# Liberals' Push To Make Tories Toe The Kyoto Line Will Backfire On Them



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

_Just one more reason the Conservatives will retain power if an election is called anytime soon:_

(A word about the new semantic fanaticism of the environmentalists: Until recently, those who doubted the theory that man-made global warming will devastate the planet were referred to as skeptics. But being skeptical -- refusing to rush off half-cocked with the fashion of the mob -- can be a good thing. So those who believe the theory recently have taken to calling the skeptics "deniers," instead. This, of course, is intended to raise the spectre of those who deny the historic fact of the Nazis' purge of six million Jews before and during the Second World War. Soon I expect environmentalists to begin referring to the climate catastrophe they are sure is upon us as a holocaust, so they can also then call the skeptics "holocaust deniers," and the smear will be complete.)
But in the month between Dion's warm initial reception as an enviro-hero and the passage of Rodriguez's bill, the polls shifted. Dion's approval ratings are now just half those of Harper's and the Conservatives have pulled ahead of Dion's Liberals in voter preference.

Following the bill's passage, the Globe and Mail's Julia Belluz, insisted (correctly) that "No responsible government could come even close to reaching [Canada's Kyoto] targets without bankrupting the treasury." The Liberals, through their championing of the bill, were foisting on Canada "a deeply flawed treaty -- when it is no longer clear that it is in Canada's best interests to remain a party to that pact."

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn....html?id=3ccb24d3-dcde-4aff-8924-feeaf12f34e9


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Further Proof Of Media Twisting The Facts:*

_In a letter to the editor, a scientist interviewed for a story on the diets of Grizzly Bears had this to say when the paper turned the story into one on global warming:_

Re: "Global warming no problem for grizzlies in the foothills," The Journal, Feb. 15.
This is why scientists hate talking to reporters. The article was about the diets of grizzly bears in the Alberta foothills, which was based on a scientific study.
It had nothing to do with grizzly bears' ability to adapt to climate change. And yet some hasty headline writer took it upon himself to make it so. Shame.
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
There is not one word in the article, never mind the scientific paper, to suggest global warming will be "no problem" for grizzlies. Omnivorous? Yes. Adaptable? Probably.
But let's wait until the scientific evidence suggests something before we write it into the public record.
Jeff Gailus, Canmore


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Whatever it takes to yank the Flat Earth Society's collective head out of_ their_ ...the sand...

The tactic of saying that anything you don't agree with will flatten the economy is getting tired. What good is money when the planet is uninhabitable.

Seriously.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

The whole planet uninhabitable? Is this what the hysteria has everyone believing? 
Cripes!!!! :yikes:


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

thats what Bush believes....Economy first, environment er last....what good is money when the environment is SH*T...great way of thinking...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adagio: The whole point seems to be that if you don't do exactly as they say--NOW!!!!!!--that you've sealed the deaths of billions and destroyed the planet. Despite much hearty backslapping, bravado, bragadoccio and "consensus" the global warming movement hasn't made the inroads it had hoped to, so all that's left is to grab headlines with this sort of nonsense.

I've experienced predictions of end-of-the-world scenarios by heat, cold, solar radiation and famine since I was in Kindergarten. Each successive wave of prediction was accompanied by the notion that we must do SOMETHING, never mind the fact that the previous prediction had proven dead wrong. That, of course, was because scientists of the day were ever so much smarter and better equipped than the last group of prognosticators. 

Of course, today is different. All previous predictions are off the table because today's scientists are ever so much smarter and better equipped than the last group of prognosticators. Wait...did I say that already?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Uninhabitable for humans, maybe. What's bad for humans may be very good news for other species, however.

It would take tremendous effort to scour the planet of life - effort even mighty **** sapiens is incapable of sustaining. No, we're just working on our own demise, which is quite another thing altogether, and quite achievable too. Hopefully we'll figure out a way to reverse-engineer our disastrous ways. Perhaps eliminate the gene for intrinsic stupidity, for example.

One can hope.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

adagio said:


> The whole planet uninhabitable? Is this what the hysteria has everyone believing?
> Cripes!!!! :yikes:


Not hysteria, forward thinking.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> The whole point seems to be that if you don't do exactly as they say--NOW!!!!!!--that you've sealed the deaths of billions and destroyed the planet.


