1.Why fixing the whole Climate and the human footprint has to have a HUGE COST if enough wealth has already been extracted from the planet itself, and since everything costs and the money is needed, well, there is enough wealth and technology and efforts that could be aimed to real actions, similar to when a war is going on ?
2. Governments and the Private sector (The big traditional Conglomerates & now with the Tech ones as well) are the ones with the "power" to determine actions and stop the bad practices, how could "The walking people" and the Pro-Change minds (scientific and pro-environmental) smaller companies really stop and change the traditional Capitalist way of wasting and overproducing with no . (In other words who can police the Big Ones when they are the police?
Myth: Massive emission reduction is cost prohibitive.
Truth: In most industrial buildings 80% emission reduction can be achieved with simple payback of under 10 years, with current natural gas prices (trends up), current prices on machinery (trends down), on Alberta grid and without account for carbon tax. How do I know this? On a recent contract with NRCan I have modeled retrofits of 8 facilities - from a hotel to a chemical plant - with a goal of 80% net emission reduction and was able to achieve this.
If a 10-year payback sounds scary, then consider that this equates to a 10% ROI, which is well above typical levels for core business in manufacturing.
Anatoli - I was thinking more about the big picture - the myths about why we aren't dealing with this challenge from a societal level, but you do raise an interesting point. Is the problem that there's a belief that the costs or prohibitive or that it's just not worth the effort?
Imho, we are not dealing with climate challenge as seriously as it deserves because there is a wide-spread hesitation about its existence, severity and urgency. This hesitation is skillfully supported by corporations that profit from polluting. In a word - greed at both corporate and individual levels.
Also, everybody around me wants to have bigger houses and cars, travel more, move faster. This expectation contradicts to the laws of physics.
Hi Brad. I may be wrong, but I think we are moving from advocacy to marketing. Most citizens have got the message - 2020's is the time for action. We are finished listen to advocacy groups banging their drums and rattling their bowls. Action is needed. For example 70% plan to buy and EV before 2030. Demand it not the problem - supply is the problem. Supply of affordable EV's with sufficient range to be useful. Auto companies have heard received the message and they are falling over each other to get new products to market. ESG stocks are warming up. And the deep home retrofit market will not be far behind.
The drum beating sustainability/energy shift NFP industry will soon experience declining donations and people save their scheckles for spending on green(er) tech products. My wife and I bought a use Prius V a couiple of years ago as a stepping stone to an EV or Lite EV. Love it. Rarely, buy gas anymore and the driving experience is completely different. It glides. No change of gear lurches, just smooth quiet motion.
To the pressing issue is the timing of market development. On the push side, we need more aggressive GHG reduction targets, which are emerging. The time for action is now not just before 2050. It will be too late then.
I know you will view this from your "I'm from Missouri" perspective - which is good. But Consumer Reports has reinvented itself and it gearing up (pardon the metaphor) for the energy transition era. Best Bill
Hi Bill, thanks for sharing your thoughts. First of all what do you mean that we're moving from advocacy to marketing? And what exactly do you mean that Consumer Reports have reinvented themselves and are gearing up for the energy transition era? Once I'm clear on that I can engage more fully on your ideas. Thanks, Brad
Brad, advocates like 360 org and lead now have been preaching to the congregation - early adopters. But now that 70% of Canadians have decided to switch to EV's the market now includes early and some late majority 'shopper' - who no longer need to be convinced about why to change their purchase behaviour. They now want to learn what's on the market or coming down the pipe that will meet the transportation needs. This is the marketing area. Advocacy has done its job - the need for it is diminishing. This is a big shift.
When the 'consumer market' for EV begins to grow, orgs like Consumer Reports can help, because the majority of consumers want someone to hold their hand as they enter the market for new tech. I think they are gearing up for this 'shift.'
70% of Canadians is about 26.5m people (including children). In a world that is hurtling toward 8 b (https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/) I'm not sure 18 m new (electric) cars is going to help anything. This week and next we need to focus on huge, systemic transformation. But because most people think about tactics and not strategy, I'm not sure that will happen.
Hi Sue, you're right. Canada's actions won't change the world but there are 3 reasons why we need to take climate change very seriously.
1) Fossil fuels are a dying industry. Renewable technologies are the future not only for within Canada but for exporting to the world. If we hope to have any economic stability this needs to become a priority - not one more dollar should go into oil. Unlike what Trudeau says - leaving that so called "asset" in the ground it the only solution.
2) There are many things that we can do to climate proof our society - these investments create jobs and will make living in the era of climate change less impactful for all of us.
3) Doing #1 and #2 help us AND they also send a signal to the world that either countries change or they will be left behind.
Why dreaming and or spending so much on other planets or man-made environments if we have the only real jewel of all onEarth?
1.Why fixing the whole Climate and the human footprint has to have a HUGE COST if enough wealth has already been extracted from the planet itself, and since everything costs and the money is needed, well, there is enough wealth and technology and efforts that could be aimed to real actions, similar to when a war is going on ?
