# Canada's shame in Bali continues



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Canada tarred as leading polluter at Bali climate change conference*
> 
> Reuters
> Published: Tuesday, December 04, 2007
> ...


Not enough to to have pariah of the day awards regularly......just as at the last climate conference.....even the UN is calling Harper's approach a hypocritical



> *Canada climate hypocrite, UN envoy suggests*
> 
> GEOFFREY YORK
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


or the majority of Canadians.
This should have been a non-partisan representive group at the conference - Harper's digging himself a deep hole and destroying Canada's reputation abroad. 

what an outright ass he is making of himself.....

and in case you think it's not world wide scorn one merely has to google...
this from India eNews



> *Canada out to 'sabotage' Bali climate talks*
> 
> Even as over 10,000 delegates from 187 countries are attending the UN Conference on Climate Change in Bali, Indonesia, to work out an agreement to succeed the Kyoto accord after it ends in 2012, it has come out that Canada might try to 'sabotage' the talks.
> 
> ...


The whole world knows how shameful this Con gov is.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Al Gore is trying to force the USA and China into becoming members of a new agreement in Bali:

Accepting his Nobel Peace Prize on Monday at Oslo's city hall, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said the United States and China would be held accountable if they fail to move boldly against climate change.

"We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency— a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here," Gore said in picking up his prize, which he shared with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The former U.S. presidential candidate, who lost to George W. Bush in 2000, likened the fight against climate change to a war.

"It is time to make peace with the planet. We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war," he said.

*Gore urged China and the U.S. — the world's biggest carbon emitters — to "make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act."*

Gore picks up Nobel, calls for 'boldest' moves from China, U.S.

Canada’s environmental minister, apparently in agreement with Gore, stated today that Canada will not agree to any proposal that does not include the USA and China, among others, signed on in Bali.

A firm stand and the right one for both the world and Canada.

There is no shame in that. :clap:

Anyone who pays attention to the wacos who promote their Fossil of the Day Awards must also believe in the tooth fairy as a valid entity.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Sinc wrote:


> Canada’s environmental minister, apparently in agreement with Gore, stated today that Canada will not agree to any proposal that does not include the USA and China, among others, signed on in Bali.


There's a big difference between urging the US and China to do something (as Gore does) and proclaiming that Canada will do bugger all unless the US and China do something (as Baird does). They are not in agreement at all.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Sinc wrote:
> 
> 
> There's a big difference between urging the US and China to do something (as Gore does) and proclaiming that Canada will do bugger all unless the US and China do something (as Baird does). They are not in agreement at all.


Although I don't like hearing the "Canada's not going to accept this unless the US and China do." line, Canada's economy is going to suffer if we accept the Bali agreement while China and US gives the middle finger to the environment and prospers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There is absolutely no point in us participating if the US does not. We would simply be cleaning up their GHGs that drift over us daily. Standing firm until they relent and join forces to lower CO2 in North America is the right thing to do.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Sinc wrote:


> There is absolutely no point in us participating if the US does not. We would simply be cleaning up their GHGs that drift over us daily. Standing firm until they relent and join forces to lower CO2 in North America is the right thing to do.


Reasons to do something without waiting for the US/China etc to jump on board:

1. Less pollution/carbon emissions are a good thing. A drop in the bucket is better than nothing at all.

2. As long as we do nothing, we act as cover for the US and China. They're big and powerful, but they do respond to international pressure and being isolated.

3. European countries are already getting a jump on us in terms of low carbon emission technology. If we develop workable systems here, there's a good chance we'll be able to sell it to the US and China later.

4. Some European nations would love to slap economic tariffs on the US and China for being bad polluters. If we don't do something we'll probably get lumped in with them.

5. America as a whole isn't moving but individual states are and as a country they are doing better than we are in some areas. In the future, they might even take aim at our lack of progress.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Good points all F-N and worth doing.

Don't get me wrong. I am saying Canada's stand in Bali is right, but it ends there.

We can and should carry on with our own reduction programs as you suggest. We just should not sign any agreement that does not include the major polluters is what I am saying.

Call it a symbolic protest while we work on reducing Canada's footprint.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Some European nations would love to slap economic tariffs on the US and China for being bad polluters. If we don't do something we'll probably get lumped in with them.


I think this will be the only way to make the US and China act, and should be the bottom line on any agreement that is signed. And should start _*immediately*_ until new legislation is passed to enforce any strict new regulations. Otherwise, we'll have a another worthless piece of paper and a bunch of broken promises. But personally, I don't think they are serious enough to do this.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

dona83 said:


> Although I don't like hearing the "Canada's not going to accept this unless the US and China do." line, Canada's economy is going to suffer if we accept the Bali agreement while China and US gives the middle finger to the environment and prospers.


At some indeterminate point, it will become glaringly obvious to all that giving the middle finger to the environment will ensure that no one prospers... least of all the most polluting countries, regardless of their relative stage of industrial/economic development.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'd not quite lump China with the US.

China is actually being feted for it's progress in Bali

It has greener car emission standards than the US as one aspect and is spending a large amount of money on research as well.

No question the problem is enormous - the Olympics are a big prod for China to deal with the visible pollution in Bejiing and to "look" green.

The US also ( to a lesser degree Canada ) has some very progressive state efforts - notably Califiornia.

We are getting dissed for bloody good reason that a large amount of our emissions CAN be dealt with and are emitted by an industry making billions in a province with a huge surplus.

There are dozens of articles like this about China



> China Forces the World to Go Green
> By Marty Jerome EmailNovember 28, 2007 | 12:15:00 PMCategories: Electric Vehicles
> 
> Ebike_2Beijing registers about 1,000 new cars a day and it is felt at the pump price in Fresno and Munich as worldwide demand for gasoline soars. Yet the most popular cars in China are lighter and far more fuel efficient (if also more dangerous) than the land yachts that sail American, Candadian and European highways. The choking traffic in Beijing is forcing Americans to drive less and to consider more fuel-efficient cars.
> ...





> Is China turning green?
> On a clear day in Beijing you can see a new environmental attitude, says Fortune's Daniel Esty.
> FORTUNE Magazine
> By Daniel Esty, Fortune
> ...


Is China turning green? - May 14, 2007



> In China, a Green Awakening
> City Clamps Down on the Polluting Factories That Built Its Economy
> 
> By Ariana Eunjung Cha
> ...


In China, a Green Awakening - washingtonpost.com

The difference is that China will move fast as it has shown in every industry it has tackled....

and they will make money - doing so


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper the lap puppy.....



> *Bali draft hints emissions targets may be dropped
> It looks like the first "failure" of climate negotiations in Bali, Indonesia, is about to hit. *
> 
> A leaked document seen by New Scientist shows that by 14.00 this afternoon, attempts to include even vague terms referring to how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced by were removed from a draft agreement.
> ...


..bad form indeed....

Hopefully by 2009 we'll get rid of Harper as well as Bush.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

"On Saturday, Canada set a precedent when the network gave it first, second and third prizes. The reason was a leaked document which showed the Canada has explicit instructions not to accept any binding emissions targets that are not also imposed on developing countries." :clap: 

The wacos can give all the prizes they want, but Canada continues to stay the course. Good on us!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper continues out of step with Canadians .....



> *Climate change tops list of concerns, poll finds*
> 
> Updated Mon. Dec. 10 2007 11:04 PM ET
> 
> ...


Aping Bush - ignoring climate and the have/have not gap is going to get Harper the boot he deserves.

_*The national survey, conducted by the Strategic Counsel between Dec. 6 and Dec. 9, found that 36 per cent of those surveyed think global warming is the world's biggest threat. 

The gap between rich and poor was the second biggest concern for Canadians, *_

Not exactly two of the Cons strong points are they??.....

There is need for a centrist right party in Canada......unfortunately the current Con crop ain't it.

I was willing to see the status quo through to have a small c voice and no the Libs aren't ready for prime time but almost anything would address the nation's priorities better than the Con clowns at the helm just now.

If they cannot learn to listen to Canadian concerns and govern by compromise and consensus instead of the dead hand of their ideology, then they deserve to to the back of class again.

This Con champagne ain't just flat - it's outright poisonous to Canada at home and in particular abroad.

Hell at this point I'd rather see a council of provinces governing the Federation than the idjits in Ottawa


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Might as well admit it that the corporate monster that runs our society can't be
controlled, The smog emissions caused by the products we desire cannot be quelled.

Perhaps in a future society we'll be able to look back and shake our heads,
In the meantime...Buy a houseboat...There's a flood coming.

Heh

Dave


----------



## Bolor (Sep 14, 2003)

I find it interesting that everyone is blaming the Conservatives for The Liberals inaction. Sure, Cretin agreed to the Kyoto accord then proceeded to do nothing about it for ten years. Is it any wonder that we are behind? How can we catch up to that commitment?
Lets get real folks and think with your heads rather than your hearts. If the Liberals had lived up their commitment, we just may have been able to reach the goals by 2010!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I think the real shame in Bali is that it has become a big finger pointing contest instead of statigic plan to gain the support of each and every country. Fossil of the day awards, is that the best they can think of? It's like calling the fat kid fat to try and make him lose weight.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Funny that other nations feel they can achieve it - what a long ago lame excuse. The level of crisis was no where near what it is now. That's no excuse for the Liberals but the priority levels and urgency levels were not there....they are NOW!

