# Kyoto Costs Now In...



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Gas prices will be at least $1.60 / litre

Electricity costs up 50%

Natural gas prices will double

275,000 Canadians will lose their jobs within the next few years.

I admit something needs to be done for the environment but a commitment to Kyoto is not it!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm glad that Mr Baird is into fear-mongering and shows a complete disconnect with reality.
Where is the "doom and gloom" in other countries that are trying to meet their Kyoto goals?
Where are the facts that justify the numbers that Baird put forth in his document to the committee?

I'd be more inclined to follow the Stern report that suggest if we do nothing, that the global economy can shrink up to 20%.

Should I gather that the famous "Made in Canada solution" is the equivalent of fear mongering?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Those countries are already "enjoying" prices much higher than that, since largely embracing state socialism--for them, such prices would be a worker's paradise.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I don't see how we can reduce our emissions by...what 33%...by 2012 without taking a severe economic hit.

If we can get some genuine measures put in place and stretch this out to 2020, maybe earlier depending on how the technology progresses, we can probably beat our current Kyoto target and maybe even be able to meet the next round's targets.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> AS: Those countries are already "enjoying" prices much higher than that, since largely embracing state socialism--for them, such prices would be a worker's paradise.


I used to think that you were full of hot air, now we can add manure to the mix...

How about backing up some of this or will you just be parroting Connies?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Most of them aren't even meeting their Kyoto "goals" anyway so there's not much point in kicking this dead mule any longer--they've go prices that high and massive unemployment to boot without even half trying.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sending money to foreign countries to buy carbon credits to clear our conscience is a joke. Spend it here to reduce our own emissions. Kyoto be damned.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kyoto is an accord agreed to by a bunch of third-rate countries with their hands outstretched for charity--and another group of guilt-ridden ones ready to shell out. 

May they be happy in the accord they have chosen for themselves.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> I don't see how we can reduce our emissions by...what 33%...by 2012 without taking a severe economic hit.
> 
> If we can get some genuine measures put in place and stretch this out to 2020, maybe earlier depending on how the technology progresses, we can probably beat our current Kyoto target and maybe even be able to meet the next round's targets.


That's what did it. The Cons shot down a crazy idea to smear the opposition but, then again, the proposed bill was intended as a political smear to begin with. Lock them all up in a cage and hose them down.

Nobody is proposing instantaneously implementing what was modeled and Canada will not meet its phase 1 commitment unless it finds plenty of cheap foreign credits. Time to get a good plan in place for the longer-term (such as 2020+) and stop the political circus around the 2008-2012 period.

We can take our 30% penalty and move forward.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Nobody is proposing instantaneously implementing what was modeled and Canada will not meet its phase 1 commitment unless it finds plenty of cheap foreign credits.


And that is the lunacy behind Kyoto. Sending our cash to another country instead of using it to reduce our own emissions is just that, lunacy.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> And that is the lunacy behind Kyoto. Sending our cash to another country instead of using it to reduce our own emissions is just that, lunacy.


If reduced emissions are valued, what's wrong with outsourcing to get a better deal? If you're using a portable Mac, flip it over and check the label to see where it's from.

Sidenote: The modeling assumed 25% of reductions would be through purchased credits.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> If reduced emissions are valued, what's wrong with outsourcing to get a better deal? If you're using a portable Mac, flip it over and check the label to see where it's from.
> 
> Sidenote: The modeling assumed 25% of reductions would be through purchased credits.


Yeah, I know where my Mac was made. Doesn't change my mind one bit. Spend our money at home to reduce our emissions. Sending it away doesn't cut it and accomplishes nothing but reducing guilt, not GHGs here in Canada.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The problem is global; the reductions can happen anywhere and still help. Second, taking the "fortress Canada" approach misses some good opportunities from working with the U.S. Our provinces are already getting involved...time to get some extra reward for all that nice hydroelectricity. 

But this kind of thing is not new, especially to a trading nation like Canada. We did not get rich by ignoring the rest of the world.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And we won't get rich by sending the rest of the world our cash based on a guilt trip either.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

We did get rich by trading for stuff that is cheaper elsewhere, such as trading for the cheapest way to reduce GHGs. It's not the be all and end all, but ignoring it "just 'cause" makes as much sense as not trading with the rest of the world. Attention should be on making the sure the reductions are real (ie. not getting empty boxes from Apple China).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So, lemme get this straight.

We are major polluters.

Country "A" is a minor polluter.

Instead of spending our cash on technology to reduce our major contribution to GHGs, we send country "A" our cash so they can spend it however they wish, reducing zero GHGs?

That about it?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> we send country "A" our cash so they can spend it however they wish, reducing zero GHGs?
> 
> That about it?


Nope, except in the case of the "hot air" credits that exist due to a previous recession. 

CDMs (clean development mechanism) credits come from a requirement to spend the money buying something to reduce GHGs, just as we would do here. Why would Canada pay $100 for something here, when we could get it for $25 somewhere else? The economy is better off, and we would maintain greater wealth, by getting the best deal. Just like how trading helps us. 

The report identifies this difference and the modeling assumes purchases of CDM credits, which reduce the economic impact. 

We should not buy the credits out of guilt, but nor should we ignore them due to misplaced nationalism. Get the best deal.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So you're telling me that we can control how they spend our money? Cause if we can't, the deal sucks. I would still much rather use that money to further reduce our own emissions to clean the air *WE* have to breath.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Sinc brings up a very good point. How exactly does giving money to someone else help us create less GHGs? Take that money and create programs, refunds, etc. to help reduce GHGs. Anyone who doesn't see that has lost any sight of reason!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> "Why would Canada pay $100 for something here, when we could get it for $25 somewhere else?"


Beej: Sometimes economists breathe such rarefied air that they get a little nutty. It's only a deal to buy someone else's "non-carbonated-air" if you've already accepted the rather crazy premise that we must choose between spending $100 here or $25 there. 

Two hooligans approach a passerby and threaten to beat him up unless he forks over some cash. It's a difficult situation. It isn't certain which hooligan promised to roll him first. They all sit down at a park bench to work things out. The first hooligan is a Canadian and the other is a visiting thug from Ecuador.

*Canadian Hooligan:* I usually charge $100 to guarantee I won't roll a guy.
*Ecuadorian Hooligan:* Si, senor? In my country I will let a man go free of a beating for $25.
*Canadian Hooligan:* Gee, well let's not fightaboutit, eh? Why don't we let da gentleman decide which of our services he wants ta buy. Dat's free enterprise.
*Passerby:* You know, nothing against my own country, but the Ecuadorian guy is offering a pretty good deal so I'm going for the $25.
*Canadian Hooligan:* I can't blame ya I guess. Things was easier before the thug bizness was regulated by da UN.
*Ecuadorian Hooligan: *Hey, I'll be in town for another couple of weeks, senor. Stop by and see me again!
*Passerby:* Sure, I'd rather not get rolled for $25 than $100 any day! It's a choice we can both feel good about!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> So you're telling me that we can control how they spend our money?


Yes. 

It needs verifying, and so does the same "progress" here. For example, does shutting down a refinery here, without doing anything else, really accomplish much for the planet? No, and it may even result in higher emissions. So the verification challenge, which is real, applies everywhere.

To the extent that we also get cleaner air, then that can be a good deal locally, depening on cost and benefits. But to pay $100 locally for something that costs $25 internationally is bad for the economy, just like you paying $10,000 for a locally manufactured Macbook Pro would be. We should do what we're best at and get the best deal for the rest.

"How exactly does giving money to someone else help us create less GHGs? Take that money and create programs, refunds, etc. to help reduce GHGs. Anyone who doesn't see that has lost any sight of reason!"

We give them $25 with the requirement of piece of equipment X being installed that reduces GHGs. Or we could spend $100 here creating programs for the same thing, causing more economic damage. I'm not against accomplishing a lot locally, but it would be irresponsible to ignore the benefits of trade. 