2. Governments and the Private sector (The big traditional Conglomerates & now with the Tech ones as well) are the ones with the "power" to determine actions and stop the bad practices, how could "The walking people" and the Pro-Change minds (scientific and pro-environmental) smaller companies really stop and change the traditional Capitalist way of wasting and overproducing with no . (In other words who can police the Big Ones when they are the police?
Daneil, thanks for sharing your thoughts...what myths are you referring to here?
"Shareholder primacy" - The notion that our primary allegiance is to the shareholders of the company.
https://strategyonline.ca/2021/02/25/seven-in-10-canadians-plan-to-buy-an-ev-within-the-decade/
Bill, intentions are simply that...intentions. However, this wasn't exactly what I was after in my request for brainstorming.
Myth: Massive emission reduction is cost prohibitive.
Truth: In most industrial buildings 80% emission reduction can be achieved with simple payback of under 10 years, with current natural gas prices (trends up), current prices on machinery (trends down), on Alberta grid and without account for carbon tax. How do I know this? On a recent contract with NRCan I have modeled retrofits of 8 facilities - from a hotel to a chemical plant - with a goal of 80% net emission reduction and was able to achieve this.
If a 10-year payback sounds scary, then consider that this equates to a 10% ROI, which is well above typical levels for core business in manufacturing.
Anatoli - I was thinking more about the big picture - the myths about why we aren't dealing with this challenge from a societal level, but you do raise an interesting point. Is the problem that there's a belief that the costs or prohibitive or that it's just not worth the effort?
Imho, we are not dealing with climate challenge as seriously as it deserves because there is a wide-spread hesitation about its existence, severity and urgency. This hesitation is skillfully supported by corporations that profit from polluting. In a word - greed at both corporate and individual levels.
Also, everybody around me wants to have bigger houses and cars, travel more, move faster. This expectation contradicts to the laws of physics.
Hi Brad. I may be wrong, but I think we are moving from advocacy to marketing. Most citizens have got the message - 2020's is the time for action. We are finished listen to advocacy groups banging their drums and rattling their bowls. Action is needed. For example 70% plan to buy and EV before 2030. Demand it not the problem - supply is the problem. Supply of affordable EV's with sufficient range to be useful. Auto companies have heard received the message and they are falling over each other to get new products to market. ESG stocks are warming up. And the deep home retrofit market will not be far behind.
The drum beating sustainability/energy shift NFP industry will soon experience declining donations and people save their scheckles for spending on green(er) tech products. My wife and I bought a use Prius V a couiple of years ago as a stepping stone to an EV or Lite EV. Love it. Rarely, buy gas anymore and the driving experience is completely different. It glides. No change of gear lurches, just smooth quiet motion.
To the pressing issue is the timing of market development. On the push side, we need more aggressive GHG reduction targets, which are emerging. The time for action is now not just before 2050. It will be too late then.
I know you will view this from your "I'm from Missouri" perspective - which is good. But Consumer Reports has reinvented itself and it gearing up (pardon the metaphor) for the energy transition era. Best Bill
Hi Bill, thanks for sharing your thoughts. First of all what do you mean that we're moving from advocacy to marketing? And what exactly do you mean that Consumer Reports have reinvented themselves and are gearing up for the energy transition era? Once I'm clear on that I can engage more fully on your ideas. Thanks, Brad
Brad, advocates like 360 org and lead now have been preaching to the congregation - early adopters. But now that 70% of Canadians have decided to switch to EV's the market now includes early and some late majority 'shopper' - who no longer need to be convinced about why to change their purchase behaviour. They now want to learn what's on the market or coming down the pipe that will meet the transportation needs. This is the marketing area. Advocacy has done its job - the need for it is diminishing. This is a big shift.
When the 'consumer market' for EV begins to grow, orgs like Consumer Reports can help, because the majority of consumers want someone to hold their hand as they enter the market for new tech. I think they are gearing up for this 'shift.'
70% of Canadians is about 26.5m people (including children). In a world that is hurtling toward 8 b (https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/) I'm not sure 18 m new (electric) cars is going to help anything. This week and next we need to focus on huge, systemic transformation. But because most people think about tactics and not strategy, I'm not sure that will happen.
Hi Sue, you're right. Canada's actions won't change the world but there are 3 reasons why we need to take climate change very seriously.
1) Fossil fuels are a dying industry. Renewable technologies are the future not only for within Canada but for exporting to the world. If we hope to have any economic stability this needs to become a priority - not one more dollar should go into oil. Unlike what Trudeau says - leaving that so called "asset" in the ground it the only solution.
2) There are many things that we can do to climate proof our society - these investments create jobs and will make living in the era of climate change less impactful for all of us.
3) Doing #1 and #2 help us AND they also send a signal to the world that either countries change or they will be left behind.
Bill, what do you mean that 70% of Canadians have decided to switch to EV's - I don't think the facts support this claim.