Canadian company can solve man made climate change, no carbon taxes or useless wind and solar required

[Anonymous]

Companies like Opus-12, Mitsui Chemicals, Carbon Recycling International, Dioxide Materials, and Carbon Electrocatalytic Recycling Toronto are all making good progress toward commercialization of captured C02. We could drastically reduce C02 emissions and wasting hundreds of billions of dollar on new transportation and building infrastructure.

[Anonymous]

Catalytic converters have been around for a few decades. I find it hard to believe something to capture or scrub C02 can't be on everu vehicle.

[Anonymous]

Carbon dioxide catcher



Bill Gates is keeping a close eye on the field of carbon dioxide capture as well. Like next generation nuclear power and cow-free burgers, this emerging technology is likely to be one of our most effective weapons in the battle against climate change. Technologies that literally suck the greenhouse gas out of the air could make a real difference.



A number of carbon dioxide-catching plants are already open or slated to launch in the near future. They include Swiss firm Climeworks' facility, the first of its kind to extract the gas from the air and store it underground. Other facilities in Switzerland and the US will sell on the captured commodity to the drinks industry.



Gates predicts this to be widespread by 2024. I say Western countries will still milk taxpayers with carbon taxes and cash giveraways to useless wind and solar schemes.

[Thiel]

Catalytic converters have been around for a few decades. I find it hard to believe something to capture or scrub C02 can't be on everu vehicle.

We want to do things the hard way.

[Gaon]

Best way to fight climate change? Plant a trillion trees



This is by far — by thousands of times — the cheapest climate change solution, study co-author says



The most effective way to fight global warming is to plant lots of trees, a trillion of them, maybe more, according to a new study.



Swiss scientists also say that even with existing cities and farmland, there's enough space for new trees to cover nine million square kilometres, roughly the size of the United States.



The study calculated that over the decades, those new trees could suck up nearly 750 billion tonnes of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere — about as much carbon pollution as humans have spewed in the past 25 years.



Much of that benefit will come quickly because trees remove more carbon from the air when they are younger, the study authors said. The potential for removing the most carbon is in the tropics.



Canada has lots of room for trees

"This is by far — by thousands of times — the cheapest climate change solution" and the most effective, said study co-author Thomas Crowther, a climate change ecologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.



Russia, the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil and China have the most room for new trees, the report said.



Before his research, Crowther figured there were other more effective ways to fight climate change besides cutting emissions, such as people switching from eating meat to vegetarianism. But, he said, tree planting is far more effective because trees take so much carbon dioxide out of the air.



Thomas Lovejoy, a conservation biologist at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., who wasn't part of the study, called it "a good news story" because planting trees would also help stem the loss of biodiversity.



The researchers used Google Earth to see what areas could support more trees, while leaving room for people and crops. Lead author Jean-François Bastin estimated there's space for at least one trillion more trees, but it could be 1.5 trillion. That's on top of the three trillion trees now on Earth, according to earlier Crowther research.



The study's calculations make sense, said Chris Field, an environmental scientist at Stanford University in California who also wasn't part of the study.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree-planting-climate-change-1.5201102">https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree ... -1.5201102">https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree-planting-climate-change-1.5201102



This makes more sense than taxing essentials.

[Anonymous]

I read about the trillion tree plan.

[Anonymous]

Best way to fight climate change? Plant a trillion trees



This is by far — by thousands of times — the cheapest climate change solution, study co-author says



The most effective way to fight global warming is to plant lots of trees, a trillion of them, maybe more, according to a new study.



Swiss scientists also say that even with existing cities and farmland, there's enough space for new trees to cover nine million square kilometres, roughly the size of the United States.



The study calculated that over the decades, those new trees could suck up nearly 750 billion tonnes of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere — about as much carbon pollution as humans have spewed in the past 25 years.



Much of that benefit will come quickly because trees remove more carbon from the air when they are younger, the study authors said. The potential for removing the most carbon is in the tropics.



Canada has lots of room for trees

"This is by far — by thousands of times — the cheapest climate change solution" and the most effective, said study co-author Thomas Crowther, a climate change ecologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.



Russia, the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil and China have the most room for new trees, the report said.



Before his research, Crowther figured there were other more effective ways to fight climate change besides cutting emissions, such as people switching from eating meat to vegetarianism. But, he said, tree planting is far more effective because trees take so much carbon dioxide out of the air.



Thomas Lovejoy, a conservation biologist at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., who wasn't part of the study, called it "a good news story" because planting trees would also help stem the loss of biodiversity.