That is a problem with much of the rhetoric. People who speak highly of the "science" then feel justified in using any sloppy, over-stated and out of context logic to push any level of action. Almost looks like they wanted the action anyway, and just grabbed the science to cover their shame.

Oddly, the long-term path (with realistic but challenging short-term goals) is not that difficult or even costly. It's really, really cheap if all the major countries worked together, but that's nuts, so it's just sorta cheap (opportunity for gains...but that's a derail beejacon). But the politicians need to win over voters. Never mind that, at least in Canada, they're not actually that far apart. They will be because voters don't reward working together. They reward the winner (possibly the one who looks most like he got people to work together).


----------



## An Old Soul (Apr 24, 2006)

Everything dies, it's just a question of when and by what. If you anti-alarmists are okay with the results of our collective choices, more power to you.

The economic logic employed by anti-alarmists is that we shouldn't pay for things like Kyoto targets because they bankrupt us, but what could is an economy without the ecology to support it?

At current, economic trends and changes in application don't occur quickly enough to manufacture the kinds of change necessary for our survival.

As with every revolution, a new way of thinking must emerge, one in which the rhetoric of both camps is replaced by a vision that is useful and sane for everyone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

An Old Soul said:


> As with every revolution, a new way of thinking must emerge, one in which the rhetoric of both camps is replaced by a vision that is useful and sane for everyone.


I can agree completely with that statement. The problem is the answer is not and never has been Kyoto. Sending millions of dollars for carbon credits to Russia and China or wherever is lunacy.

The Conservatives are at least honest enough to say, look, Kyoto doesn't work. Let's try our made in Canada solution. 

And good on them for being sensible about it, knowing they nor the Liberals or NDP stand a snowball's chance in hell of achieving Kyoto's impossible targets.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Cue the Mission Impossible theme.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

An Old Soul said:


> but what could is an economy without the ecology to support it?
> .......................
> At current, economic trends and changes in application don't occur quickly enough to manufacture the kinds of change necessary for our survival.


That's not the choice we're facing. 
.......................
Again, not true. It isn't about doing X as "necessary for our survival". 

This is a real problem amongst many (disease, poverty, etc.) but it is not "the end of the world". Fear-mongers always seem to think its ok to overstate their case because their goal is righteous. It's much worse if they believe their own rhetoric.

I'd like to see Canada remain in the international process and take our well earned lumps forward into Kyoto 2 (30% penalty) if the timelines are long-enough. But the simple fact is that we cannot hit Kyoto 1 targets domestically (unless we get real creative in measuring forestry sinks) without unreasonable economic harm. We can't even come close. It's almost just a simple matter of arithmetic now, with little uncertainty.

And, yes, despite what the fear-mongers may try to have people believe of this problem, there is a broader context (food, health care, education, jobs, prosperity now and in the future, etc.) for this that does create economic standards. Everything matters and we need to balance it all despite us all having different notions of the right balance. It ain't going to be easy, but reasonable people given accurate information can come to some sort of agreement.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> I can agree completely with that statement. The problem is the answer is not and never has been Kyoto. Sending millions of dollars for carbon credits to Russia and China or wherever is lunacy.


I wish more people knew about this consequence of Kyoto. Shipping money to Russia and China is crazy and a pure waste of money. I would rather that money stay in Canada and be invested in alternative energy. I don't trust the governments of Russia or China for a second.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Perhaps the fear mongering tactic is what's neded to get the wheels of change in motion.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I wish more people knew about this consequence of Kyoto. Shipping money to Russia and China is crazy and a pure waste of money. I would rather that money stay in Canada and be invested in alternative energy. I don't trust the governments of Russia or China for a second.


The international mechanism can work quite well when it has a real basis (not Russia's economic collapse) and is fully thought through (problems with some China credits). Then it's a matter of efficiency. Spending $100 here is not better for our economy than spending $25 elsewhere to accomplish the same thing (1 tonne, for example). Environmental outsourcing?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Let's try our made in Canada solution.