How does importing anything help us? By allowing us to do what we're best at while getting the best deal for the rest.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: Sometimes economists breathe such rarefied air that they get a little nutty. It's only a deal to buy someone else's "non-carbonated-air" if you've already accepted the rather crazy premise that we must choose between spending $100 here or $25 there.


Of course if you don't value GHG reductions then it does not matter. That's pretty simple and is, I suspect, at the heart of much of the opposition to the credits: GHG reductions are not valued, although air quality changes may be, therefore "buy local". It can be yet another cloak for the real disagreement.

Just like if we did not value cheap plastic toys, getting them even cheaper from China would not matter. But that is your personal valuation. If the policy is in place to value reductions (a policy you would hate  ) do you understand the economic benefits of trading for credits?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course I understand the economic advantages of doing so. Just as the thugs' victim understands the advantages of paying someone the least amount of money for not beating him up.

Reminds me of an old _Sad Sack_ comic in which his relatives accept money from a state agency for "not growing things" in order to prop up agricultural prices. They first promise not to grow soybeans, but later expand to "not growing wheat" and "not growing carrots" eventually making millions on not growing anything.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Beej, perhaps I am missing something but I don't recall the money we would spend buying credits directly see us receiving a cheaper made product. I had only seen reference to use buying credits; a mythical item. And that as menionted whoever sold us the credits could do whatever they wanted. They are being benefited because they don't create GHGs? How is this right? If you took a country where half of the people live in grass huts in the jungle, well of course they aren't going to make GHGs and we are then going to give them mone. And I assure you, this money will line wallets not be given back to the country.

Having said that, in theory what you are saying is more a global economy issue that I don't see reducing GHGs.

If India can make a product for $1, and in Canada it costs $10; you are still left with the same prodcut that in my mind still takes the same resources and would essentially create the same amount of GHGs. The only difference is that we didn't create the gases, India did.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I say again, buying mythical credits is insanity. It serves no purpose other than to line the pockets of some other country. Once Canadians realize how foolhardy Kyoto really is, they will dump it faster than a mugging by a Ecuadorian Hooligan.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Beej, perhaps I am missing something but I don't recall the money we would spend buying credits directly see us receiving a cheaper made product.


This is the break between valuing GHG reductions or not. Valuing call centre services or not, etc. If you don't value the reductions, then there's no benefit to investing in them here either. Carbon sequestration (without enhanced oil recovery) would, without valuing reductions, be a complete waste of money, as one example.

If the reductions have value, then it's pretty basic: get the best deal. You don't have to be able to hold the end product in your hand.

Because it is a public asset (global atmosphere), it doesn't matter where you invest to get the value. 

Is it a stretch to see why a Calgarian, looking to reduce emissions by one tonne, would invest in a Toronto program that cost one-quarter the amount needed to get the same reductions in a Calgary program? It's better to spend less to get the same results. 

Borders are not magical, but suddenly local reductions are "real" and foreign ones are "mythical". Welcome to the faery kingdom that used to be called mercantilism.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No one will ever convince me that giving cash to foreign countries is better than spending that money here on reducing the air we breath. If I wanted to breath cleaner air in Africa, I'd move there.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Beej, some issues. This would essentially create two things. More GHGs created by other countries who are going to make our products, how does this help the earth? Perhaps better for the global economy. And, had an insight, that by having someone else make our products, we (Canada) create less GHGs and thus pay less credits but you now have created one MAJOR issue. JOBS!!!! If we send out all of our work, what do you do with the people here? You'd be taking that money we would have spent on credits and have to dump it into Welfare programs.

The best solution is to take our money and promote, research, implement strategies to make Canada a greener place to live.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) 

Again: doing this sort of stuff here is "real" but elsewhere is "mythical" in the faery world of mercantilism.

Doing overly expensive things in Canada just to create inefficient Canadian jobs has always been a bad idea. It is better for our economy to get the best deal. $100 versus $25: spending $100 locally is not better for our economy, thus we trade all sorts of things. 

If you don't value the reductions (like MF) that's one thing. If you do, then get the best deal. Simple.

Ignoring the benefits of trade would take a challenging task (that some do not want done to begin with) and making it less economic for us.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

I think we should keep the money here to help develop greener technologies that we can implement at home and sell abroad (and make money rather than spend it).

If China, India and the US aren't reigned in soon, even if Canada fufills its committments under Kyoto, I doubt worldwide GHG emissions are going to drop by 2020.

Maybe we should take that money and invest it in adapting Canada to the environmental changes that will be coming down the road. It sounds like we are going to need some major flood control on the coasts (and probably water in Alberta).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

zoziw said:


> I think we should keep the money here to help develop greener technologies that we can implement at home and sell abroad (and make money rather than spend it).
> 
> If China, India and the US aren't reigned in soon, even if Canada fufills its committments under Kyoto, I doubt worldwide GHG emissions are going to drop by 2020.
> 
> Maybe we should take that money and invest it in adapting Canada to the environmental changes that will be coming down the road. It sounds like we are going to need some major flood control on the coasts (and probably water in Alberta).


Now you're talking some real sense. Kyoto be damned. :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej there may be a middle ground tho.
Indeed buying an offset might be cheaper immediately than say taking a longer view and building windfarm or nuclear plant.

It really depends on where the value over time versus Kyoto commitment is positioned.
What might look cheap today might slow down say a "home grown" sequestering industry that while costly upfront could pay off handsomely in the longer term.

Certainly there may be a spot for both but my preference would be as Norway and Denmark are doing and others - get the low hanging fruit at home and set up some developing technology for export as well.

The cost/reward curve is a troubling aspect - I actually to some degree like the various approaches that are being taken around the world as it gives some real world results to track and draw insight from.

Portugal is betting on solar to offset it's high transport costs.
Clearly that's inappropriate for Canada as an approach.
But would a joint venture with a Portugese solar firm that provided offsets perhaps be beneficial if there were profits AND offsets derived?
I could see this kind of investment in offset and technology as perhaps one part of a broader basket of approaches both internal and external.

Our fuel cell technology investment might then benefit Portugal.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Europe and Japan are buying up loads of credits. For Canada, don't distort "the long-view" by assuming that local activity automatically leads to huge home grown tech. benefits. It often just leads to waste and inefficiency with the occasional feel-good story on some $x billion in exports (after blowing $100 billion locally).

The cleanest way is to just tax emissions and let businesses decide if they want to use CDM credits or not.

Second, because you are getting higher economic efficiency with credits, you have more money left over to fund domestic research, so the real long-view would take advantage of international credits (if we assume we want to actually reduce GHGs).

I already said the credits are not the be all and end all, but not using them would be irresponsible for our economy just like not trading would be irresponsible.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So what if Canada managed to cut its emissions of GHGs to levels below those of the countries it would originally be paying under this international welfare scheme?

I guess Canada would be waiting for these underdeveloped countries and tinpot dictatorships to cut it a series of nice fat cheques! 

"Waiting" is the operative word here, I think.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So what if Canada managed to cut its emissions of GHGs to levels below those of the countries it would originally be paying under this international welfare scheme?
> 
> I guess Canada would be waiting for these underdeveloped countries and tinpot dictatorships to cut it a series of nice fat cheques!
> 
> "Waiting" is the operative word here, I think.


This seems to miss what the credits are. We pay to reduce emissions where it is cheapest (whether it's Calgary, Toronto or somewhere beyond the magic borders in the faery land that may or may not exist outside of Canada). We could, if we found a partner, pay for something in Japan with an agreement that we get credits and vise versa.

We're not "cutting cheques" because their emissions are lower. The CDMs are a way to broaden our options (instead of just operating within "Annex I" countries that tend to already use more efficient assets) with the associated "socialist" benefits. Why spend $100 when an undeveloped nation can supply the same for $25? Quick, throw out half the stuff in your home, it was all a socialist scheme!

If you want to get into why these countries are not capped like us, two big reasons are: 1) significantly lower per capita emissions and, 2) historical contribution to the carbon stock.