The main reason for increase is the tar sands, they can lower their emissions dramatically according to Pembina with current technology for $2 a barrel.
Both Alberta and Harper are criminal in not doing this immediately - there are NO EXCUSES for Canada as the world so bluntly pointed out these last few days.

It's Harper in the seat and he is being rightly roasted.

On top of that

*Why Harper was monumentally stupid at Bali.*

Nothing firm was ever going to come out of Bali, Copenhagen will be the real thing.

He shamed the nation in the eyes of the world for no purpose and now has set his party firmly in the *Climate criminal* category in the eyes of Canadians and on the international stage.

Canadians rank climate as the number one concern and Harper does the above in the face of that......

It's not only stupid environmentally, it's ludicrous from a political standpoint.

He takes a weak stance and makes it worse.

Compare that to Afghanistan where by appointing a bipartisan committee he defuses a controversy.

Here he could have 

_a) invited all the opposition parties along.

b) agreed to put a study in place to reduce Canada's emissions to something akin to other nations targets by 2020 and 2050 using the universally agreed upon 1990 baseline.

c) avoided being seen as Bush lap puppy _

He would have committed to nothing then and would have defused the issue to a degree. If the commission decides to recommend certain actions he can go along or not WHEN THE TIME COMES that the decision is needed....that's out in 2009 at the very earliest. ( if he's still around which appears marginal at this stage).
That's how a minority government works...soemthing apparently that has not sunk in to any degree.

Instead he puts it front and central now when he's got Mulooney to deal with, a coming slowdown in the economy and pissed off cities.

Aside from being painful for Canada in the world, it was a monumental political blunder.

I thought he handled the Afghan situation well. I've got no time for the man or his party leadership after this fiasco.
It's too bad, we need a moderate c voice in Canada.

Oddly Mulroney and Preston Manning warned the party about "owning Green" which a small c conservative should be a natural for.

Harper just got Canada *"disowned"* by the planet on Green.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Yes the sooner we get Dion in there to bend over for everyone the better.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Your grade six view of the world is very suitable to the Con mindset.

I guess if you're content with the head of the UN Committee that was just awarded a Nobel Prize calling Canada publically to task for its hypocrisy on climate, you're a poster child for the Cons indeed.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> _*he national survey, conducted by the Strategic Counsel between Dec. 6 and Dec. 9, found that 36 per cent of those surveyed think global warming is the world's biggest threat.
> 
> The gap between rich and poor was the second biggest concern for Canadians, *_


Nice a survey of 1000 Canadians, that must be accurate. 

I find it funny that you neglect to mention that these same people would still vote in a Conservatives gov't if an election were to be held today. Nice for being out of touch with Canadians.

They also think that we are in Afghanistan because the US want us there. They didn't poll the bright ones did they?

I see these people are so concerned about the environment that 9% of them think it is Canada's greatest achievement (third last).:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

JumboJones said:


> I find it funny that you neglect to mention that these same people would still vote in a Conservatives gov't if an election were to be held today. Nice for being out of touch with Canadians.
> :


Indeed:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Bolor said:


> I find it interesting that everyone is blaming the Conservatives for The Liberals inaction. Sure, Cretin agreed to the Kyoto accord then proceeded to do nothing about it for ten years. Is it any wonder that we are behind? How can we catch up to that commitment?
> Lets get real folks and think with your heads rather than your hearts. If the Liberals had lived up their commitment, we just may have been able to reach the goals by 2010!


I'm not blaming the Cons for Liberal inaction, I'm blaming them for their own inaction. They have been the government for 2 years and have nothing but drag their feet on climate change issues.

The Cons are the ones who are saying we can't do anything because the Libs didn't with constantly repeated spin about "13 years of Liberal inaction". They conveniently leave out the part where they and their supporters were going ballistic every time the Libs proposed to do anything at all or how their oil industry buddies launched a major effort to prevent Canada even signing Kyoto, as well as discrediting the idea of human induced climate change in general. 

Harper himself branded any effort to mitigate climate change as a "socialist plot". 

The Cons hands are not clean on the inaction front and they lie daily about the issue. They are the government now, not the Liberals and they are not doing the job.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

It isn't exactly easy to clean up 13 years of inaction in 2 years with a minority gov't, I think your expectations might be too high.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> It isn't exactly easy to clean up 13 years of inaction in 2 years with a minority gov't, I think your expectations might be too high.


Sorry but this BS is getting old. The Libs did make changes just before they lost power and the Conservatives rescinded these changes. Attacking the Libs for doing nothing when you kill what they did do is simple hypocrisy and nothing more. As was pointed out above, complaining about the Libs doing nothing when you fought for that nothing and are doing your best to stop any new progress is worse than hypocrisy. 

This is completely dishonest JJ. You've made it plenty clear where you stand on the issue of GHGs. You don't want action and believe it is the wrong thing to do so this stance is nothing but a lie.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> Sorry but this BS is getting old. The Libs did make changes just before they lost power and the Conservatives rescinded these changes. Attacking the Libs for doing nothing when you kill what they did do is simple hypocrisy and nothing more. As was pointed out above, complaining about the Libs doing nothing when you fought for that nothing and are doing your best to stop any new progress is worse than hypocrisy.


Ya they did a lot of things in desperation when they were at the end of there rope.



martman said:


> This is completely dishonest JJ. You've made it plenty clear where you stand on the issue of GHGs. You don't want action and believe it is the wrong thing to do so this stance is nothing but a lie.


Then you should have a look at where I stand on the issue, I believe it's the same as many others here. Reduction of GHG's and pollution of any kind, be it air, water or noise, is a great thing for us and the environment, and we should continue to do so. I just find the GHG contributing to the "Global Warming Crisis" rather sketchy. 

So do I want action, yes I want action, but unless it is by all, any action will be a waste, especially for us, being located to the north of the largest polluter. And I believe the only way they'll listen is if tough measures are enacted against them, but I don't believe anyone is ready and/or willing to do this.

So the next time you call someone a lier, take your head out of your @ss and have a closer look at what they are saying, or at least ask for clarification.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> So do I want action, yes I want action, but unless it is by all, any action will be a waste, especially for us, being located to the north of the largest polluter.


This is simply double talk. "I want action so long as those who I know will not take action join in."

Canada emits only slightly less GHGs per capita than the USA. If we won't take action than how can we demand USA does?

If you really want action than how can you advocate inaction based on the inaction of other countries?

I stand by what I typed. Who has their head in their ass?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> Canada emits only slightly less GHGs per capita than the USA. If we won't take action than how can we demand USA does?


Is Canada the only country in Bali? They all need to demand it, along with us. But us going in without the US will only lead to another failure. If we are to make the sacrifice for this or any plan, it needs to include the other big boys to be a success. Otherwise we are just playing for a clear conscience, and that to me isn't worth the sacrifice.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Otherwise we are just playing for a clear conscience, and that to me isn't worth the sacrifice.


We definitely disagree here. We have no business pointing fingers if we won't make these sacrifices.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I see - you can justify billions of dollars of profits from the oil sands while doing NOTHING about it .........sick 

AND letting multinationals destroy the landscape while doing NOTHING about it


I have some remedial reading for you



> *Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta Is Bringing Environmental Armageddon To Canada (And Doesn't Seem To Care)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not the kind of Canada i"m interested in......that allows this to occur when it CAN be prevented and the industry has the money and know how to do so.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I see - you can justify billions of dollars of profits from the oil sands while doing NOTHING about it .........sick
> 
> AND letting multinationals destroy the landscape while doing NOTHING about it
> 
> ...


This is probably above my sixth grade reading capabilities so I'll wait for the movie to come out. Maybe he can get "award winning" director Michael Moore to do it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it's quite possible that many people need a movie or some other pap to get them to either give two craps or understand what's going on.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

...apparently...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I see - you can justify billions of dollars of profits from the oil sands while doing NOTHING about it .........sick
> 
> AND letting multinationals destroy the landscape while doing NOTHING about it


How do you justify that signing on with Kyoto would have had Canada shipping money to Russia by the boatload?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> How do you justify that signing on with Kyoto would have had Canada shipping money to Russia by the boatload?


I've asked that question before without a real answer.

Sending millions in cash to other countries as "guilt money" reduces not one single iota of GHG from the air.

It is preposterous. Stupid too.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

there are other options other than buying emission credits but that might require further thought past the "the commies are comin" scare tactics used by people who rely on general fear and ignorance.

If you think it's preposterous, it pales in comparison to what Harper has proposed, which not only doesn't reduce, but allows industry to increase as they wish. Otherwise known as intensity based targets.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> there are other options other than buying emission credits but that might require further thought past the "the commies are comin" scare tactics used by people who rely on general fear and ignorance.