What solution would that be??........wait 50 years. 

The ONE threat that actually is serious......not hysterical terrorist behind every dustbin level.......the Con coterie puts the up the white feather and says "can't be done".....

But let's get guns on the border guards........do actually understand how foolish you look??
But then the same idjits don't understand early childcare/education either....

If California can do it so can we - and they continue to improve with recent caps on GHG very tough vehicle emissions.

Buncha chicken****s in Canada whining about their "lifestyle" risks



> California shows U.S. how to cut energy use
> POWER CONSERVATION EMBRACED IN STATE
> By Steven Mufson
> Washington Post
> ...


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16727623.htm

Europe is getting it done, states are getting it done, Canada with enormous amount of wealth from a horrendously polluting industry is "scared".

Chicken****s....no vision.......



> tudy says Oil-sands firms could eliminate greenhouse gases for a mere pittance
> 
> 26 Oct 06
> Oil-sands companies could tackle climate change head-on by eliminating greenhouse-gas pollution, says a Pembina Institute report.
> ...


*

Failure to take action could render the oil-sands industry the main culprit in undermining Canada’s international climate-change obligations.

“The world is watching how Canada’s oil sands are developed,” said Marlo Raynolds, executive director of Pembina and co-author with Matthew McCulloch of Carbon Neutral by 2020: A Leadership Opportunity in Canada’s Oil Sands.

The report recommends a variety of solutions including energy efficiency, fuel switching, carbon capture and storage, and carbon offsets, with a detailed cost analysis of achieving carbon-neutral oil-sands production.

“It is both reasonable and achievable for an oil sands company to become carbon neutral by 2020,” Raynolds said. “Last week’s Clean Air Act announcement showed the federal government to be a laggard in tackling climate change.[/quote]

For just US $2.50 a barrel, according to the study, they could eliminate 100 per cent of greenhouse-gas pollution from tar sands, which are projected to contribute up to 47 per cent of the growth in Canada’s total emissions between 2003 and 2010 – making them the single-largest contributor to growth in greenhouse-gas pollution.

Don't we just KNOW what the real agenda of delay is.....

There will be a backlash.....the last time it happened Albertans were not too pleased.

Keep it up.......... *


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> _*For just US $2.50 a barrel, according to the study, they could eliminate 100 per cent of greenhouse-gas pollution from tar sands*_


_*

It's worth reading the whole study. The estimated cost ranged much higher (over $10) and some were actually lower (depending on credits etc.). But $2.50 for full sequestration was at the optimistic end.*_


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

This bill was irresponsible, it was a private member's bill that came to a vote at the worst possible time.

However, anyone with any reasonable shot at forming a government (iow, Dion and Harper) know that the Kyoto targets can't be met without badly damaging our economy and no one is actually going to go through with this.

Go to the Conservative party's website and check out the "not a leader" ad on the right hand side. This ad shows Iggy and Dion discussing "not getting it done" on the environment with Iggy saying they didn't get it done and Dion saying that Iggy is being unfair and he doesn't know of what he speaks because it is hard to set priorities.

The intended affect of the ad is to tarnish Dion's environmental credentials and to make him look like a poor leader. However, to me, it shows that while the man cares about the environment and wants to help fix it, he isn't some kind of ideologist who will implement Kyoto no matter what the cost to our economy.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals know something has to be done and both know that Kyoto can't be met without hurting our economy (and their political futures). The rest is just political rhertoric.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I and most of the rest of the country are entirely fed up with pointing fingers and politicking.
It doesn't matter whether it's $2.50 or $10 per barrel it needs doing on a level playing field in Canada and the oil sands are the primary lever.

It's a matter of TRYING to hit Kyoto especially in light of the type of pollution and profits the oil sands generate.



> Suzuki hopes to build on climate momentum
> Updated Tue. Feb. 13 2007 10:16 AM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


Canada has NO excuse whatsoever - if Europe and California can tackle it big time so can we.
What we have is gutless politicians and a few disgusting dinosaurs who can seemingly hold their nose while the oilsands both pollutes and lines their pockets.

Neither Europe nor California have that offsetting income yet they are able to get on with it.