1) Means that they cannot just sell the "hot air" that results from being undeveloped economies (Russia did pull this off). They only get to sell reductions. Like we could if we wanted to and anyone thought they were a good deal.

2) Means that we don't say, "Sorry, we effed up the atmosphere, now you have to stay poor while we wait for better technology."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Why spend $100 when an undeveloped nation can supply the same for $25?


Our point is why spend the $25 at all? It's pointless. No amount of explanation will change the fact that we DON'T have to spend the money. Spend it at home and clean our air here.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

You are missing a key point...despite the fact that we do it here for a greater cost. It keeps people employed. What good is a country that has no GHGs and everyone is out of work and struggling to live... we have these in the world; they are called third world countries and they are not fun!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Our point is why spend the $25 at all? It's pointless. No amount of explanation will change the fact that we DON'T have to spend the money. Spend it at home and clean our air here.


Yes, we went over this earlier. If you don't value GHG reductions, there is no point in spending to reduce them here or anywhere. If you do, there is a point. If you do not value a Mac, there's no point in buying one made here or anywhere. This is not complex. It's largely a cloaked argument.

Spend money on clear air, which may or may not get GHG reductions associated with it, depending on the technology, but making up a "real" vs "mythical" argument is pointless. They're all "mythical" GHG benefits if you do not perceive a benefit from GHG reductions. Save the nationalism for Apple Inc.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> You are missing a key point...despite the fact that we do it here for a greater cost. It keeps people employed. What good is a country that has no GHGs and everyone is out of work and struggling to live... we have these in the world; they are called third world countries and they are not fun!


Keeps people employed? Well then, why not have government keep us all employed? Because the economy and our wealth is based upon competitive jobs: the ability to provide goods and services, that are valued, better than someone else. 

Again, using your line of reasoning, why do we import anything that we value? Because it is more efficient for us to produce some things and not others.

Forcing our economy to pay more for the same thing is not good for it. It does not create net employment income; it destroys a chunk of our competitive economy, takes that money and creates some smaller amount of uncompetitive economy. 

"What good is a country that has no GHGs and everyone is out of work" 

Explain how spending four-times more than necessary is good for the economy? Then go out and spend your money accordingly. Feel better?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Run the World
See Ethiopia.

Keeping offsets here purely for the sake of jobs is not in my view sensible use of resources.
Setting a goal of maximizing local benefit including jobs is good stewardship.

Your reasoning could be ( and has been ) applied to any commercial endeavour.

If Denmark already has invested billions in wind power research why re-invent the industry here.
Better to licence that technology and perhaps even better to build where wind is more abundant than here ( this is just an example ).


----------



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

I'm ready to to my duty to cut emissions. I'm ready to make the sacrifice. I believe that I already am doing my duty, but I'm willing to do more.

I have no idea why any red-blooded, Canadian patriot wouldn't insist that we all do our share to cut emissions. Individuals. Families. Small businesses. Large businesses. Municipal, provinicial, aboriginal, and federal governments.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So at the point where we decide to make heroic efforts to reduce GHGs beyond all expectations, then Third World countries will have to pay us! That is so cool!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I have no idea why any red-blooded, Canadian patriot wouldn't insist that we all do our share to cut emissions


Just use the same argument offered by the anti-military set in Canada. We are still patriots, but we don't support the mission.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> You are missing a key point...despite the fact that we do it here for a greater cost. It keeps people employed. What good is a country that has no GHGs and everyone is out of work and struggling to live... we have these in the world; they are called third world countries and they are not fun!


I think you are really buying into the fearmongering of the puffy one...
Maybe you should look at the alternative in the Baird numbers because the one he decide to push had a carbon tax @ 195$ per tonne of carbon...
Maybe you could drop by Stewart Elgie's office and get the facts....


----------



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

Macfury said:


> Just use the same argument offered by the anti-military set in Canada. We are still patriots, but we don't support the mission.


It's nice to know that some people are honest about not supporting reductions in green house gases. I'd say it was a refreshing change, if it wasn't.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> So at the point where we decide to make heroic efforts to reduce GHGs beyond all expectations, then Third World countries will have to pay us! That is so cool!


You still seem to be misunderstanding what's going on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> You still seem to be misunderstanding what's going on.


I understand it quite well. We will give "GHG welfare" to poorer countries--in essence paying them to reduce the GHGs we do not wish to reduce ourselves. But there's a law of diminishing rreturns. As the GHG regime gets going full bore, we will reach a point where the developed countries are no longer spewing out GHGs in any significant quantity. Our technical superiority will see to that. 

After the point of equilibrium is reached, we will have no economic incentive to reduce their GHGs any longer. These other countries will not have developed to ur state of GHG-savvy. They will be producing more GHGs per capita than we are, and so must pay us for that privilege.

I hope you don't try to tell me the arrangement ends at the point they need to start paying...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I'd say it was a refreshing change, if it wasn't.


Is this one of those tricks of logic like the one about the tribes of truth-tellers and tribes of liars at a fork in the road?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I understand it quite well. We will give "GHG welfare" to poorer countries--in essence paying them to reduce the GHGs we do not wish to reduce ourselves. But there's a law of diminishing rreturns. As the GHG regime gets going full bore, we will reach a point where the developed countries are no longer spewing out GHGs in any significant quantity. Our technical superiority will see to that.
> 
> After the point of equilibrium is reached, we will have no economic incentive to reduce their GHGs any longer. These other countries will not have developed to ur state of GHG-savvy. They will be producing more GHGs per capita than we are, and so must pay us for that privilege.
> 
> I hope you don't try to tell me the arrangement ends at the point they need to start paying...


No, you don't seem to understand. 

First: The more per capita point ignores building the historical stock of GHGs in the atmosphere. Their caps would not necessarily deny them some room to go through the technical development stages that we did (to the extent that they're still needed). Again, simply telling them to stay poor and wait because we filled up the trash bin is a little odd.

Second, unless the other countries are run by folks that think paying $100 is better than $25, they'll go for the cheapest reductions possible. Why do you assume we'll suddenly have that? More likely, our emissions will already be so low that further gains would be very expensive.

If, however, you start with the idea that paying $100 is better than paying $25, your approach may work out.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: No, I really do understand.

Your version of the global GHG market is like hiring a maintenance guy to go around fixing GHGs all around the globe. He's on a fixed contract where we agree to keep him busy, but we have the right to give him the worst paying jobs around if we so choose. Because North Americans and Europeans are historically culpable for running the place down, we ALWAYS foot the bill. In exchange, we're given the sweet choice of paying the guy to do hard jobs that cost us more or easier ones that cost us less.

That about got it?

No thank you.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ON topic article in New Scientist today about meeting the challenge.



> The past century has brought social progress as dramatic as that in industry. Economic stability, for example, is no accident: it is engineered by an international network of central banks, steadily expanding their cooperation. Non-governmental organisations provide new services, from the certification of "fair trade" coffee to secret cash transfers. In 1948, the UN formally consulted with 41 NGOs; it now consults with more than 1600. This growth is driven not only by better communications and new ideas, but more importantly by the spread of democracy. Half the world's population now lives under democratic government. It is almost exclusively in these nations that the new cooperative institutions have been created.
> 
> Almost every week we see these powerful tools applied in novel ways. Consider what happened recently when Texas power company TXU revealed plans to build a dozen coal-fired plants that would emit vast amounts of carbon dioxide. An alliance of environmentalist NGOs spotlighted the development on the internet. Meanwhile, an international financial consortium took an interest. After intense negotiations, the consortium won the environmentalists' public blessing to buy TXU by promising to sharply reduce the planned emissions. The NGOs held no political office and wielded no investment billions; their power came from the skilful organisation of a million mouse clicks.
> 
> ...


Facing climate change: Reasons to be cheerful - opinion - 16 April 2007 - New Scientist
This task to get to zero GHG is a mix of self interest and national management and for some innovative companies and nations may well be a key to prosperity. For others it's an admirable and emerging moral goal.