The researchers used Google Earth to see what areas could support more trees, while leaving room for people and crops. Lead author Jean-François Bastin estimated there's space for at least one trillion more trees, but it could be 1.5 trillion. That's on top of the three trillion trees now on Earth, according to earlier Crowther research.



The study's calculations make sense, said Chris Field, an environmental scientist at Stanford University in California who also wasn't part of the study.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree-planting-climate-change-1.5201102">https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree ... -1.5201102">https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree-planting-climate-change-1.5201102



This makes more sense than taxing essentials.

I like it. The UN climate fund can pay Canada to plant trees.

[Thiel]

Carbon dioxide catcher



Bill Gates is keeping a close eye on the field of carbon dioxide capture as well. Like next generation nuclear power and cow-free burgers, this emerging technology is likely to be one of our most effective weapons in the battle against climate change. Technologies that literally suck the greenhouse gas out of the air could make a real difference.



A number of carbon dioxide-catching plants are already open or slated to launch in the near future. They include Swiss firm Climeworks' facility, the first of its kind to extract the gas from the air and store it underground. Other facilities in Switzerland and the US will sell on the captured commodity to the drinks industry.



Gates predicts this to be widespread by 2024. I say Western countries will still milk taxpayers with carbon taxes and cash giveraways to useless wind and solar schemes.

So, in five years all the money we have spent on solar and wind subsidies will have been for nothing. We can keep everything as is and simply suck C02 out of the atmosphere.

[Anonymous]

Charging people more for basic necessities of life is the worst possible way to reduce carbon emissions. The money used is spent distorting energy markets making the cost of electricity in particular artificially expensive.



https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/carbon-taxes-there-are-other-ways-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions">https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article ... -emissions">https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/carbon-taxes-there-are-other-ways-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions



Instead of instituting economically-optimal climate policies, Canadian jurisdictions have turned their carbon taxes into cash grabs and used revenues to badly distort energy markets.



So what else could our governments do?



One alternative to carbon taxes might be to facilitate the use of natural gas (rather than wind and solar power) for both power generation and to replace diesel fuel and gasoline for Canadian transportation. As of 2015, transportation was estimated to be the second-highest source of GHG emissions, comprising 24 per cent of all Canadian emissions. Between 1990 and 2015, GHG emissions from the transportation sector grew by 42 per cent.



Gwyn Morgan, founding CEO of Encana, suggests that governments facilitate a shift to natural gas for gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles (Canada has a nearly limitless supply of natural gas, but we rarely drive on it). Other countries such as China, Iran, Argentina and others have far higher market share for natural gas transportation than we do. Morgan suggests the cost of natural gas is less than diesel/gasoline, and that by simply not taxing natural gas as governments do with diesel/gasoline, we could achieve massive emission reductions while simultaneously saving Canadians money. And Morgan also suggests converting gasoline-powered vehicles to natural gas would cut CO2 emissions by one-third.



Clearly, carbon taxes are only one approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But history teaches that carbon taxes rapidly become cash grabs used to tinker with our energy economy by promoting types of power that drive up energy prices. With growing resistance to carbon taxes around the world, Canada is increasingly "going on its own" with a price others need not match. Creative alternatives, including the switch to natural gas transportation, is an alternative worth exploring.

[Anonymous]

Charging people more for basic necessities of life is the worst possible way to reduce carbon emissions. The money used is spent distorting energy markets making the cost of electricity in particular artificially expensive.



https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/carbon-taxes-there-are-other-ways-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions">https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article ... -emissions">https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/carbon-taxes-there-are-other-ways-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions



Instead of instituting economically-optimal climate policies, Canadian jurisdictions have turned their carbon taxes into cash grabs and used revenues to badly distort energy markets.



So what else could our governments do?



One alternative to carbon taxes might be to facilitate the use of natural gas (rather than wind and solar power) for both power generation and to replace diesel fuel and gasoline for Canadian transportation. As of 2015, transportation was estimated to be the second-highest source of GHG emissions, comprising 24 per cent of all Canadian emissions. Between 1990 and 2015, GHG emissions from the transportation sector grew by 42 per cent.



Gwyn Morgan, founding CEO of Encana, suggests that governments facilitate a shift to natural gas for gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles (Canada has a nearly limitless supply of natural gas, but we rarely drive on it). Other countries such as China, Iran, Argentina and others have far higher market share for natural gas transportation than we do. Morgan suggests the cost of natural gas is less than diesel/gasoline, and that by simply not taxing natural gas as governments do with diesel/gasoline, we could achieve massive emission reductions while simultaneously saving Canadians money. And Morgan also suggests converting gasoline-powered vehicles to natural gas would cut CO2 emissions by one-third.