Under Kyoto there were no other options. We would have shipped BILLIONS to Russia. Full stop. Period. No debate.

Do you think that would have been a good thing? I am glad we didn't go down that road.

I believe the evidence behind global warming is compelling enough that we need to take action on it and reduce GHGs. I believe that any solution is going to require buy-in from all nations, including countries like China and India. If an international agreement can't get the US, China and India signed on, then it isn't worth the paper it is written on. I think the next best thing would be to go on our own and set our own targets. I would support emissions trading if it was done within Canada (or NAFTA).


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> I really question the Carbon Credits idea. Maybe I don't fully understand it but it seems to be a sellout more than a solution.


It is pretty simple.

Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a great idea in principle but verification isn't so easy to do.

Countries that haven't done a good job of growing their economies (e.g. Russia) have credits to sell. Since the Liberals did nothing after signing Kyoto, it was impossible for Canada to meet it's target within the time period. The consequence of this is that we would have to buy credits from places like Russia. In theory, they would then use this money to reduce emissions from their industry or fund alternative energy technologies. 

In reality, Russia is corrupt to the core and little if any of our hard earned tax dollars would go to CO2 reduction.

You can now see why the likes of MacDoc dodge my question. 

I would prefer that money stay in Canada to fund projects here.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What Harper COULD have done.....



> *Rudd promises 'robust' climate targets*
> 
> Sid Marris | December 12, 2007
> 
> ...


Rudd promises 'robust' climate targets | The Australian

Leadership and political savvy from Rudd........

Harper has neither at Bali......pariah status for Canada abroad..disgust at home.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I'm not against doing something concrete to curb CO2 emissions, but making Canada the "Bad Boy" on the block is ridiculous and just undermines the credibility of the conference.

The facts are that Canada's CO2 emissions currently are 2% of the global total, that compares to 21.4% for the US and 18.8% for China, 5.7% for Russia, 4.5% for Japan and 4.2 for India. 

Even if all the Canadian CO2 emissions dropped by 50% overnight, that would only have a 1% impact globally.

I think it is also wrong to measure emissions on a per capita basis which I see quoted all the time, realistically a measurement on a per area basis would be a meaningful measurement that would correctly reflect the impact of CO2 reduction by any country on Global Warming.

Another interesting statistic are fossil fueled power plants that generate electricity - that is the most significant contributor to CO2 emissions today. In the US they contribute about 60% of the total, way ahead of automobiles at around 30%. And for countries with fewer cars, the percentage contributed by fossil fueled power plants is much higher.

If you look at the emissions by fossil fueled power plants in different countries, you will see that typically 60 to 95% of the power plants are fossil-fueled, except for Canada where only 20% of the power plants are fossil-fueled. I picked fossil-fueled plants because that is one area under the control of the Canadian government.

CARMA - Carbon Monitoring for Action


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Per capita supports their arguement, per area doesn't, that is why it gets thrown around more. Picking and choosing only the stats that support your arguement makes this look more and more shady to me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Under Kyoto there were no other options. We would have shipped BILLIONS to Russia. Full stop. Period. No debate.
> 
> Do you think that would have been a good thing? I am glad we didn't go down that road.
> 
> I believe the evidence behind global warming is compelling enough that we need to take action on it and reduce GHGs. I believe that any solution is going to require buy-in from all nations, including countries like China and India. If an international agreement can't get the US, China and India signed on, then it isn't worth the paper it is written on. I think the next best thing would be to go on our own and set our own targets. I would support emissions trading if it was done within Canada (or NAFTA).


oh don't give us this nonsense. There were other options full stop. I'm not going to waste time in a forum debating this crap.

If you want to believe scare tactics that's your game.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

China and India are signed on to Kyoto. They just don't have the same requirements we do.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

groovetube said:


> oh don't give us this nonsense. There were other options full stop. I'm not going to waste time in a forum debating this crap.


I feel the same way much of the time. Lots of people and politicians pay lip service to doing something about the environment and climate change and then say, "I'm not going to do anything, because X nation isn't doing anything."

Well right now, we are "X" nation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harpers lap puppy to to the rescue his buds rep eh VD 

•••••
I see Baird chickened out of a climate meeting today......I guess the "heat" is getting to him.



> *Canada killing European effort to cut emissions*
> 
> GEOFFREY YORK
> 
> ...


globeandmail.com: Canada killing European effort to cut emissions

••••••












> *Harper Stop Blocking UN Climate Talks!*
> 
> International officials and experts have named Canada the worst country in the world on climate change as a result of PM Harper’s climate plan: wreck any chance of an international agreement being reached at the UN summit in Bali this week.
> 
> PM Harper's short-sighted and corporate-driven policy on climate change has launched an attack on Canada's traditional role in the world. There's still a few days left to save our country, and the climate. Let's get a massive Canadian roar to remind our PM which country he's leading and what we stand for. Sign the petition, below calling on Harper to change Canada’s position at the Bali summit, and we'll advertise the number of signatures in an ad campaign across Canada this week. *Sign the petition now! *


Harper Stop Blocking UN Climate Talks!


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Thanks for posting the petition. I've signed it proudly.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> If you want to believe scare tactics that's your game.


Scare tactics? Please. I think we all know the left loves to use scare tactics to push their agenda forward.

The reality of the matter is that Kyoto would have had Canada shipping billions of dollars overseas to places like Russia. It's a bad deal for us.

It was simply not possible to cut our emissions on time. Under the Liberals Canada's GHG emissions increased 33%. They did nothing on this. During the same period US emissions (including under George Bush) went up less than half that amount.  

Yet, Harper is the bad guy all of a sudden. He has taken more action on climate change (e.g. Clean Air Act) than the Liberals have. It's a tough pill to swallow for the left, but again, let's face reality. 

We are a small country and currently the top three CO2 emitters are not part of an agreement. It is pointless to sign on to an international agreement until they come on board. This is what Harper is pushing for. It's a good thing.

If they don't sign on, then let's do our own thing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> China and India are signed on to Kyoto. They just don't have the same requirements we do.


Doing nothing isn't being part of a deal.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Scare tactics? Please. I think we all know the left loves to use scare tactics to push their agenda forward.
> 
> The reality of the matter is that Kyoto would have had Canada shipping billions of dollars overseas to places like Russia. It's a bad deal for us.
> 
> ...


Harper fought Kyoto and climate change legislation every step of the way when he was in opposition. When he was in government, he cut or ended programs which did provide some (albeit small) action. Then as PM he refuses to live up to the responsibilities of our signed commitments. Refuses to even attempt to address it in meaningful ways.

Did the Clean Air Act even pass? Didn't the Conservatives horribly inadequate legislation go under major amendments by ALL parties to improve it? Why didn't the government, put it on the order paper and take a vote? How many votes of support for Kyoto does our parliament have to take before the MINORITY government realizes that is must act on the will of Canadians.

There are mechanisms within the Kyoto accord that allow reprieve for nations who are having difficulties meeting their targets. Obviously we know we won't meet our targets with political leaders like Harper who fight against it. But I don't look at trying and failing as failure. I look at NOT trying as failure. I think in trying, we partially succeed.

Newfoundland has achieved it's Kyoto targets. It's time for the Canadian government to step up to the plate.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Accurate post....basically....there is NO EXCUSE for the Cons not to have made significant progress and in particular addressed the oil sands obscenity.

••••

THIS, on the other hand, IS leadership.

.....funny that ...Norway AGAIN...Alberta take note.



> *Climate neutral*
> 
> Also today, three nations – New Zealand, Costa Rica and Norway – announced their goals to become climate neutral in the years to come. The UN Environment Programme said it would become climate neutral in January 2008.
> 
> ...


UN to offset Bali conference emissions - earth - 12 December 2007 - New Scientist Environment


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Accurate post....basically....there is NO EXCUSE for the Cons not to have made significant progress and in particular addressed the oil sands obscenity.


But you admit it is progress. This is more than the Liberals accomplished, which includes Dion as Environment Minister.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Zero progress - nothing - you are playing just plain stupid on this - there was no where near the level of urgency 10 years ago anywhere on the planet until the Stern report was released and Tony Harper made it a big deal. and Harper scuppered any green legislation that was on the table. You are so far wrong ......



> *Stern Report Published
> Release date: 30 Oct 2006*


*




The Right Honourable Stephen Joseph Harper

Prime Minister of Canada
Stephen Harper was sworn in as Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister on February 6, 2006.

Click to expand...

*Tell me again where the buck stops, that the Cons have done ANYTHING??...they killed some Liberal legislation then came out with this lily livered "Green plan" that was rightly trashed around the world and in Parliament.
Parliament makes appropriate amendments.....still too weak but better......who failed to pass it.....????

The tar sands is one of the largest pollution source on the planet and making billions doing so...tell me again Harper could not stop that cold.....NL cannot pollute in extracting energy - NL is considered Green......why is Alberta allowed?? - it's wrong period....there is NO EXCUSE either for Harper or Stelmach.

Canadians are pissed....it's showing in the polls and it's not just the Cons getting the heat...