I for one do not see it as sacrifice at all...rather as good management of long term resources. Is a farmer that lets a field go fallow for a year for recovery "sacrificing"??

There are any number of reason beyond climate change for decarbonizing the world economy.

Like couples having kids - there is never a perfect time or a perfect plan for the future....this one task is for all the kids and we CAN afford to do MORE than our share....and perhaps even reap economic benefits from that.

Luckily people and locales are taking action despite recalcitrant govs in some nations.

Even without climate change - managing a 50% more population on the planet will require big time change in pollution and non renewable resource management.

•••
Beej any indicators as to second stage Kyoto targets??


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

How is that fear mongering? Ig you took a car plant, which employees 1,000 people and move the work to India because it is cheaper, what are they going to do with the 1,00 people? Make cars just for fun to keep them employed?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

RunTW - very simplistic view of a complex issue.
Japan competes with lower cost labour with higher efficiency - robots, quality control etc.
To take your example - should we subsidize the Big Three who are making poorly positioned vehicles or get more Toyota plants.

There is a reason the Japanese are building new plants in Ontario despite it being cheaper labour in India.

That's really somewhat irrelevant to this particular topic.
If you really want job creation a massive retrofit of existing buildings would keep people busy for an incredible length of time and help meet Kyoto.

Getting over all the best value to meet the goals both in pollution abatement and kick starting new technologies for potential jobs is the purpose of gov policy towards those ends, incentives, taxation, targets and subsidies.
There is no one "best path".


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: No, I really do understand.
> 
> Your version of the global GHG market is like hiring a maintenance guy to go around fixing GHGs all around the globe. He's on a fixed contract where we agree to keep him busy, but we have the right to give him the worst paying jobs around if we so choose. Because North Americans and Europeans are historically culpable for running the place down, we ALWAYS foot the bill. In exchange, we're given the sweet choice of paying the guy to do hard jobs that cost us more or easier ones that cost us less.
> 
> That about got it?


Still not because you inject the assumption of not valuing GHG reductions into all your logic. As I've said, it's all a waste with that assumption, domestic or foreign. The basis for that assumption is the "Great Debate". 

If you assume reductions are valuable, then you, of course, get to a different point. As I've said, the reticence about these credits is often (note: not always) just a cloak for that different starting assumption, not some form of nationalism. No system makes any sense if you're incenting people to do something that you think is useless.

"foot the bill" is one example. Again, the difference is the underlying view of human-induced global warming. It leads to a completely different view on who "foots the bill", for example.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej any indicators as to second stage Kyoto targets??


I'm not involved in any of that, and don't know if they have to start at 2013 or not. 

Looking at North American and European announcements, 2020-2030 makes the most sense and is most likely to get the U.S. onboard, but something is needed in between. As for levels, maybe 1990 minus 20%, although that makes -60% by 2050 difficult. 

2020 -20%
2030 -25%
2040 -40%
2050 -60%

???


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> No system makes any sense if you're incenting people to do something that you think is useless.


I'm not implying value or "non-value." I'm merely stating that whether you value it or not, only countries such as Canada pay for it. The other countries never pay for it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I'm not implying value or "non-value." I'm merely stating that whether you value it or not, only countries such as Canada pay for it. The other countries never pay for it.


In the agnostic state, you tend to get results like that when looking at transactions. They're all sort of funny-looking if you don't imply value or non-value to what is being transacted for.

Now, with the science (yes, yes, disagreement, conspiracy, etc.) the value makes sense because of who "pays" and who pays, and who benefits and who "benefits". Paying and benefiting is not just who buys credits from whom. There are past benefits from free access to the trash bin and future payments that result from an overflowing bin (the science part). 

But that's all moot with disagreement on the basics.

I would agree than sans everything, it looks strange. So did controlling CFCs, and so does all sorts of environmental regulation.

With an environmental basis for valuation, things like benefits and paying and become less arbitrary; but if you don't like the science, science-based policy will rightfully look weird.

So my wording could have been much better, but the point is essentially the same. It's often just cloaked debate that is really based on the Great Debate, not a sense of nationalism.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> only countries such as Canada pay for it. The other countries never pay for it.


Pretty vague ....almost as vague as "them".

ALL countries will be paying for the pollution in terms of environmental degradation - Canada and Russia may actually have some short term "gain".

All countries engaged in trade will pay in some manner for the costs of going to zero emissions.

Whether any poor nations with high emissions ( say eastern Europe ) will pay richer nations ( say Norway ) will be up to the EU to navigate that minefield.

Poor - high emitter nations paying rich low emission?? - how about we get there and see.

If China can put in stronger vehicle emission standards than we have.....!!

Then India trying to sell cars to China will need to meet those standards.
China selling to California will need to meet standards set by California.

Costs will filter around to all nations - benefits of trading credits? - the smart nations with foresight will gain.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I continue to be amazed that so-called bright minds cannot grasp the fact that sending our cash to some third world country as a guilt ridding experience solves anything.

Gee whiz, if I had a scam ready to use, I would try it out on the brightest bulbs on the forum. Sure suckers, they are.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

SINC said:


> I continue to be amazed that so-called bright minds cannot grasp the fact that sending our cash to some third world country as a guilt ridding experience solves anything.


Maybe they're going to need the cash once the climate changes enough (through the industrialized world's own fault) that they can't grow their own food? They'll have to buy it from us since it's predicted that our food production will go up while their's go down?

Or would you rather that they starve while we benefit?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I continue to be amazed


A lot of things in this world would amaze me if I believed that lines on maps represented magical veils between Canada and a faery land. 

Your life must be fascinating with such a belief. Do you also believe that the lines within Canada are magical? Maybe, beyond them, is a world-between-worlds. Not the faery land, but not the land you know either. This "Rest of Canada" and "Rest of World" must all seem like a dream to you. Or a nightmare.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Or would you rather that they starve while we benefit?


Don't ask me to bail out a bankrupt country with a corrupt government.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> "Rest of World" must all seem like a dream to you. Or a nightmare.


Nightmare is a good choice. They and their corrupt heads of state would get not one dime in credits if I had my say. 

Again I say, buying credits is just plain stupid. Some will never understand. Talk about faery tales, your ideological outlook is chasing Utopia and that is a lost cause.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Don't ask me to bail out a bankrupt country with a corrupt government


You already have a number of times.....see Canadian banks and your user fees


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Talk about faery tales, your ideological outlook is chasing Utopia and that is a lost cause.


Let's see
Support for Iraq war
Harper can do no wrong
We can win in Afghanistan
Elected judiciary
The US is a fine place ( speaking of corrupt governments ) 
You support your local Cons selling out your natural heritage to US interest for a mess of pottage ( Alberta $14 billion resource fund - Norway $165 Billion - resource fund )
and there is no human induced climate change....

...just who's being daft and an ideologue?...quite a record you've compiled??

and just to add to it, you think Beej is ideology driven when he's in fact rather neutral. Just limns your foolish accusation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ten faery tales promulgated by MacDoc:

1. Thinks Mississauga is a fine place to live...

You know, this one has such weight, I think I'll just skip the other 9.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Again I say, buying credits is just plain stupid. Some will never understand.


Let's do this real slow for you. 

........................
Find out where your Mac was made.

Now, thinking to yourself (in the real world inside your head) as if you have some amount of business sense: Would I pay four-times more for the same computer made locally? 
........................


A business may pay some premium for local control and publicity, and may pay a premium for better service reliability and a trustworthy relationship, but at some point it is just dumb to ignore cheap imports. Unless...you do not want the Mac in the first place.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Maybe if I use MF's kind of analogy you'll get it Sinc.

The socialist mob has pinned you down. It is not fair, they are wrong, and you put up a good fight but there were too many of them. You are offered a choice: 4 punches in the gut, or 1. You pick 4. Congratulations, you're a national hero and a symbol of pride (in the real world inside your head).