Clearly, carbon taxes are only one approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But history teaches that carbon taxes rapidly become cash grabs used to tinker with our energy economy by promoting types of power that drive up energy prices. With growing resistance to carbon taxes around the world, Canada is increasingly "going on its own" with a price others need not match. Creative alternatives, including the switch to natural gas transportation, is an alternative worth exploring.

Switching vehicles to natural gas requires massive infrastructure changes across Canada. Propane was a failure. It is more practical to keep the nation's vehicle fleet and infrastructure and add something to the exhaust that either captures or dissipates C02 emissions.



But, I agree carbon taxes are a cash grab/wealth transfer. Particularly how it has been implemented in Canada.

[Anonymous]

Charging people more for basic necessities of life is the worst possible way to reduce carbon emissions. The money used is spent distorting energy markets making the cost of electricity in particular artificially expensive.



https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/carbon-taxes-there-are-other-ways-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions">https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article ... -emissions">https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/carbon-taxes-there-are-other-ways-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions



Instead of instituting economically-optimal climate policies, Canadian jurisdictions have turned their carbon taxes into cash grabs and used revenues to badly distort energy markets.



So what else could our governments do?



One alternative to carbon taxes might be to facilitate the use of natural gas (rather than wind and solar power) for both power generation and to replace diesel fuel and gasoline for Canadian transportation. As of 2015, transportation was estimated to be the second-highest source of GHG emissions, comprising 24 per cent of all Canadian emissions. Between 1990 and 2015, GHG emissions from the transportation sector grew by 42 per cent.



Gwyn Morgan, founding CEO of Encana, suggests that governments facilitate a shift to natural gas for gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles (Canada has a nearly limitless supply of natural gas, but we rarely drive on it). Other countries such as China, Iran, Argentina and others have far higher market share for natural gas transportation than we do. Morgan suggests the cost of natural gas is less than diesel/gasoline, and that by simply not taxing natural gas as governments do with diesel/gasoline, we could achieve massive emission reductions while simultaneously saving Canadians money. And Morgan also suggests converting gasoline-powered vehicles to natural gas would cut CO2 emissions by one-third.



Clearly, carbon taxes are only one approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But history teaches that carbon taxes rapidly become cash grabs used to tinker with our energy economy by promoting types of power that drive up energy prices. With growing resistance to carbon taxes around the world, Canada is increasingly "going on its own" with a price others need not match. Creative alternatives, including the switch to natural gas transportation, is an alternative worth exploring.

Switching vehicles to natural gas requires massive infrastructure changes across Canada. Propane was a failure. It is more practical to keep the nation's vehicle fleet and infrastructure and add something to the exhaust that either captures or dissipates C02 emissions.



But, I agree carbon taxes are a cash grab/wealth transfer. Particularly how it has been implemented in Canada.

I know a switch to natural gas requires massive expensive changes.

[Anonymous]

I know this thread is about sensible ideas on climate change, but I did not want to start a new thread just for this. The EU is doubling down on expensive uselessness. The new EU boss wants to waste another 1.1 trillion Euros on what amounts to higher energy prices for average Europeans.



Von der Leyen Vows $1.1 Trillion Green Deal in Pitch to EU

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/von-der-leyen-proposes-green-073426374.html">https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/von-d ... 26374.html">https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/von-der-leyen-proposes-green-073426374.html

[Bricktop]

"The Christian Democratic nominee directed her appeal to left-of-center members of the European Union's legislature".



Another reason I'm glad we aren't part of the nuthouse...just another United Nations gabfest.

[Anonymous]

"The Christian Democratic nominee directed her appeal to left-of-center members of the European Union's legislature".



Another reason I'm glad we aren't part of the nuthouse...just another United Nations gabfest.

It's why nationalism is growing in the EU.

[Anonymous]

I know this thread is about sensible ideas on climate change, but I did not want to start a new thread just for this. The EU is doubling down on expensive uselessness. The new EU boss wants to waste another 1.1 trillion Euros on what amounts to higher energy prices for average Europeans.



Von der Leyen Vows $1.1 Trillion Green Deal in Pitch to EU

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/von-der-leyen-proposes-green-073426374.html">https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/von-d ... 26374.html">https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/von-der-leyen-proposes-green-073426374.html

The EU bureaucracy is under the illusion the best plans for climate change must cost the people a lot of money. Simple and cheaper solutions are the most effective.