> thestar.com, Dec. 9
> 
> Federal Environment Minister John Baird is now using the Montreal Protocol, the international agreement that saved the ozone layer, as an example of a successful global accord that we can emulate to meet the challenge of climate change. Unfortunately, he either doesn't understand the basic principles of this agreement, or he has chosen to misinterpret them for political advantage.
> Yes, all nations agreed to the terms of the Montreal Protocol, and we do need the same arrangement for a climate-change accord. But what nations agreed to was not equal binding targets for all, but a phased approach that actually allowed countries with emerging economies to increase their production of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons in the early stages of the deal, while developed nations had to take bigger cuts to compensate.
> ...


TheStar.com | comment | Canada is green at talks

The provinces are moving



> Quebec adopts California's emissions controls
> Updated Wed. Dec. 12 2007 12:01 PM ET
> 
> The Canadian Press
> ...


Where is Harper and the Cons......?? sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on...and well deserved....


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

> They all need to demand it, along with us. But us going in without the US will only lead to another failure.


It is ridiculous to say the USA is doing nothing. California is taking strong action against GHG. One State with an economy and population larger than Canada’s. 

Yes the stance of the Federal Governments in Canada and the USA are locked at the lips. These lack luster leaders of these governments have been bought and paid for by KING COAL and BIG OIL.

We need to take innovative action to develop new technology and industry to replace the proven wrong way to go old carbon based strategy.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

> New Zealand wants to be the world's first climate neutral country, achieving that aim by 2025.
> 
> David Parker, minister responsible for climate change issues, says that by then 90% of his country's electricity will be generated from renewable sources, there will be a moratorium on the production of further fossil fuels, and the nation will have an emissions trading scheme. What measures cannot be eliminated using these and other measures will be offset, he adds.
> 
> "If a comparatively wealthy nation with a low population like New Zealand cannot do this, there is little hope for the rest of the world," Parker says.


Canada is at the 80% level TODAY, ie only 20% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels.
That's way better than the average in every continent other than South America.

CARMA - Carbon Monitoring for Action


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Thx for the link, krs. That's very...revealing.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

krs said:


> Canada is at the 80% level TODAY, ie only 20% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels.
> That's way better than the average in every continent other than South America.
> 
> CARMA - Carbon Monitoring for Action


Good post krs.

Too bad it won't stop the barrage of "Canada Sucks" stuff from Bali we keep getting from some posters.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

krs said:


> Canada is at the 80% level TODAY, ie only 20% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels.
> That's way better than the average in every continent other than South America.
> 
> CARMA - Carbon Monitoring for Action


Good link, it's useful to see these kind of macro views.

I think there are 2 main problems worldwide, fossil fuels for transport and coal for electricity generation. Coal is probably the big issue for China. Everytime I take the ferry to Tsawwassen I see the massive Roberts Bank coal port that ships BC coal to Asia. I think it's possible to integrate wind and solar in many of these countries to reduce their coal usage significantly if there is a will there to do it. And if we can move into the era of electric vehicles and increased effective mass transit we can get off to great degree of our dependence on petrol.

These challenges are not at all insurmountable, the main thing that stands in the way are those governments who want to drag their feet to protect particular interests, such as Harper and Bush with their ties to big oil. In the case of oil sands this is a double whammy because we use a huge amount of fossil fuel to separate out the oil, close to the amount that is harvested. I hope that I might see the day where the main use for crude oil is for manufacturing plastics.

Changing will cost, but as Stern says it will cost us much more in decades to come by doing zero. Short term some people with access to political power will protect their piles of loot. We are fools if we think we are saving something by doing nothing.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Too bad it won't stop the barrage of "Canada Sucks" stuff from Bali we keep getting from some posters.


It's Harper and Baird that suck ... unfortunately many in the world think these buffoons represent the majority of Canadians.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Too bad it won't stop the barrage of "Canada Sucks" stuff from Bali we keep getting from some posters.


Truth hurts????..... too bad.....it's not me making the negative headlines, Harper and Baird are doing that entirely on their own......and shaming Canada in the process.

The dishonesty reeks......


> Baird tells UN forum Canada believes in global warming
> 
> Dec 12, 2007 10:45 PM
> ALEXANDER PANETTA
> ...


Funny how Sweden can lead the world two years running in addressing climate change - last time I checked that was a "cold country as is Norway  and Harper wrings his hands and says "can't, can't"....when the truth is.....WON'T.

If Baird "believes the science wholeheartedly" then he should act with the urgency the science demands not the foot dragging reluctance that has been abundantly evident through out.

Dishonest, shameful and the polls show it....



> *Green Party has boost in support, poll finds*
> Updated Tue. Dec. 11 2007 11:08 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


no champagne......better a lump of coal in Harpers stocking....well deserved and very very fitting


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Mac Doc: I suspect they're giving lip service to believing the IPCC. I'd be surprised if either of them bought into it on a personal level.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Mac Doc: I suspect they're giving lip service to believing the IPCC. I'd be surprised if either of them bought into it on a personal level.


That would be the honest truth in my estimation also MF. 

They are not telling the truth when they claim they want to act on climate change and now their actions in Bali are showing that.

It's important for Canadians to understand that if they are misled into thinking the Cons have a serious green plan, — they don't and never had. It's a political calculation hoping to garner a few more votes towards their lusted-after majority. If Canadians somehow lose their minds and give them that majority, I would guess that they would drop much of the pretence around caring at all about the environment, climate change and probably a whole bunch of other things that right wingers don't care much about.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes let's put this off until 2009, hopefully then we'll have a majority so we can tell Canadians they're suckers...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

More scorn and disgrace heaped on Canada today thanks to Harper and Baird.



> *Canada lumped with U.S. at climate change talks*
> Updated Thu. Dec. 13 2007 10:19 AM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


CTV.ca | Canada lumped with U.S. at climate change talks

Would you buy an abused climate from this man....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> "So right after this speech, Bangladesh's representative came out to call Canada's position immoral, dishonest, working against the interests of the planet and working against the interests of individual Canadians," Chao said.


and...



> Bangladesh can earn millions of dollars every year by selling 800,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions from rice based agricultural farmland alone.


arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh/India


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> and...
> 
> arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh/India


I'm sure that in no way sways his opinion.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The plan being proposed by Baird would reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 regardless of what comes out of the Bali conference. But the reductions would be from 2006 emissions levels, instead of 1990 levels, which many nations agree is a good starting point for emissions reductions.


Of course a 'lot' of nations say that. They are the ones who have mismanaged their economies since Kyoto came into effect (e.g. Russia, Bangladesh). Since their economies haven't grown, they have plenty of room in their emissions targets and stand to benefit from the boatloads of cash that countries like Canada will end up shipping their way. 

How could they not take that position? Their motivations are more about cash and less about morals. Do you have any idea of the lack of environmental or human rights standards many of these countries have? Where is the moral outrage there?  

If the largest CO2 emitters (i.e. China, India, US) don't sign on, then the whole discussion of targets and the like is pointless. Why bother signing on to something that isn't going to accomplish anything? I say we go our own way if that happens. Let's set our own targets and beat them. We can show the world Canadian innovation and do it within our borders and with the US states that have agreed to CO2 reductions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Vandave: No reasons for the provinces to wring their hands either. They can join in with the alliances forming just across their borders.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Under Kyoto there were no other options. We would have shipped BILLIONS to Russia. Full stop. Period. No debate.


:yawn: I've heard this one many times and never once has it been backed up.

Of course given that oil companies are the consultants for Harper....



> *Business gets a voice on Canadian delegation at Bali*
> After banishing environmentalists and opposition MPs from Canada's delegation to the Bali climate conference, Ottawa has decided to allow an oil company and several business executives to join the official delegation.
> 
> Two companies from Ottawa, where Environment Minister John Baird is an MP, have been allowed to join Canada's official delegation to the climate-change conference, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.
> ...


globeandmail.com: Business gets a voice on Canadian delegation at Bali


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why not bring those biig gas polluters along so they can face the music in Bali?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Why not bring those biig gas polluters along so they can face the music in Bali?


Especially those deserting Alberta:

"CALGARY - EnCana Corp. on Wednesday chopped its Alberta budget by about $500 million even as it increased spending in other parts of Canada and the United States.

The company blamed deteriorating economic conditions related to the province's royalty review, higher labour costs and the soaring Canadian dollar.

"Investments in Alberta natural gas projects and new oilsands delineation work have been reduced to reflect the recent erosion of economic returns," CEO Randy Eresman said from Toronto where the company is trying to woo institutional investors."

EnCana chops $500M from Alberta


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why not bring those biig gas polluters along so they can face the music in Bali?


the oilpatch guys? I thought they did bring them.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

groovetube said:


> the oilpatch guys? I thought they did bring them.


They did.... they are the ones making policy.