That misses the real issue of what is going on (unless you dismiss the science...hmmm), but I think I've simplified it enough to get you started.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Let's do this real slow for you.
> 
> ........................
> Find out where your Mac was made.
> ...


And I will make it real simple for you:

I know where my Mac was made and of course I would not pay four times more for it if it was made locally.

But the point is, it isn't made locally, so I don't have to pay four times more, just like we don't have to send our cash to foreign countries to buy fictitious credits.

If not buying those credits makes the price of my Macs rise, so be it. The damn things have been too expensive since day one anyways.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> But the point is, it isn't made locally, so I don't have to pay four times more


Step 2: This one is tough because you're going to have to imagine yourself in a place that imports oil from beyond the magical veil. Ontario. 

I'll give you some time to get over the shock of this hypothetical.

.

.

.

Now you're operating a refinery and have a good business sense. Would you pay four times more for oil that was produced in Ontario?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Let's see
> Support for Iraq war


Wrong. I have never supported the Iraq war.


MacDoc said:


> Harper can do no wrong


Wrong. I have been critical of him on the term new government and his manipulation of media events.


MacDoc said:


> We can win in Afghanistan


Wrong. I support what we are doing in Afghanistan. I have never said we can win the war, just reinstall a government.


MacDoc said:


> Elected judiciary


Right


MacDoc said:


> The US is a fine place ( speaking of corrupt governments )


Right. I've stated it is a fine place with many fine folks I know there. I have also expressed a desire to see more of the US and that still stands. But I have been critical of Bush and his policies both at home and abroad.


MacDoc said:


> You support your local Cons selling out your natural heritage to US interest for a mess of pottage ( Alberta $14 billion resource fund - Norway $165 Billion - resource fund )


Wrong. I have not stated that ever.


MacDoc said:


> and there is no human induced climate change....


Wrong. I have repeatedly said that man alone has not caused climate change all on his own. The natural cycle of the earth is more responsible than man.


MacDoc said:


> ...just who's being daft and an ideologue?...quite a record you've compiled??


Beats being a pompous know-it-all.


MacDoc said:


> and just to add to it, you think Beej is ideology driven when he's in fact rather neutral. Just limns your foolish accusation.


No more so than any other who advocates buying carbon credits. Perhaps he learned from you?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> If not buying those credits makes the price of my Macs rise, so be it. The damn things have been too expensive since day one anyways.


And apparently not too environmentally friendly. How come none of the environmentalists around here haven't jumped on this band wagon yet? 

Greenpeace


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Now you're operating a refinery and have a good business sense. Would you pay four times more for oil that was produced in Ontario?


If it meant not having to send cash to foreign countries to buy carbon credits, yes. Last time I checked the price of oil in Ontario was the same as in Alberta.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> If it meant not having to send cash to foreign countries to buy carbon credits, yes.


Congratulations, your refinery is bankrupt and all the employees are out of work; the municipality has also lost a major source of property tax revenue. At least, in the real world inside your head, you did good by Canada.  

Other refinery bosses keep looking for the best deal. They're not as smart as you Sinc: they are just dumb enough to want to keep their business profitable.

Maybe they install large cogeneration systems; pay for better insulation in homes near their refinery, or do similar things in another city; or another province; or another country. These poor dumb schlubs just can't see the magic veils like you, Sinc. You are attuned to the deeper reality that the rest of the world is mythical. They are stuck in a miserably dull world.


"Last time I checked the price of oil in Ontario was the same as in Alberta."
Before taxes, it's about the same in New York too. Seems that all sorts of dull uninteresting people just cannot see the mythical veils. They keep on importing goods and services and doing business with the faery world. 

Sinc: you see the veils; you have the gift; now go get a beer.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I will Beej, and you could join me and we could discuss the price of tea in China, that is unless they go bankrupt from not buying credits. 

But you will never change my mind on credits being a very bad idea.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I will Beej, and you could join me and we could discuss the price of tea in China, that is unless they go bankrupt from not buying credits.
> ...
> But you will never change my mind on credits being a very bad idea.


Gladly, but I hear you still have winter while I'm looking at sunny and 20ish. You join me. 
...
Understood, but that does not mean I won't tear at your logic until the real reason is put out there: "you will never change my mind on credits being a very bad idea"

Thanks, and now for some beer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC: I disagree entirely with Beej's approach to the issue, but what he says makes sense in a pecuilar economist's fashion...though only if we:

a) accept the conclusions of the (money-grubbing) United Nations regarding man-made GHGs, and
b) accept that the air hanging over East Kakistan has the same value to you as the air above Canada.

You're not buying non-carbon performance for your own country or even "cleaning up" your own air--all air being equal everywhere around the world. You're taking on your share of the perceived responsibility to prevent GHGs from escaping ANYWHERE in the world. 

You get to choose where. So if you decide that is easier and cheaper to put a $100 valve on a 19th century factory in East Kakistan and prevent a million tonnes of GHGs from entering the atmosphere, then it would pe preferable to spend that pittance instead of a million dollars to retrofit a pretty efficient Canadian factory producing the same amount of carbon dioxide.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> a) accept the conclusions of the (money-grubbing) United Nations regarding man-made GHGs, and
> b) accept that the air hanging over East Kakistan has the same value to you as the air above Canada.
> 
> You're not buying non-carbon performance for your own country or even "cleaning up" your own air--all air being equal everywhere around the world. You're taking on your share of the perceived responsibility to prevent GHGs from escaping ANYWHERE in the world.


Almost spot on. Clause b) is not a part of it. Local actions to reduce GHGs may very well be smart to do at a higher price when they also deliver valuable benefits to air quality, for example. 

Take out Clause b), and some other stuff that just mixes the issues, and it looks like a cynical but good summary.

Try this:
..................................
SINC: I disagree entirely with Beej's approach to the issue due to my own failings, but what he says makes sense in a pecuilar handsome economist's fashion...though only if we:

a) accept the conclusions of the (money-grubbing) United Nations regarding man-made GHGs.

You're taking on your share of the perceived responsibility to prevent GHGs from escaping ANYWHERE in the world. 

You get to choose where. So if you decide that is easier and cheaper to put a $100 valve on a 19th century factory in East Kakistan and prevent a million tonnes of GHGs from entering the atmosphere, then it would pe preferable to spend that pittance instead of a million dollars to retrofit a pretty efficient Canadian factory producing the same amount of carbon dioxide.
..................................


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Take out the "handsome" part and allow me to reiterate part b).

I'm suggesting that in the "global free exchange of carbon credits," yer Canadian air has no more value than yer east Kakistan air, therefore there's no advantage to reducing GHGs in Canada unless meeting one's "obligations" locally is cheaper. 

You don't meet more of your responsibility by acting locally instead of globally. A pound of carbon is still a pound of carbon, anywhere in the world.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Take out the "handsome" part and allow me to reiterate part b).
> 
> You don't meet more of your responsibility by acting locally instead of globally. A pound of carbon is still a pound of carbon, anywhere in the world.


Right, that's why the "air" statements confuse it because the local quality aspects are valued more (not part of the GHG thing). In practice, GHG improvements can lead to cleaner or dirtier air, but "air has no more value than yer east Kakistan air" is not true. 

I think it is much clearer without that mess...and are you fine with the other part I added.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The air has no greater value on the world market. You don't get more credit for acting locally. You may receive some PR-points or receive some other benefits, but the CO2 will tend to dissipate throughout the entire atmosphere, not just the atmosphere above your factory.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The air has no greater value on the world market. You don't gert more credit for acting locally. You may receive some PR-points or receive some other ebenefits, but the CO2 will tend to disspate throughout the entire atmosphere, not just the atmosphere baove your factory.


That is right for just one aspect of the air. It maintains its greater local value regarding things like smog.

That's why I think the shorter version is actually clearer; it does not confuse the two things by using the "air" discussion that applies to unequal local and regional pollution and (assuming clause a)) equal global greenhouse gases.

