‘Bob’ wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:18 pm
Kosiw wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 7:04 pm
You ever been to Resolute Bay or Kugaaruk in January ?
No.
And neither had anyone else until they were made permanent settlements for DEW line workers and the forced relocations of Inuit a mere 60 years ago.
As for the original issue. Im not that concerned. I think GA probably had a rosier outlook than most because it is far closer to electrification than the rest of aviation is.
Personally I think we will see fossil fuel powered airliners for a long time unless we could find a different source of power like fusion or even fission, but people likely wouldn’t go for it. Hydrogen power from excess renewable power would be a good step away from fossil fuels.
Mass air travel per person doesn’t produce as much CO2 as driving by car. But expect by the ton pricing to increase making not as much difference on an airline ticket as it will to charter or fly your own private jet. Emissions are mostly during ground and taxi. They can easily be reduced by electrifying the wheels and shore power instead of constantly running APUs.
No… the big targets will be personal transportation. Cars are by far the worst offenders and we are at the cusp of being able to replace them with electric vehicles en mass.
Unfortunately the elites need to set an example. In the pandemic era of quarantine and virtual meetings, there was absolutely zero reason for all of our leaders to fly their private jets to Scotland to talk about climate change. Something like an Oculus VR headset can even give you an immersive and interactive experience.
But regardless, whataboutism is a tired fallacy. Whenever I hear it I imagine it being spoken by a 7 year old trying to rationalize bad behaviour or negotiate a later bedtime. We need to do something.
Before yet more far right political demagogues are forced to back pedal yet-again against the anti-science rhetoric that won their votes….. in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that is literally killing their base.
Remember how I told you that the Climate scare was a scam. But people believed Bob again and became poorer for it. At least we are finally changing things on the energy front. As one headline read....Europe seems determined to sabotage their economies. I feel sorry for the thoughtful people in the UK and western Europe(and elsewhere).........
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... r-AA23DTla
Mark Carney’s (climate) tragedy of the horizon no longer exists
Green activists and their political representatives such as former Liberal environment minister Steven Guilbault are metaphorically marching on Parliament Hill over Prime Minister Mark Carney’s indisputable about-face away from hard-line climate policies. By agreeing to promote pipelines and delay the $130/tonne corporate carbon price until 2040, the head of Climate Action Network Canada said the PM is “taking a sledgehammer to one of the last remaining pillars of Canada’s climate plan.”
Climate control advocates had better get used to falling policy pillars, in part because science pillars are also crumbling, including one that has helped elevate global warming and carbon emissions to the top of the Canadian political agenda. In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a range of estimates on the future impact of climate change, including an alarming warning that the planet could hit killer temperature increases by 2100. The scenario projection — known as RCP8.5 — estimated that temperatures could rise by up to 4.5 degrees above average by the end of the century. If the path to RCP8.5 was not stopped, the Earth would face a deadly climate catastrophe.
A newly released research paper by the European Geosciences Union that will form a basis for a new IPCC set of climate scenarios to be published by 2029 concludes that the RCP8.5 scenario is “implausible” and therefore unusable. “For the 21st century, this range will be smaller than assessed before” and the high emission levels “have become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.”
That conclusion prompted Roger Pielke Jr., a U.S. climate science policy researcher and critic, to declare that “RCP8.5 is officially dead,” dealing a serious blow to the climate movement that has been using the gloom scenario to stir up political anxiety around the world. Since the RCP8.5 scenario’s launch a decade ago, it has been labelled the “business as usual” scenario.
Pielke and Canadian researcher Justin Ritchie have been attacking RCP8.5 for some time. Ritchie, an Adjunct Professor at the University of British Columbia’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, produced a paper in 2017 that put down the doom scenario due to its reliance on an illogical premise that the world would be forced to dramatically expand coal production through to 2100. Ritchie concluded such coal dependency was “exceptionally unlikely.” Therefore, RCP8.5 was undependable as a basis for future science research and climate policy.
Neither Ritchie nor Pielke are climate deniers, but they are consistent in their insistence on scientific rigour they see as lacking in the official climate scenarios produced as part of the United Nations’ IPCC science system. Even the original IPCC scenario reports, which covered six emission levels leading to a range of temperature gains between 1.5 to 4 C by 2100, warned that the scenarios “cannot be treated as a set with consistent internal logic” and the RCP8.5 scenario “cannot be used as a no-climate-policy reference scenario for the other RCPs [Representative Concentration Pathways].”
That warning has been comprehensively ignored over the years, especially by activists but also by politicians around the globe, including Prime Minister Mark Carney.
One year after the 2014 IPCC released the official extreme RCP8.5 climate risk scenario, Carney (then head of the Bank of England) delivered one of his celebrity speeches , this one titled “Breaking the Tragedy of the Horizon: Climate Change and Financial Stability.” The tragedy of course refers to the looming climate crisis that creates a need for massive financial industry and corporate adjustment to deal with the challenge.
The corporate climate bandwagon was a big deal in 2014, with Carney backing U.S. executives such as Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Henry Paulson, George Shultz and other members of the Risky Business Project, which claimed the extreme RCP8.5 scenario represented a “business as usual” forecast that demanded action. Without action, American food, water, political and financial systems would be at risk. By implication, so would Canada’s systems.
The U.S. Risky Business Project ended operations in 2016, but the myth of RCP8.5 continued to attract Carney. In his 2021 book, the 450-page Value(s) , Carney outlined his plan for reshaping the global carbon economy with a specific reference to RCP8.5 projections. The world is on track for 2.6 C by the end of the century, he said, “and there is little to suggest at this stage that the planet is not headed for up 4.C warmer,” i.e. RCP8.5.
Actually, there was a lot to suggest the 4 C scenario was trouble. Carney obviously has paid little attention to the science behind his statements, neither as it was presented by the IPCC or as revealed by critics such as Pielke and Ritchie — and others. Although maybe Carney’s views are changing.