PS. SINC


> EnCana Corp. presented itself to Toronto investors yesterday as a "new and compelling investment vehicle," announcing a *doubling of its dividend* and *increased spending* on oil and natural gas as the country's biggest energy producer positions itself as a key, core and steady holding for money managers.
> 
> "It is increasingly clear o*ur business model is working well,*" Randy Eresman, EnCana chief executive officer, told investors and analysts at the presentation, where the Calgary-based company outlined its 2008 plans.


reportonbusiness.com: EnCana doubles dividend, boosts spending


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> :yawn: I've heard this one many times and never once has it been backed up.


Well first off, it hasn't happened yet. Thus, it cannot be PROVEN either way. What we can do in the meantime is make meaningful predictions.

It is estimated that Russia will have a large amount of emissions credits to sell after 2012 because they haven't done anything with their economy since 1990. 

Canada is something like 25 to 30% above 1990 levels right now. We have 18 days remaining until we have to be 6% below 1990 levels. Does that seem like a likely possibility to you? Obviously it isn't possible. 

Let's say that we magically can get down to 6% below 1990 levels over the next 2.5 years. Again, this is serious magic. We would still need to drop another 30% for the next 2.5 years to average out at 6% less than 1990 levels. Does that seem reasonable to you? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

So, short of destroying our economy, we are not going to meet the reductions within the next five years on our own. The only way we can do it is to buy credits. That means we are going to buy them from countries like Russia. I can think of a more effective use of this money. Can you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

VanDave: I think people misunderstand the whole carbon trading scheme. Under control of the United Nations, Canada will be forced to purchase carbon credits equal to carbon tonnage--not a dollar value. The reason Russia is mentioned is because it has many credits to sell--thus it will be cheaper for Canadians to buy credits there than in countries where carbon credits are more expensive--like Canada.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Canada ranks 53/56 on the green scale*

Well, now that the dust has settled, I think we were ranked quite fairly, and wound up ranking about as I thought we should... below almost everyone execept the most egregious climate criminals (the US, Australia and Saudi Arabia... and, to be fair, the Ausies have gotten rid of their climate criminals, and elected a new government that is at least showing some evidence of having a clue).

What say you all... where do you think Canada should be ranked?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Worst of all because we are making so much money from the tar sands, the technology is there to address that, and we have criminals in Alberta and Ottawa not doing so.

No other nation has such a shameful combination and every other nation on the planet knows it.

Rudd did exactly the right thing and what Harper should have done and could have done. Make warm noises to great applause, agree that steep 1990 based cuts were needed and undertake to have an impact study completed promptly.

That's a politician AND statesman speaking and HE has a majority.

Harper lost ALL credibility here and abroad, and made a thorough ass of himself and Canada from the mighty position of a minority gov. It was worse than the previous ignomy in Cairo.

Last with bullet.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Well, we did win the Colossal Fossil Award...
Sierra Club of Canada News Release


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Worst of all because we are making so much money from the tar sands, the technology is there to address that, and we have criminals in Alberta and Ottawa not doing so.


it's about profit. You can't maximize your profit if you have to spend money ensuring your aren't damaging the environment in you process. The big oil companies have spent money though ensuring that a lot of people buy their scare tactics about billions to russia, and any other goodie they can come up with. The boogie man thing always works on a lot of people it seems. Meanwhile, the damage is being done at a unprecedented pace. Now they have a government in power that is helping to ensure their profits, and the dissemination of misinformation to the populace. But, as we know, the oil industry certainly isn't the only one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I thought it was OK.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Unrepentant ass to the bitter end......what a fiasco this Harper bunch created....












> *Isolated Canada grudgingly accepts Bali deal*
> 
> GEOFFREY YORK
> 
> ...


That old NeoCon gut feel........sure don't listen - what an ass 

Harper's "plan" leaves Canada ABOVE 1990 emissions in 2020 ......that's not a plan.... it's a dodge of responsibility couched in deceptive and misleading manner that no one else on the planet uses as a reference point.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hooray, hooray for Bali...The League of Nations will have it!


----------



## Carl (Jun 7, 2003)

OK, so everyone has to reduce their consumption of electricity by 40 percent, traveling by 40 percent, wastewater by 40 percent, heating by 40 percent--you get the idea. The only way to reduce emissions by 40 percent is to basically reduce everything you do by 40 percent. So if you are in manufacturing or even associated with it, cut it. That means less people employed.
The only way to meet these numbers is to foster and develop technology that cuts energy by half. We see this in the new compact fluorescent bulbs, the LED Christmas lights, etc. Cutting consumption is just stupid. One because most people won't, two because a growing economy means a natural increase and three, a growing population will simply negate your efforts within 5 years.
I don't think people understand where money comes from. It comes from productivity, consumerism and consumption. If you cut that by 50%, you simply kill the economy.
My company developed technology 15 years ago that cut energy by 60% for certain processes, but it isn't until now that venture capitalists have seen this sector as a growth market.
The world will spend 28 trillion dollars over the next 25 years in energy infrastructure. That is how we will save the planet. Canada spends almost nothing on developing new technology to address this, yet go to France or Germany and see some of the biggest wind and solar initiatives in the world. France doesn't even use imported oil anymore. Speaking of oil. Canada has the largest reserves of oil in the world, and there is technology to burn fossil fuel cleanly. There is technology to burn coal for electricity cleanly.
I am glad that Canada is taking a stand on this issue and perhaps it will be a catalyst for change and Canada can grow its economy by helping to develop technology.
Riding a bike while unemployed is a pretty lame approach to lowering emissions. It's also not very productive. Bali, a country that exports handicrafts and cheap furniture made by low paid, unskilled workers. Yeah, maybe we could give them a seat on the board of RIM while we're at it, or let them run GE or Intel. If they cut productivity by 50 percent, it's gotta be worth thousands of dollars at least!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Carl said:


> The only way to reduce emissions by 40 percent is to basically reduce everything you do by 40 percent.


Uh, no. Are you aware of the facts that not all technologies have equal energy efficiencies, and that not all sources of energy produce the same amount of emissions? All one has to do to reduce their emissions by 40% is to change the technologies, the process and/or the energy source of your activity.

This is an opportunity for Canada to get back into the game and start making some green technology. The europeans have been way ahead of us on this for a long time, and there's been little incentive in North America to make any effort to compete in this regard. Now there is, and that's a good thing.



> That means less people employed.


Quite the opposite... rather than shipping your raw materials half way around the world and employing Malaysians to do your manufacturing, reduce the emissions by hiring local people to do the value-added labour.



> The only way to meet these numbers is to foster and develop technology that cuts energy by half.


Yes!


> Cutting consumption is just stupid.


No!

I completely disagree. There's loads of excess consumption going on in our society, and I'm perfectly aware that it 'generates wealth' but economic wealth is only one measure of success. The world could do with a lot less cash and a lot more clean water.



> The world will spend 28 trillion dollars over the next 25 years in energy infrastructure. That is how we will save the planet. Canada spends almost nothing on developing new technology to address this, yet go to France or Germany and see some of the biggest wind and solar initiatives in the world. France doesn't even use imported oil anymore. Speaking of oil. Canada has the largest reserves of oil in the world, and there is technology to burn fossil fuel cleanly. There is technology to burn coal for electricity cleanly.
> I am glad that Canada is taking a stand on this issue and perhaps it will be a catalyst for change and Canada can grow its economy by helping to develop technology.


Absolutely. This is the kind of thinking we need in Canada.

Although I'm somewhat skeptical about clean fossil fuels... fundamentally you're still converting reduced carbon to oxidized carbon (CO2) to release energy... you may be able to reduce some of the other nasty byproducts by using better technology for controlling the reactions, but the energy comes from the oxidation of the bonds, and that's going to release CO2.



> Riding a bike while unemployed is a pretty lame approach to lowering emissions.


But riding a bike (or skiing, or walking, or telecommuting, or taking transit, etc) to work when you *are* employed is a great approach to lowering emissions.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> OK, so everyone has to reduce their consumption of electricity by 40 percent, traveling by 40 percent, wastewater by 40 percent, heating by 40 percent--you get the idea. The only way to reduce emissions by 40 percent is to basically reduce everything you do by 40 percent. So if you are in manufacturing or even associated with it, cut it. That means less people employed.


Completely false premise.

My carbon footprint is at least 40% lower and I've not altered lifestyle very much if at all.

LED and CF lights, Bullfrog Power and few other things like low flow shower heads and toilets have let me save 7 tons of carbon in 9 months on electricity alone.
The goal is to enjoy all the things I currently have including travel by managing carbon at either source or by way of offsets.

Yes population growth makes it more difficult but that is set to level off in 20 years. Retrofitting old building and mandating zero carbon or LEEDs approved new building codes can put people and tech to work.

Bank of America has built it's new tower to LEED platinum standards with a cost marginally above regular building methods and a very fast pay back.

http://www.inhabitat.com/2006/04/01/the-worlds-most-sustainable-skyscraper/










California notably has reduced it's carbon output dramatically and has legislated emissions be below 1990 by 2020.

Sweden two years in a row now are the top reduction nation yet have a vibrant economy.
Sweden: Going Green - CommonDreams.org

Reducing carbon does not in any way need to equate with reduced life style.