If you're talking about the political mess whereby the concepts are mixed around to play for votes, that's another matter.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Don't ask me to bail out a bankrupt country with a corrupt government.


Regime change or starve? XX)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: We've long ago separated pollution from "carbon dioxide" in our discussions. Controlling pollution is something I support, while my feelings on CO2 are...not the same.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: We've long ago separated pollution from "carbon dioxide" in our discussions. Controlling pollution is something I support, while my feelings on CO2 are...not the same.


I appreciate the honesty and not trying cover it up with pseudo-nationalistic logic.

But, you know that clause b), even revised, was unnecessary to encapsulate this handsome (you seem to be a denier on this point too  ) economists' view, even when put in cynical terms?
..................................
a) accept the conclusions of the (money-grubbing) United Nations regarding man-made GHGs.
..................................



Neither of the options add accuracy or clarity because they require that "air" is devalued. Only one aspect of local "air" is globalised equally, not all.
..................................
I'm suggesting that in the "global free exchange of carbon credits," yer Canadian air has no more value than yer east Kakistan air, therefore there's no advantage to reducing GHGs in Canada unless meeting one's "obligations" locally is cheaper. 
..................................
b) accept that the air hanging over East Kakistan has the same value to you as the air above Canada.
..................................


What does either option add to the shortened version? Less is more comes to mind.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I mention them to deal with SINC's statements about the vaslue of spending money at home or abroad. 

Spending $100 on Canadian air makes more sense than spending $25 on Kakistan air if we're spending the money to stop a meat rendering plant fom choking Ontario townsfolk with a rotten stench. 

Spending $25 on Kakistan air instead of $100 on Canadian air makes more sense if the target is the reduction of carbon-dioxide. The perceived benefit to the mean global temeperature would be equal, no matter where the reduction was made. Reducing CO2 emissions in Toronto will result in no greater benefit to Toronto than if the reductions were made in Montreal or Vancouver--or Kakistan.

This "handsome" business is out. I once killed a merchant seaman who insisted that I call him handsome.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I mention them to deal with SINC's statements about the vaslue of spending money at home or abroad.
> .....
> This "handsome" business is out. I once killed a merchant seaman who insisted that I call him handsome.


Fair enough reason for the circumstances but, as a general statement to summarize the Beej view, clause b) assumptions were either inaccurate or unnecessary. Agreed?
.....
I will grudgingly (and handsomely) admit that there is no scientific consensus.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, certainly clause b) wasn't necessary to _summarize_ the Beej view--it was necessary to _explain_ it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Well, certainly clause b) wasn't necessary to _summarize_ the Beej view--it was necessary to _explain_ it.


Beej works in mysterious ways.

To explain these ways...
"I'm suggesting that in the "global free exchange of carbon credits," yer Canadian air has no more value than yer east Kakistan air"

...is still not accurate as discussed. Like Life of Brian, the flock and opponents already misrepresent. What's a Beej to do?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> What's a Beej to do?


Believe what you will. I do.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Note zero reference to man made climate change:

EDMONTON — Richard Leakey has spent decades uncovering mankind’s past, but lately he’s been more concerned about the future.
The world-renowned paleoanthropologist found his first fossil bone in Kenya at age six during an expedition with his parents, Louis and Mary Leakey. Since then, he’s advanced the Leakey legacy with many significant fossil finds that have greatly furthered knowledge about human origins.
But Leakey’s methodical study of the fossil record has also furnished him with proof that climate change has happened many times before and it’s been accompanied by huge impacts.
That's the message Leakey, 62, will deliver Tuesday in Edmonton when he gives a talk organized by the Telus World of Science.
“We know from previous climate change episodes that there are inevitable consequences in terms of biodiversity and ecology,” he said in a recent telephone interview.
“We need to start planning for a world that will be ecologically very different over the coming three or four decades.”

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn...=197c4e22-af69-466e-a377-087ca4fdf928&k=39572


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

MacDoc... as per your employing people to retrofit buildings. Not that it matters what type of buildings you are reffering but there is a problem with that offering. Do you really think that someone employed to retrofit a building will make as much as they would working in a car plant? (As we've been using the car example). This in itself is bad for Canada's economy. Having said that, this would be a great idea to get those on welfare off of welfare and working but it not a healthy solution for those that would have lost their jobs due to plant closures. This type of thing will go to the lowest bidder.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> I continue to be amazed that so-called bright minds cannot grasp the fact that sending our cash to some third world country as a guilt ridding experience solves anything.


I'm not trying to imply anything here, SINC, but it's been my experience that when very bright people who've worked extensively on a difficult problem come up with a solution that I cannot grasp, it has invariably been due to my lack of understanding, not a failing on their part. 

It often takes more than a cursory glance to understand complex problems, and, while I throughly endorse any citizen's efforts to understand the issues themselves, if you don't have the time, inclination or ability to do so, that does not make it reasonable for you to denigrate the efforts or accomplishments of those who have.

Cheers.

P.S. For those of you who don't understand why we should implement our Kyoto commitments, "denigrate" means "put down."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I'm not trying to imply anything here, SINC, but it's been my experience that when very bright people who've worked extensively on a difficult problem come up with a solution that I cannot grasp, it has invariably been due to my lack of understanding, not a failing on their part.


In your case, it may be a lack of understanding. In the case of others, a total disagreement.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Bryanc, I do not agree that man is the sole cause of climate change. As Leakey points out, and I have stated many times before, it is part of the natural cycle of the earth and nothing man can do will change it. 

We need to spend our cash at home to develop new technologies to live and perhaps even survive in the new climate, not buy fictitious credits from other parts of the world. That is a waste of money and effort as it will solve nothing.

That is the part most others are having trouble grasping.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> That is the part most others are having trouble grasping.


I'm not having any difficulty understanding that you don't believe that man has had an impact on climate, what I'm having difficulty understanding is how you are able to be so confident in your beliefs regarding a topic about which you are presumably nearly completely ignorant. I'm a trained scientist, but my field is not climatology, so my opinions on this topic are not authoritative. As such, I take the consensus reached by the peer-reviewed scientific community trained to work in this field as *far* more likely to be correct than any others.

However, it is always possible that they're wrong. But, as I've stated before, a simple risk-analysis shows that acting on the assumption that they're right is by far the wiser course of action. If we assume they're right and take whatever measures we can to mitigate our impact on the environment, at worst we'll simply be doing things sooner than we needed to, and at best we'll be saving our civilization. If we assume they're wrong, then at best we'll be saving some money, but at worst we'll be destroying our civilization.

There will always be nay-sayers, and they may even be right (although I find it highly unlikely, and, BTW, paleontologists are not climatologists). But the risks of getting this wrong are extremely high in one direction, and not a big deal in the other direction. So it seems obvious to me that we should err on the side of caution, and start working to reduce our impact on the environment.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fair enough Bryanc. I can agree that we can all do a part to reduce our footprint and I do my share, but I draw the line at sending cash abroad that we should be spending here to develop technologies here to allow us to survive climate change.

No amount of guilt money paid to others will change the inevitable fact that we will have to deal with climate change despite any opinions expressed by science that we can eliminate the threat. It is simply not possible.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I take the consensus reached by the peer-reviewed scientific community trained to work in this field as *far* more likely to be correct than any others.


Thankfully, trained scientists only get one vote like everyone else.



bryanc said:


> However, it is always possible that they're wrong. But, as I've stated before, a simple risk-analysis shows that acting on the assumption that they're right is by far the wiser course of action. If we assume they're right and take whatever measures we can to mitigate our impact on the environment, at worst we'll simply be doing things sooner than we needed to, and at best we'll be saving our civilization.


False parameters. At worst we'll be allowing a cadre of enviro-nuts to oversee our economy and cause us extreme hardship as a nation. On the other hand there are literally dozens of causes begging for my assistance to help them to "save civilization." THE GHGers are just another group. At least funding the development of a big gun to blow approaching asteroids out of the sky has a bit of a novelty factor.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Thankfully, trained scientists only get one vote like everyone else.