There WILL be a backlash in Canada.....count on it. There are NO excuses for inaction or delay.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Suzuki wants to build on that momentum before it fades.
> 
> "Sadly, we've already been here," he says. "In 1988, the environment was at the absolute top of the agenda."
> 
> *But it somehow fell off the radar, particularly as the economy slowed down in the early 90s.*


Which is exactly why Kyoto won't be implemented. It is good and fine to talk about preventing a catastrophe sometime in the future but if you can't put food on the table today, you've got a bigger problem.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC, don't you find it all difficult to have any faith in a gov't that has a cabinet minister that believes man walked with the dinosaurs?

no wonder harpo et al can't get their heads around attacking Canada's pollution and green house gas emissions
harpo still hires people that think the Flintstones is a documentary

in case you don't know who he is, it's Stockwell "Doris" Day


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> you can't put food on the table today, you've got a bigger problem.


oh spare me  In Alberta alone you've got billions tucked away and a mess with the indigenous populations......they are separate issues only bound by "in common" political footdragging.

California has far greater social issues and poverty to deal with and many parts of Europe as well.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE.

If "green" is so damaging to the economy why is Toyota spending billions in Ontario on their factories while the dinosaurs at GM, Ford and Chrysler are reeling.

There are hundreds of billions of dollars to be earned in emerging green businesses - Canada COULD lead.....especially given the oil sands windfall that could be pointed to long term sustainable industries that would even stretch out the value of the natural resource.

Why if Seimens can come into Ontario - make $3/4 million on a single condo project and SAVE the condo owners $140,000 per year - can;t a Canadian company do the same for every apartment, government building etc.

Blind, stupid......is why.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

reminds me a lot of the pro tobacco lobby
how long did it take for everyone to realize and accept that cigarette smoke causes cancer?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> harpo still hires people that think the Flintstones is a documentary


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

Thanks for the laugh MS!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I and most of the rest of the country are entirely fed up with pointing fingers and politicking.


Wrong again! Sorry, but you don't speak for me or any other of the hundreds of thousands of us in Canada who don't agree with your thinking in any way, shape or form.

Watch the results of the next election to see just how far out to lunch that statement really is MacDoc.

An aside, it is nice to see the Liberals painting bull's eyes on their foreheads though.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> SINC, don't you find it all difficult to have any faith in a gov't that has a cabinet minister that believes man walked with the dinosaurs?
> 
> no wonder harpo et al can't get their heads around attacking Canada's pollution and green house gas emissions
> harpo still hires people that think the Flintstones is a documentary
> ...


Michael, you wore out that Doris Day joke five years ago and it has now simply become boring to read it every time an issue comes up.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Michael, you wore out that Doris Day joke five years ago and it has now simply become boring to read it every time an issue comes up.


See below



SINC said:


> don't speak for me or any other of the hundreds of thousands of us in Canada who don't agree with your thinking in any way, shape or form.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Why if Seimens can come into Ontario - make $3/4 million on a single condo project and SAVE the condo owners $140,000 per year - can;t a Canadian company do the same for every apartment, government building etc.
> 
> Blind, stupid......is why.


My firm does geothermal and I am getting involved with it on the sales side. We recently bought out a smaller geothermal firm and have combined our resources. http://www.eba.ca/n_geoexchange.asp 

I haven't spoken with many developers yet, but I can tell you there are other hurdles involved.

Firstly, not all buildings are amenable to geothermal energy from a cost perspective. 

Secondly, undertaking geothermal projects involves additional legwork for the developer. You are correct that the future purchasers will save money, but unless the market is willing to recognize and demand the product, there is little incentive for the developers to do it (e.g. extra engineering, banking issues to tie the cost to the strata, permitting, etc..). Right now, it's just easier for developers to stick with the status quo because they know it and it is profitable. 

Some get it and some don't. 