This what Harper needs to take to heart - or Canadians need to find a leader who will.....



> Whatever emissions level Sweden achieves will have little effect on global warming; its greenhouse gases were never more than 0.5 per cent of the world’s total.
> 
> “But the best argument has always been the economic one,” Edman says. “Clean technology and energy solutions are the biggest emerging global sectors. We can earn a lot of money and create a lot of jobs by being at the frontier.
> 
> “We are a small country, but we’re exporting management, ideas and technical solutions to China and elsewhere. And China is sending technicians here to work for free just to learn. That’s our chance to make a difference.”


TheStar.com | Ideas | What we can learn from Denmark

Sweden is a cold country and yet they manage to have only 25% of the per capita emissions......and a vibrant world leading economy.
It's called leadership and vision instead of hand wringing and dodging responsibility.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Completely false premise.
> I currently have including travel by managing carbon at either source or by way of offsets.


Noting, of course, that if everyone buys in, carbon offsets would no longer be affordable. Certain aspects of your current lifestyle would become the domain of the very rich.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

as gas prices continue to rise, perhaps it won't be long before that happens anyway.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Noting, of course, that if everyone buys in, carbon offsets would no longer be affordable. Certain aspects of your current lifestyle would become the domain of the very rich.


For a purported libertarian and free marketer you really don't get it sometimes - the higher the demand the more attractive it becomes to execute carbon neutral......that's what many of the internationals are waiting for ..tell us how much we can make going carbon neutral by selling our carbon credits.
Do really understand market saturation??? 

Things get CHEAPER including carbon offsetting..... it already is...welcome to MY world.

MF - protector of the poor and disenfranchised..sure.......give ....me.....a.....break..

Your comment is like saying if everyone buys hard drives they'll only be for the rich......duh

Carbon neutrality is a commodity - polluter pays - keep it mind.....gonna figure big time in your life.
You just resent the gov telling you, you can't pollute for free.

Sounds to me like a welfare pitch..poor you, can't afford NOT to pollute please make a collection for MF.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Carbon neutrality is a commodity - polluter pays - keep it mind.....gonna figure big time in your life.


No way is it a commodity. I haven't seen any on the shelves of the retail stores I've been in this past two weeks, and that includes most major retailers.

Carbon credits are the figments of someone's imagination, designed to suck cash out of rich countries for the benefit of poor countries. Call it what it is, guilt money on imaginary credits.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah sure - living in lalaland again.....the magical realm of use the atmosphere as a toilet....



> *Morgan Stanley to Offer Carbon Offset Service*
> 
> August 15, 2007
> If you though the green movment was a passing fancy, think again. All you need to do is heed the age-old adage:* Follow the Money.*
> ...





> *Growing Carbon Offset Retail Market Provides Path to Individual Emissions Reductions*
> 
> By EarthTrends on Wednesday, June 6, 2007.
> By Therese Tepe and Derik Broekhoff
> ...


Growing Carbon Offset Retail Market Provides Path to Individual Emissions Reductions | EarthTrends



> *Carbon Offset Market Heats Up By 3Degrees
> Startup spins off from 3 Phases Energy Services to sell carbon reductions. *
> 
> *Some insiders wonder if the voluntary market is starting to get crowded.*
> ...





> *Green Exchange - New US Carbon Trading Exchange*
> 
> By Matt | December 13, 2007
> 
> ...


Still living in Alberta world where polluting is a way to improve profits....not the planet.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Under the Liberal government 2 stroke engines were being phased out,
Now under the Con government 2 stroke engines are on the increase.

More and more 2 stroke scooters are being allowed into Canada.

Funny country we live in.

Dave


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Your comment is like saying if everyone buys hard drives they'll only be for the rich......duh


MacDoc: You're missing a very important step in your understanding of the situation. Carbon credits are purchased to offset a certain CO2 tonnage. You can buy carbon credits from countries that have "cheap" credits to sell--that is, their control over carbon dioxide is so poor that even the most elementary improvement in technology saves tons and tons of CO2. 

From Wikipedia, because they say it succinctly:



> The economic reason behind this extra cost is because of the different Marginal Abatement Costs (MAC) for taking action in different countries (e.g. China might need to spend only $2 to reduce a ton of CO2, whereas, say, Sweden or the USA might need to spend more to abate the same amount of CO2).


After the first round of easy credits are purchased, they become more expensive. In order to make the next round of improvements, you can no longer buy the easy solutions. Credits will now involve purchasing more expensive technology in order to achieve further carbon efficiencies. Countries will compete for credits, raising the price.

Eventually, as these countries get up to par with each other, there will be no such thing as buying a carbon offset. Buying offsets is an option only when there is a differential in carbon levels between countries.

I think the whole thing is largely unworkable, however--probably making the UN oil-for-food program look positively pristine by comparison, and benefiting regulators and countries with underperforming economies primarily.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It's quite the problem, for the world's peoples still insist on viewing themselves along this axis of alignment or that - break it down by nationality, or by class of economic performer, or by dominant religion, what have you - whereas global warming recognizes no such borders and affects us all. Whatever system of correction we impose upon the situation is going to be, by its very nature, quite synthetic and therefore flawed... possibly fatally.

We won't get it together as a species unless we are brutally prodded into action by a fearful, unforgettable taste of the ultimate consequences of our dithering/squabbling over determining the correct procedure to save our skins... and succeed in keeping the planet habitable - just barely - for our kind.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: it isn't so much a First- Second- Third-World thing as a recognition that if you go with carbon credit trading, you are going to be sending money to countries who have underperforming economies--and who have far less due diligence than even we are used to. It will involve a hideously messy system without guarantees of any sort--and probably little actual benefit.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I don't disagree, MF. But we had better come up with something more viable, and soon.

Meantime, I believe many clamour for the carbon credits because, on the surface at least, it enables them to feel that they are doing something positive.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

On this I agree, Max--many people feel better for buying the credits. Many poorer countries are hoping for an influx of cash and free technology for which they need to do nothing. If that floats everyone's boat, it's a marriage made in heaven.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> On this I agree, Max--many people feel better for buying the credits. M*any poorer countries are hoping for an influx of cash and free technology for which they need to do nothing.* If that floats everyone's boat, it's a marriage made in heaven.


:yawn: 
Bold statements based on neo-connie talking points....


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I was reading a news thing on ctv, and the some of the comments afterwards. Here's and interesting viewpoint I've never seen.



> Andrew Coyne had a theory that if a dirty job needs to be done, it's best done by the party that doesn't seem to relish it.
> 
> Hence, it was easier to have the libs slash and burn the budget/deficit than the tories. One sensed that Chretien/Martin hated to cut back, therefore only did what they must.
> 
> ...


Somehow though, I can't see Harper etc. not doing a half assed job. Because to address a problem, you have to actually accept it exists. Cretin/Martin did. Maybe that's me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmmm - Alberta builds old technology in its upcoming coal plant and continues using the atmosphere as a sewer

........Illinois builds new and substantially carbon neutral.....

Nice to see the individual states stepping up to the plate despite the idJits in Washington.



> *New Clean Coal Plant Could Power 150,000 Homes by 2015*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


can't??......no........the idjits in Ottawa and Alberta ......WON'T


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> can't??......no........the idjits in Ottawa and Alberta ......WON'T


Nor will China mind you.

How many coal plants do Ottawa and Alberta open per year? I know China fires a new one up every week.

See the problem we face yet?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Nor will China mind you.
> 
> How many coal plants do Ottawa and Alberta open per year? I know China fires a new one up every week.
> 
> See the problem we face yet?


I do. It goes like this: 


selfish jerk said:


> "my neighbour refuses to recycle. I would recycle but my neighbour doesn't so I won't either. Why should I make the effort if they won't. Never mind the fact that the dump is full and the garbage is starting to fester at the end of the street. If my neighbour refuses to pitch in so do I."


As you can see by this attitude we can continue to do nothing till it is far too late. My grade school teacher taught me that:


Mrs. Markle said:


> two wrongs don't make a right


This is a lesson that is in dire need of propagation around here.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> How many coal plants do Ottawa and Alberta open per year? I know China fires a new one up every week.
> 
> See the problem we face yet?


And most of those plants are to satisfy the manufacturing of cheap goods we import... See the problem there? 

I guess that Harperdroids can't blame the Liberals anymore, so they have to find another scapegoat for innaction.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Talk about jupiter sized blind spot. Canada should take it's water and air quality standards from other nations??!!!!! ...food standards??/.....sewers, education......what a ludicrous stance all to be Harpos lap puppy.

First 
It's utterly disgraceful to use the atmosphere as a sewer - we don't let NL use the sea - 
It's wrong and you know it - regardless of what other nations do.
Per capita we are one of the worst on the planet and historically we benefitted from doing so in outsized proportion.

Second...
We are making incredible amounts of income from fossil fuel that 
a) we know is doing harm
b) CAN be produced cleanly....that is wilful negligence and there is already much talk in legal circles about the risk any company that pollutes has of being sued ala tobacco companies.

