 

The Quebec City-Windsor corridor is the most densely populated segment of Canada, and the best they can do is "high frequency trains", not even high speed rail (because they don't own much of the tracks, and it's political suicide to start expropriating land to build such a priority right-of-way).  If QC-W can't do it, for us with a set of mountains between here on the coast and anywhere outside of our province, it's even less likely we'll get anything for east-west southern Canada travel.

 

Many are the years where I've sent a salty comment to Via Rail during their annual report period (when they ask the public for feedback) about the lack of meaningful rail in western Canada.  Sadly, I also recognize the financial aspect (ie. in the long run, political will) of it is what prevents them from doing anything.

[The Arrogant Worms]

'Cliff-like' collapse of Atlantic currents more likely than thought: study

A study published Friday warned that a systemic collapse of the Atlantic Ocean currents driving warm water from the tropics toward Europe could be more likely than researchers previously estimated—an event that would send temperatures plummeting in much of the continent.

 

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which includes the Gulf Stream, could be headed for a relatively sudden shutdown that René Van Western, who led the Dutch study published in Science Advances, called "cliff-like."

 

"We are heading towards a tipping point."

 

For many millennia, the Gulf Stream has carried warm waters from the Gulf of Mexico northward along the eastern North American seaboard and across the Atlantic to Europe.

 

As human-caused global heating melts the Greenland ice sheet, massive quantities of fresh water are released into the North Atlantic, cooling the AMOC—which delivers the bulk of the Gulf Stream's heat—toward a "tipping point" that could stop the current in its tracks.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/cliff-like-collapse-of-atlantic-currents-more-likely-than-thought-study/