I can't wait to move forward on these projects.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Michael, you wore out that Doris Day joke five years ago and it has now simply become boring to read it every time an issue comes up.


au contraire mon ami

that doris day joke will never wear out as long as doris keeps believing fred, wilma and dino all lived together


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> My firm does geothermal and I am getting involved with it on the sales side. We recently bought out a smaller geothermal firm and have combined our resources. I haven't spoken with many developers yet, but I can tell you there are other hurdles involved.
> 
> Firstly, not all buildings are amenable to geothermal energy from a cost perspective.
> 
> ...


when macdoc told me the story of this siemens project, it only had to do with making the building more energy efficient

windows, appliances, lights, etc.

i'm sure he'll correct me if i'm wrong


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.toronto.ca/bbp/projects/index.htm

It may have been through something like this. A revolving low/zero-interest fund for the country could go a long ways. Zero interest for public and not-for-profit buildings, low-interest for others. Some basic requirements on energy and water savings, and a fixed payback period to ensure cost-effective choices. Add a billion to it every year for a bit, then it just carries itself forward for a long time.

Similar things can be developed for industry (carbon tax held in account for X years; company can reinvest in reductions or lose it) in ways to respect provincial economies. 

Many, many choices and, even if they stopped bickering, none of the three Federal parties have proposed enough despite having plenty of time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Leadership and vision :clap:



> *'Now or never' for climate action*
> 
> All EU nations must back proposals to cut harmful emissions by 30% by 2020 or risk jeopardising the global effort to curb climate change, warn ministers.
> The call for unity among the 27-nation bloc was made by the UK Environment Secretary, David Miliband, and his Spanish and Slovenian counterparts.
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6369171.stm

How lacking in both our nation is.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Leadership and vision :clap:


Actually you're right. We have the leadership that recognizes the impossible cannot be achieved via Kyoto and the vision to try what will succeed for Canada. I bet our new plan without Kyoto drops us from producing 2% of the world's GHG to substantially less than that, perhaps down 25% to 1.5%. Now that's progress. :clap:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I feel I am watching a classic epic... call it The Battle Of The Clap-Bots.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> I feel I am watching a classic epic... call it The Battle Of The Clap-Bots.


A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. Fight fire with fire. 

Or beejacon with beejacon

Whatever.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. Fight fire with fire.
> 
> Or beejacon with beejacon
> 
> Whatever.


ever notice that beej and sinc are 4 letter words?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ever notice that beej and sinc are 4 letter words?


Sure, so's "SPEC", what of it?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> oh spare me In Alberta alone you've got billions tucked away and a mess with the indigenous populations......they are separate issues only bound by "in common" political footdragging.


You misunderstood my post, the point is that the political will to do something on climate change is always going to take a second seat to the economy and not just the oilsands but the Ontario manufacturing industry.

Implementing Kyoto would have an adverse effect on both of the primary economic engines in this country and would affect employment levels, investment income and tax revenues (iow, the working class, unions, big business, rich people and the government...pretty much everyone).

Kyoto isn't going to be implemented but hopefully a longer term plan will allow us to bring our emissions under control and start to reduce them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gee it's really killed Britain and Europe hasn't it. Sorry it does not wash. It's just apologetics for inaction.
When the oil sands companies themselves say they can zero GHG for a nomimal amount per barrel...AND see the potential for making money in a carbon market...there is no excuse.

Ontario is hurt by what - failure of the big 3 to undertake fuel efficient car building. So Toyota which had some vision is booming.
Siemens could see money making opportunities - you see doom a gloom.
Horsepucky.
The amount of activity alone in retrofitting inefficient buildings....if the green legislation initiatives were in place.......is enormous.
Get on with it - no excuses.
Not every target gets reached, it's the attempt especially given 

a) the profits the oil sands produce
b) the nature and mount of the pollution emitted in getting those profits.

If it were NL dumping that amount into the sea from their offshore platforms it would be stopped in a heartbeat.
There is NO excuse, period, full stop.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Sure, so's "SPEC", what of it?


beej and sinc were self chosen names


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Implementing Kyoto would have an adverse effect on both of the primary economic engines in this country and would affect employment levels, investment income and tax revenues (iow, the working class, unions, big business, rich people and the government...pretty much everyone).


Implementing Kyoto, or any other _serious_ measures to manage climate change will indeed have economic impact. All the more reason to set targets that will make a difference and strive for them. That way we can manage the economic change, rather than have it thrust upon us in later decades.