Third - Sweden says it best of all...



> Whatever emissions level Sweden achieves will have little effect on global warming; its greenhouse gases were never more than 0.5 per cent of the world’s total.
> 
> *“But the best argument has always been the economic one,” Edman says. “Clean technology and energy solutions are the biggest emerging global sectors. We can earn a lot of money and create a lot of jobs by being at the frontier.*
> 
> “We are a small country, but we’re exporting management, ideas and technical solutions to China and elsewhere. And China is sending technicians here to work for free just to learn. That’s our chance to make a difference.”


There IS NO EXCUSE.

This government is negligent in the extreme as is Alberta's given the resources at hand and the level of knowledge.

The Cons ARE paying at the polls. 
They have badly damaged Canada's reputation abroad as a admirable world citizen - particularly in light of the successful Montreal Accord with which we certainly now are undeservedly associated.

Your continual support of this government in this area is surprising and smacks of blind dogma.

Lawsuits already



> Canadian Cities Petition U.S. to Cut Power Plant Pollution
> 
> TORONTO, Ontario, Canada, November 1, 2006 (ENS) - Canadians say that emissions from coal-burning U.S. power plants blowing across the border are endangering their health and warming the climate, and they want the pollution to stop. Today municipalities in Ontario and Quebec introduced legal action aimed at getting the U.S. government to require reduced emissions.
> 
> ...


and just in case you think it's not going t fly




> Sources: $4.6 billion settlement in power plant air pollution case
> 
> From CNN's Peter Dykstra and Terry Frieden
> 
> ...


That started 8 years ago.
With where the science stands now .......putting unnecessary CO2 into the atmosphere when clean technologies are available is akin to standing on the 401 in the middle lane in rush hour in a blizzard and hoping not to get hit.

..the term snowball's chance comes to mind......

Even Kansas gets it ...... :clap:



> Kansas Rejection Of Coal Plant Fires Up Backlash
> 
> US: December 3, 2007
> 
> ...


Planet Ark : Kansas Rejection Of Coal Plant Fires Up Backlash


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I thought Bali was over.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Hmmmmm - Alberta builds old technology in its upcoming coal plant and continues using the atmosphere as a sewer
> 
> ........Illinois builds new and substantially carbon neutral.....
> 
> ...


Ya all "idjits" even though both US and Canadian Gov'ts bankrolled it.  



> Scientists have been studying the process for years, and an experimental project began in Canada in 2005. In the Canadian project — a joint effort by the U.S. Department of Energy, the Canadian government and private industry — carbon dioxide was piped from the Great Plains Synfuels plant in Beulah, N.D., where it is a byproduct of coal gasification, to the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada.


So if you applaud individual States stepping up, why not Provinces? Is that because they haven't done it either? I imagine this would work well on the coal plants McGuinty promised to close. But he is giving us a $150 rebate on an energy audit for our homes, which is just as good.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> I thought Bali was over.


No it isn't over. It's going to be quite a while till it is. Get used to it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Ya all "idjits" even though both US and Canadian Gov'ts bankrolled it.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you applaud individual States stepping up, why not Provinces? Is *that because they haven't done it either?* I imagine this would work well on the coal plants McGuinty promised to close. But he is giving us a $150 rebate on an energy audit for our homes, which is just as good.


Quebec is going forward...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> No it isn't over. It's going to be quite a while till it is. Get used to it.


In case you missed it, the meeting in Bali ended on December 15.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Quebec is going forward...


Great! And other Provinces should follow suit, they don't need to have their hand held (well most).


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> In case you missed it, the meeting in Bali ended on December 15.


True but the underlying issues are not over Dec 15th. How long were we talking about Kyoto after the meeting?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Geez even the US is cancelling coal plants....not Alberta tho....no siree.... 



> *Texas Going Nuclear to Fight Climate Change?*
> 
> NRG Energy, Energy Future Holdings Corp., and other utilities have proposed eight reactors, which make up 25 percent of all the ones planned in the U.S. In addition to their enthusiasm for nukes -* at a time when coal plants are being canceled around the country because of global warming concerns*


http://sustainablog.org/2007/12/18/texas-going-nuclear-to-fight-climate-change/

Geez if Texas is on board there MUST be money in zero carbon energy. 

Now what was Harper's and Stelmach's excuse again????

..oh yeah....there isn't one.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow Bali has sure put the tar sands into the spotlight....



> *Proof that 'beyond petroleum' was greenwashing
> BP joins 'biggest global warming crime ever seen'*
> 
> Posted by Joseph Romm at 11:12 AM on 19 Dec 2007
> ...


Biggest global warming crime......could not have put it better.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I hope everyone else "goes ahead."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Bali is sort of like a bad joke--everyone clapping themselves on the back for nothing: 

"They went in demanding emissions targets, They fought hard, They debated vigorously. 100 nations went into that locked room and when they came out, they had....well not an emissions target, but an agreement that some day in the not-too-distant future they might get together to talk about it it again perhaps."

Ahhh, the sweet smell of victory!!!

I note that in some of the less well-off countries who attended the mood is rather glum. "Where are our trillions of dollars," they ask.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Frankly I am somewhat confused that a thread entitled "Bali continues", when in fact it is over, and has been for days now is perpetuated.

Makes the GHGers look kind of foolish, does it not?

But then of course as MF observes:

"They went in demanding emissions targets, They fought hard, They debated vigorously. 100 nations went into that locked room and when they came out, they had....well not an emissions target, but an agreement that some day in the not-too-distant future they might get together to talk about it it again perhaps."

Dare I add - 30 - ?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Bali is sort of like a bad joke--everyone clapping themselves on the back for nothing:
> 
> "They went in demanding emissions targets, They fought hard, They debated vigorously. 100 nations went into that locked room and when they came out, they had....well not an emissions target, but an agreement that some day in the not-too-distant future they might get together to talk about it it again perhaps."
> 
> ...


All lies of course MF- once again projecting falsehood.
The Harper regime has been hypocrites - or rather crazy psychopaths in their behaviour.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Makes the GHGers look kind of foolish, does it not?


Surely you are talking about the deniers.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Makes the GHGers look kind of foolish, does it not?


Sinc, you may like this editorial...


> *Green missing from Tory image*
> The Prince Albert Daily Herald
> 
> Real leaders do, whereas those who pretend to lead, do not. Isn't that the message we've been hearing from Prime Minister Stephen Harper over the last little while?
> ...


The Prince Albert Daily Herald: Editorial | Green missing from Tory image


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> Surely you are talking about the deniers.....


Surely he is talking about the "gassers." From their perspective Bali has been a total disaster. 

Against all odds, the conference turned out exactly as I hoped.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*



Poll after poll suggests that the environment is one of the key issues in the minds of Canadian voters, and it emerged as such in large part due to the energies and actions of Dion than anything Harper did.

Click to expand...

*Surely they will lose the next election with such an attitude.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

World wide on DIGG.....












> *Support For Harper Government "Plunges" - Global Warming Seen as Key Factor*
> 19 Dec 07
> 
> A Harris-Decima poll released today shows that the governing Tory party in Canada, under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper is losing popularity quickly due in large part to their performance at the recent United Nation's global warming conference held in Bali, Indonesia.
> ...


Support For Harper Government "Plunges" - Global Warming Seen as Key Factor | DeSmogBlog

The Bali disgrace is a long way from over for Harper.......


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Surely he is talking about the "gassers." From their perspective Bali has been a total disaster.
> 
> Against all odds, the conference turned out exactly as I hoped.


and that being that the conservatives are taking it on the chin for being idiots?

Sorry idiots was about the only term I cold think of for their performance in Bali.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Oh come now. You aren't _really_ sorry, are you?

Spoken like a true politician!

I wonder what shenanigans 2008 will bring us - environmental and otherwise.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I should hope the Canadian government continues to "shame" us in just such a manner in the next round of talks. 

Perhaps MacDoc can just revive this thread and insert the name of the next far-flung lush locale favoured by carbon-burning delegates. If he does, I'll know the Canadian government is continuing to "shame" us in just such a way as to represent my interests.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, all this talk of shame strikes me as being beside the point. You'd think we were in the running for a global popularity contest; we're not. We're trying to figure out our own strategy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Exactly as I see it. I don't believe that the negotiations, as put forth by the pipsqueaks at Bali, had anything nice in store for Canada. We'll get something that pleases Canadians--either with this government or the next. And there's nothing to stop the provinces--even the municipalities--from geting their butts in gear if they're up to it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed that it's silly to wait for the Feds. This is the kind of thing we as individuals should be working on.

However, I would also expect the federal pols to show some leadership. I don't see leadership on the part of the Tories as yet... I see delays and obfuscation. I think it has to do with their Albertan power base and all the attendant passion surrounding their investment in oil as a provincial muscle-builder and influence-peddler. Thier instincts are to go slow and test the waters repeatedly before commiting to anything substantial.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree with Andrew Coyne's analysis as presented a few pages back. The Tories will eventually do something, but will make it appear as a distasteful act in much the same way as Liberals balanced budgets. Goes down better with the public when it's presented as painful to the party in power.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Who are the real humanitarians?