Yes, and that's been working really well with respect to our previous scientifically predicted, man-made environmental catastrophes, hasn't it?



> At worst we'll be allowing a cadre of enviro-nuts to oversee our economy and cause us extreme hardship as a nation.


The economic analysis I've seen suggests that implementing Kyoto will be a long term benefit, economically. But, I'm not an economist, so I have to admit I'm not able to make a critical judgement on this issue.



> On the other hand there are literally dozens of causes begging for my assistance to help them to "save civilization." THE GHGers are just another group. At least funding the development of a big gun to blow approaching asteroids out of the sky has a bit of a novelty factor.


This is another issue where the risk analysis strongly favors erring on the side of caution (i.e. developing some asteroid detection and defense systems). I completely agree with you here.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Yes, and that's been working really well with respect to our previous scientifically predicted, man-made environmental catastrophes, hasn't it?


Yes, I would agree here.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Bryanc, I do not agree that man is the sole cause of climate change. As Leakey points out, and I have stated many times before, it is part of the natural cycle of the earth and nothing man can do will change it.


Some strange twists here. 

Who says man is the sole cause? For that matter, who says climate does not change naturally?

Did Leakey point out that we are not influencing climate change? Again: forest fires happen naturally; we can also start them. Saying they happen naturally does not exclude human-induced causes; and saying that there are human-induced causes does not exclude the natural causes. Let's at least get over those tiny logical hurdles.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I skimmed through this thread and I don't know if this was mentioned, but here goes...

Canada contributes only about 2% of all GHG emmissions in the world, there are new coal fired power plants built at a rate of 2 per week elsewhere in the world. 

Even if we all stopped driving, all switched to flourescent lights, all stopped using power, we wouldn't even make a dent.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Even if we all stopped driving, all switched to flourescent lights, all stopped using power, we wouldn't even make a dent.


Aye. And if I don't pay my taxes, it really won't make any difference, right?

Canada signed an international treaty to do it's (small) part. Our small part certainly won't make much difference by itself, but if wealthy countries (who, not incidentally, have benefited disproportionately from the historical abuse of the environment) are not willing to make the small sacrifices they've agreed to, what reason can you give to poor developing countries not to use the cheap, dirty technologies by which the western world ascended to economic prosperity?

A major point of the Kyoto protocol was to provide an economically viable means for the developing world to leapfrog the environmentally catastrophic industrial technologies that appear to have been a major component of several ecological and climatological problems, without requiring that they remain locked in poverty. It's pretty obvious that if the developing world takes the path we took to economic power, they'll wreck the planet for all of us. But it's not fair that we, who've become wealthy by using these unsustainable industrial practices, should insist that they use more expensive environmentally friendly technologies. So it's only fair that, now that we know what damage the old ways of operating can do, we share the costs of developing cleaner industries the world over.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The same reasoning could have been applied to the Montreal Protocol as well.
THAT agreement saved our asses big time and was based on far less confidence in the underlying science.

Side effect it also gave us maybe a decade more breathing room on going to zero carbon.

At this point there is no excuse.
Other nations are further ahead, making money from the effort and our worst polluters are not exactly poor ( aka oil sands ).


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Baird is definitely fear-mongering, just so he can introduce a Conservative plan that will "save" us from this "economic disaster". Where in his numbers did he take into account jobs and businesses created by going green. Let's remember that areas like bio-fuel, hydrogen cells, products to clean emissions, etc. will benefit from going green. In the long term, we will save on health costs - cleaner air, better health. Hybrid and hydrogen cell based vehicles will come down in price as demand increases. And like Macdoc said, alot of the top polluters are just getting richer and richer every day and not reinvesting money back into their businesses. Gas prices are unusually high again for no reason, but of course it's not the gas company's fault... they're just making profit hand over hand.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The change is inevitable. Buying credits accomplishes nothing. Get used to it boys. It is going to be hot.

So . . .

Should we:

1. Send all our cash to China or Russia or some other place?

2. Invest it in technology here at home so you GHG believers can survive one of Ma Nature's natural cycles, along with us so-called doubters?

It's not a tough choice folks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Let's remember that areas like bio-fuel, hydrogen cells, products to clean emissions, etc. will benefit from going green.


Oil is still too much of a bargain to support that.



Kosh said:


> Where in his numbers did he take into account jobs and businesses created by going green.


If going green is "more efficient" why would it create jobs? There is nothing magical about "green jobs." Very sweet, but quite naive. 



Kosh said:


> In the long term, we will save on health costs - cleaner air, better health.


I'm cringing here. Let's not mix up traditional air pollution and carbon-dioxide, OK?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Oil is still too much of a bargain to support that.


It's a _Faustian_ bargain.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

IronMac said:


> It's a _Faustian_ bargain.


I would say the reverse. Oil doesn't promise much and its limitations and problems are obvious. Green technologies are the Faustian deal, pretending to offer high employment and unlimited energy, while making us filthy rich.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

You seem to be missing the point that fossil fuels are what is causing the problem.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

IronMac said:


> You seem to be missing the point that fossil fuels are what is causing the problem.


"Problem" needs a broader look because you seem to be only looking only at certain types of costs and no benefits. Take fossil fuels away from when the "bargain" was made, and think about quality of life. Even taking them away now would be devastating. Sequestration of CO2 further complicates the matter.

It is not a black and white thing; we just need to work with the full costs of using them without presuming infinite costs. Did someone say environmental taxes? Not me. beejacon


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Take fossil fuels away from when the "bargain" was made, and think about quality of life. Even taking them away now would be devastating.


This is a very interesting thought exercise, given that the early internal combustion engines ran on alcohol.

To me, it has always seemed ironic that the same fiscal conservatives who made such a compelling (and valid) case for balancing our fiscal budget seem so adamantly opposed to balancing our energy budget. We've built our economy around industrial extraction and consumption of a non-renuable resource, and it is unequivocally thermodynamically doomed. When the industrial revolution started, all of the fossil fuels that will ever exist (for practical purposes) were already present in the ground. This energy was trapped by millions of years-worth of photosynthesis, and then stored by natural processes.

We've been running a massive energy deficit ever since we discovered we could burn the stuff, and we're nearing the end of this natural energy savings account. The real bad news is that there is no bank that will lend us energy while we 'restructure'. So the restructuring has to be complete *before* the oil runs out or we're screwed.

To me, that seems like more than enough reason to be pursuing alternative energy systems vigorously, but now we've discovered that releasing millions of years worth of stored carbon as CO2 all at once (on the time scales we're talking about, a couple hundred years is effectively instantaneous) is having some serious consequences on our climate. All the more reason to quit burning oil. Then there's the obvious fact that the political/military efforts to control oil-producing territories has led to no end of human and environmental degradation, and the fact that much of the wealth generated from oil revenues has been used to fund colonialism, patriarchalism, fascism, terrorism, and lots of other bad 'issms'... It's kind of like a smoker being diagnosed with cancer, heart disease, and emphysema all at once. The only difference is that, while many of us may die, if we're halfway intelligent about how we proceed, there's no good reason we have to let this wipe us out as a species.

But weaning ourselves off our oil addiction should be a top priority.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Even the term "oil addicition" is a bit of a joke. We're using available fuel at a good price. This is like saying that we're "Japanese Car Addicted" if we choose to buy their vehicles over others. I'm certainly not as down on "the species" as bryanc is. It won't falter, despite his dire and gloomy fears.

Again, I'm glad research scientists only have a single vote.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Even the term "oil addicition" is a bit of a joke. We're using available fuel at a good price.


'Addiction' is one of those words that can be effectively and usefully generalized.

When an individual persists in a behavior that is demonstrably self-destructive, and uses the feeblest justifications for their inability to stop, or simply admits that they can't stop no matter how much they'd like to, we call it an addiction.