Save the world: Dump Kyoto




> ...Like just about every scientist who doesn't have a regular opinion-writing gig at The Wall Street Journal or Financial Post, I believe anthropogenic global warming is real. My problem with the Kyoto camp isn't that it's peddling "junk science." ...What if global warming is real, but Kyoto is still a rip-off -- even according to the big-hearted humanitarian logic at the core of the pro-Kyoto camp?
> 
> ...Too often, the argument for fighting climate change is based on vague appeals to cuddly polar bears, our moral debt to mother nature, the "will of the international community" -- as well as the usual litany of worst-case (and, often, worse-than-worst-case) disaster scenarios. You rarely see anyone actually crunch the numbers and prove Kyoto's worth on a cost-benefit basis.
> 
> ...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

really now. And just how much of the 'kyoto dollars' do you think would actually be diverted to saving people from the ravages of climate change?

Ad are we now to do an about face on how we deal with this threat because one author says all of our efforts won't account for much in the end?

I know the Harperites really, truly, and desperately want something, a book, a link, anything to say why Kyoto is wrong.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> And just how much of the 'kyoto dollars' do you think would actually be diverted to saving people from the ravages of climate change?


About as many dollars as the countries selling carbon credits would devote to carbon abatement.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

are carbon credit dollars supposed to go towards specifically, carbon abatement?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> are carbon credit dollars supposed to go towards specifically, carbon abatement?


The country receiving the payment is supposed to use the money to reduce carbon emissions. A very crude example: 

Canada has a relatively efficient factory that produces 10 tonnes of carbon emissions per year. A third-world nation uses open-pit burning to dispose of trash, producing 20 tonnes of carbon emissions per year. 

The Canadian factory owner has a choice: improve his already efficient factory to the tune of $10 million--or buy 10 tonnes of credits from the third-world nation by paying them $1 million to install an efficient garbage incinerator, that reduces carbon emissions by half.

In theory anyway. Will the money be used to build an incinerator, or to build palaces, buy government jets and source expensive military gear? Who knows?

If a modern, efficient country produces fewer carbon credits than its target, you can buy their credits as well--but they're hardly a deal for the country selling them. That country will have paid far more for its own carbon abatement program, so you essentially wind up subsidizing that country's carbon abatement--your quarter for their dollar.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Since I know that you actually don't believe in human GHG problem I know that most of the in depth comments you've been posting in this thread are pure smoke screen MF.
I'll bite anyway. 
The purpose of carbon trading is to lower emissions globally. Even in your twisted representation of how it will work the result would be lower global emissions. I fail to see the problem here unless you hate third world foreigners and want them to pollute at previous rates. You insist that money will NOT go to new tech but you base this on conjecture. I find it hard to believe that first world will send millions to billions to the third world with no safeguards. You may want to point to all the lost money in Iraq but that is happening because US companies are stealing this money often with the help of local Iraqis and (I believe) with the support of the Bush admin.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Martman: I am just explaining the mechanics of a carbon trading system--I don't support it, you're right. I base my belief that little of the money would go to carbon abatement on the colossal failure of other international programs in which money is siphoned off into military spending, lavish government favours and Swiss bank accounts.

I place the idea that humans can lower the temperature of the globe at a very low order of probability, thus the whole carbon abatement scheme is also very low on my list of what we should be spending money on. If we democratically decide that we must abate carbon--in much the same way as we decide democratically to do all sorts of things I don't agree with--then I prefer it to be done at home, creating Canadian jobs and monitored by people that I halfway trust. I don't for a moment believe that the UN is capable of monitoring anything but its free parking program for diplomats.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I don't for a moment believe that the UN is capable of monitoring anything but its free parking program for diplomats.


It is hard to argue with that statement. :lmao: 
However, if nations are playing this game one would hope that the nations buying the credits would set up programs to monitor the spending for carbon credit money to prevent the wide spread abuse you believe will result. If I'm wrong about this than your point is more pertinet than I currently believe it is.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> In theory anyway. Will the money be used to build an incinerator, or to build palaces, buy government jets and source expensive military gear? Who knows?


Oh come on now, you're just speculating about something you aren't sure of at all. Maybe, they'll use the money to kill babies...

I see Harper now trying to use fear of the economic uncertainty as his latest card in the game of let's dupe Canadians into thinking we can't do anything about climate change.

Time to boot these lying scumbags from office.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

As I think about this it occurs to me that money doesn't have to be sent at all. 
Don't like that "open pit fire" go in and build the incinerator for them. Problem solved. New lower carbon tech in place and the provider knows the cash idn't go into Kim il Jong's pocket.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

martman said:


> As I think about this it occurs to me that money doesn't have to be sent at all.
> Don't like that "open pit fire" go in and build the incinerator for them. Problem solved. New lower carbon tech in place and the provider knows the cash idn't go into Kim il Jong's pocket.


I am absolutely all for having checks and verification on how the money is used.

If that's what the cons are worried about, then surely we can fix that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF clearly is unaware of the Montreal Accord.

He's being obstructionist for the sake of some misplaced misconstrued ideology, just as Harper is.

Bottom line in both their worlds it's okay to pollute the atmosphere and not pay for it.

He never has explained why NL is forbidden to pollute the ocean but it's "okay" for Alberta to pollute the air on a massive scale.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> He's being obstructionist for the sake of some misplaced misconstrued ideology, just as Harper is.
> 
> Bottom line in both their worlds it's okay to pollute the atmosphere and not pay for it.


I have to agree with your assessment MacDoc.

(MacDoc I have been unable to communicate with you via email. please check your private messages (in 10 mins or later))


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Build it here and it's a slam dunk as to what the money will be used for.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Build it here and it's a slam dunk as to what the money will be used for.


I have no problem with that approach. So long as fewer GHGs is the result it is all good.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Does that mean that MF has signed up for Bullfrog??
It's already being built and it IS a slam dunk.

Next......


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Does that mean that MF has signed up for Bullfrog??
> It's already being built and it IS a slam dunk.
> 
> Next......


So, let's suppose everyone in Ontario and Alberta signed up for Bullfrog power tomorrow. As in all at once, or even gradually over the course of, say one year.

What would the resulting chaos in operating capability be, to established, but not so green power companies? Collapse perhaps?

And could Bullfrog keep pace to provide all that abandoned supply to new cliental?

I think not.

It may be a small contribution and "trendy" to fit the GHG panic, but it is no long term solution. The blaring trumpet of Bullfrog green can barely be heard in the real world.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: Nothing wrong with Bullfrog, but it can't begin to supply everyone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Exactly my point MF. Nor will any other currently available so-called "green power supply".


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

The company I work for looked into it and it was going to cost them $15,000 more a year for electricity. I don't think anyone in their right mind would do that, why invest $15,000 into Bullfrog when that money can be invested into your own company to reduce energy consumption?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> MF clearly is unaware of the Montreal Accord.


I'm very aware of it. It was business model the major companies producing refrigerants could support--because they could now sell higher-priced refrigerants backed up by the government. Some of the big refrigerant companies helped to financially support efforts to outlaw CFCs.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I'm very aware of it. It was business model the major companies producing refrigerants could support--because they could now sell higher-priced refrigerants backed up by the government. Some of the big refrigerant companies helped to financially support efforts to outlaw CFCs.


CFC denier! Why am I NOT surprised?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree about the effects of CFCs. What I'm saying is that companies like DuPont supported the lobbying efforts for a switchover to a more expensive refrigerant. The Montreal Accord worked with little policing because it adopted a model advantageous to the businesses involved.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Still making excuses MF - 

Dd you miss Swedens the point about making money off de-carbonization or just stuck in the denial rut.

Just to remind you ...



> Whatever emissions level Sweden achieves will have little effect on global warming; its greenhouse gases were never more than 0.5 per cent of the world’s total.
> 
> *“But the best argument has always been the economic one,” Edman says. “Clean technology and energy solutions are the biggest emerging global sectors. We can earn a lot of money and create a lot of jobs by being at the frontier.*
> 
> “We are a small country, but we’re exporting management, ideas and technical solutions to China and elsewhere. And China is sending technicians here to work for free just to learn. That’s our chance to make a difference.”


•••

So let's see if Harpo puts money behind mouth....



> *New green plan needed right now*
> 
> Dec 23, 2007 04:30 AM
> 
> ...


Polluter.....time to pay.....

••

and MF ......a "voluntary" carbon offset market is a competitive market where the company offering the most offset and the best quality of offset FOR THE LEAST $ will come out ahead with the consumer.

Clearly YOU are not in the market...it shows.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Macdoc, I'm afraid you still don't understand carbon markets. Initially you get a few low-priced tonnes, then the price escalates dramatically--unless the market isn't real in the first place.

Becoming an early adopter of all sorts of technology is something I wish upon Canada's enemies. No guarantees of either job creation or economic benefit here. It's not t he magic bullet you think it is. That's a hopelessly naive theory.


----------