The social, environmental and economic costs of oil consumption are myriad and vast. We have barely begun to explore alternatives, and those efforts are severely hampered by legal obstructions and financial constraints that could be easily overcome if we (as as society) had a serious interest in developing these technologies. While society is not an individual, and therefore cannot be literally addicted to a substance, I think the analogy is extremely apt.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When they choose that fuel because they don't believe the act of using it is self-destructive, we call that "choice."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> When they choose that fuel because they don't believe the act of using it is self-destructive, we call that "choice."


No, we call that 'ignorance.' Fortunately, ignorance, unlike stupidity, can be cured.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> No, we call that 'ignorance.' Fortunately, ignorance, unlike stupidity, can be cured.
> 
> Cheers




That gives me some hope that perhaps those who ignorantly believe that man can reverse climate change are in fact curable. :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have asked this question may time, but haven't gotten an answer. If we can control the world's weather, at what temperature should we set the thermostat? Should we go for a relatively cool mean average, or something a tad balmy?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I have asked this question may time, but haven't gotten an answer. If we can control the world's weather, at what temperature should we set the thermostat? Should we go for a relatively cool mean average, or something a tad balmy?


No, we're at the stage where someone's started a forest fire but has yet learnt how to tame it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ooops.......



> *Tories flip flop to support Kyoto motion *
> 
> Apr 24, 2007 07:34 PM
> Dennis Bueckert
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/206712


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

They're all out of their everlovin' minds. But carry on. This I gotta see. The impossible being forced. It'll prove once and for all how far fetched this whole climate change charade really is.  :clap:


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Very disappointing news.


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I have asked this question may time, but haven't gotten an answer. If we can control the world's weather, at what temperature should we set the thermostat? Should we go for a relatively cool mean average, or something a tad balmy?


I vote for "a tad balmy" with low humidex and rain(sometime) on weekdays. :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I have asked this question may time, but haven't gotten an answer


My my ...somehow that phrase sounds familar......oh yeah any number of times in asking MF.

How about we start with decarbonizing so we're not adding more - the generally stable interglacial period has been in the 250 ppm.

Maybe then look at going negative.

Check back several centuries forward see if we got back to 250 or so. 

Worked pretty well for the last few centuries.

Likelihood of reversing the positive feedback processes already in place.....close to zero.
You don't STOP an avalanche. You cope with the aftermath and try and avoid starting more.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> You don't STOP an avalanche. You cope with the aftermath and try and avoid starting more.


Aha, finally the truth. I have been saying forever that man cannot stop climate change, nor did he had any more involvement than 1% or so of the cause. The real issue is how do we cope living in a hotter world? Surely now the intellect will shine through with all kinds of solutions on how to survive another of the earth's natural cycles.

At least that is what should be expected, now that we have MacDoc on side . . .


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

adagio said:


> Very disappointing news.


Adagio, it isn't quite what you think. The Tories haven't abandoned rationality in favour of Kyoto--they promise to support "Kyoto objectives."


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

MF, thanks. I have read about some of the objectives. Agreed, much more sane.

Interestingly, people I've personally spoken with are not against getting something done. They are simply against Kyoto's off shore carbon trading scheme. I have a suspicion the NDP may have softened their stance regarding Kyoto and will support the Conservative initiative. Dion's "Kyoto" or nothing attitude could well be his undoing. We'll see.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Aha, finally the truth. I have been saying forever that man cannot stop climate change


Join the club. No one is saying that we can stop it, or that our actives are the whole cause. However it is pretty clear that we are part of the cause, and, that gives us reason to hope that changes we can make might mitigate some of the consequences.

There are two fundamental questions we need to work on: 1) How can we best prepare for the change that can't be avoided, and 2) how much can we avoid.

Think of it like this. Your sitting in a bar, and some big guy is clearly really mad at you and he's taking a swing at you. There are two things to consider: in the short term, how can you avoid getting your head knocked off... dodging would probably be a good idea, and the sooner you get started on it the more likely you are to avoid the blow. In the longer term, you might want to think about why this guy is so mad at you... maybe he's mistaken you for someone else, and if you say something he'll realize his mistake and stop trying to kill you.

Certainly we agree on issue 1. The argument seems to be on issue 2. I'm sufficiently confident in the scientific method that I'll accept the consensus of the researchers in this field as an operating hypothesis. That being the case, it seems incumbent on us to try to reduce the damage we're doing so we don't make a bad situation worse. The fact that there are plenty of other good reasons to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels is just icing on the cake.

Cheers


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Why don't try to follow Kyoto without comitting to Kyoto. Kinda like test driving a car? This gives us an idea on costs and let's us have first have information on all involved. Does signing a piece of paper really make a difference? Before someone responds "well, if we don't sign, we really wouldn't be motivated and nothing will happen". True on the surface, but put something in place to hold people accountable. Instill large fines, take that money for research, debt, etc.

I really should be Prime Minister! Sinc, you can be Finance Minister or Deputy PM; your choice.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> Why don't try to follow Kyoto without comitting to Kyoto. Kinda like test driving a car? This gives us an idea on costs and let's us have first have information on all involved. Does signing a piece of paper really make a difference? Before someone responds "well, if we don't sign, we really wouldn't be motivated and nothing will happen". True on the surface, but put something in place to hold people accountable. Instill large fines, take that money for research, debt, etc.


Um... didn't we already sign Kyoto?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Um... didn't we already sign Kyoto?


It wouldn't be hard to match the track records of many of Kyoto's signatories.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Um... didn't we already sign Kyoto?


Sadly yes, but now is the time to simply say to the others:

"Look, we didn't think this through very well. Your goals are unattainable, so we're going to opt out. Good luck with your efforts, but we're going to go about it our own way. Bye now."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

We reconsidered signing Kyoto in the "cooling off" period allowed by law.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

We used to hang people too, but we backed out of that one. Why is Kyoto any different?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> We used to hang people too, but we backed out of that one. Why is Kyoto any different?



That was a real flip-flop!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> That was a real flip-flop!


The hanging, or the reversal?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> If going green is "more efficient" why would it create jobs? There is nothing magical about "green jobs." Very sweet, but quite naive.


I don't remember saying anything about efficiency. What I said is the more demand for green products such as bio-fuel,hydrogen-cells, etc... will create more jobs, it's simple economics. And these new jobs will replace at least some of the lost jobs. 

In other words Baird is looking at all the disadvantages and not the advantages of going green.

We could also get into the business of selling green products to other countries, just like Toyota is now in the business of selling Hybrid cards to our country and making new headlines (they just overtook GM in world auto sales). 

We have a company that's developing a "green" office tower in downtown Ottawa. We could sell some ofthose technologies and designs to other companies.

There are "green" things that we haven't thought of yet that can create their own economies just like Apple create the iPod economy (okay that's not a green product, but you get the drift).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh: Sounds like a make-work project to me. If we decided that everything should be painted red and made a law to enforce it, there would be many jobs created. New red products, a huge call for red painters. We would become the most efficient red painters around in fact.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Kosh said:


> In other words Baird is looking at all the disadvantages and not the advantages of going green.


The analysis Baird presented was driven by the timeline. With such a short timeframe you pretty much just shut things down and do less. Not enough capital stock can be turned over that fast. 

In the long-run there can be benefits from increasing the country's capital stock to use less energy/different energy much like a factory invests in robots to reduce labour needs. Energy efficiency is productivity (less is more  ), but capital efficiency needs to be kept in mind. ie. Spending $100,000 to reduce your home's energy bills by $1,000 would not be capital efficient.

The "green economy" assumption is a hugely risky one. You don't develop a competitive export industry simply by buying lots of stuff. It can create the local expertise, venture funding etc. to help but it does not necessarily follow. 

Add to this that every country is doing much the same, and the "green economy" is a dwindingly small piece of a likely future economy. Even today's energy industry is only about 6% of the economy, if I recall correctly. 

Finally, it's not inherently better to get into some of these industries as the manufacturing could quickly become "developing nation" quality. Solar may already be going there.


----------