It was expected that many vested interests would start by undermining climate change evidence. When that game was lost it made sense to appeal to selfishness: any actions will destroy jobs: and then detail a cascading list of industries that will suffer so that virtually everyone feels threatened.

Interesting though that very little real evidence is provided that the net effect of managing our environment will be economically negative . 

There is substantial evidence that after unexpected disasters there is a boost to economic activity - witness wars, earthquakes etc. In these cases the immediate impact was negative, but repair has often resulted in strong growth and economic regeneration.

How much more could this be the case with Kyoto? I would argue that there is economic opportunity here, not threat. Great investment would come in research, manufacturing and the delivery of services. Great opportunities for suppliers and consumers alike. A planned disruption and series of changes is much preferred to the unplanned.

If we had political leadership this could be seen as an enormous opportunity. Sadly, we have too many politicians in Canada, and too few leaders.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

as noted above, great investment would produce great opportunities and technologies, very much like the U.S. space program during their "land a man on the moon" phase

JFK set a very ambitious goal and it was achieved

harpo is just looking for excuses to not do anything

they way the cons are harping on dion, looks like they're a tad worried about dion's green approach

will be interesting when it comes down to the english language debate to see how harpo spins his sh*t as shine-ola.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Pelao said:


> I would argue that there is economic opportunity here, not threat. Great investment would come in research, manufacturing and the delivery of services. Great opportunities for suppliers and consumers alike. A planned disruption and series of changes is much preferred to the unplanned.


Bingo! Pelao gets it. Apparently SINC still doesn't, but I have hope for him coming around. He, and many others have been bamboozled by conservative politicians who've been painting anyone promoting such changes as 'environmental radicals' and 'fear-mongers.' The economic benefits of 'greening' your industries needs to be highlighted, and the fact that only the leaders in this inevitable (and already rapidly growing) wave of change are going to be able to fully capitalize on it.

The world will have to go green... that's a given. But most of the world will be buying the green technologies that have been developed and optimized elsewhere, rather than re-inventing these wheels. Canada was perfectly positioned to surf this wave, but we missed the opportunity. It's not too late, however, to catch the next big wave of the series, but we have to start paddling hard - now.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pelao :clap: Indeed an important aspect of the Stern report was the scale of the emerging "green businesses".

Denmark is notable for seizing the initiative early with massive wind power projects which not only has helped their energy situation but allows them to export their products worldwide.

Here's a company going in the right direction. They are a client and member on ehMac.


http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=42812

You should see how little they pay in energy costs for their 15,000 sq ft facility. It's a lesson to all.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

My fear is that the Con's empty catchphrase 'bankrupt the economy' will resonate more with the voters than the facts. People want a soundbite and that's a good one.

Ultimately I feel their strategy my succeed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn....html?id=da3c38f6-fab1-45fc-be84-f8d5f508e73a

Eventually, the politicians may catch up with some oil industry players. They'll catch up when they perceive the support, which is the voters. How sad is that?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Bingo! Pelao gets it. Apparently SINC still doesn't, but I have hope for him coming around.
> Cheers


Of course I get it, and yes we have to do something about GHG in the long term and the sooner the better. We agree absolutely on that.

What we disagree on is the method to get there. In my opinion, that method cannot be achieved via Kyoto. You on the other hand seem to think that paying millions to other countries is the way to go. That is a basic difference of opinion and nothing more.

I propose investing that money in our own country to further reduce GHG here on home soil. Any other method is foolhardy and is the fundamental basis of the flawed Kyoto accord.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Of course I get it, and yes we have to do something about GHG in the long term and the sooner the better. We agree absolutely on that.


Okay, sorry if I've misunderstood you're position.



> What we disagree on is the method to get there. In my opinion, that method cannot be achieved via Kyoto. You on the other hand seem to think that paying millions to other countries is the way to go. That is a basic difference of opinion and nothing more.


Regardless of our disagreement on the methods for getting there (there's a lot more to Kyoto than giving other countries money), the fact is that Canada signed an international agreement, and failing to abide by it's terms is going to cost us (as it should). You may argue that we shouldn't have signed. In fact, given the fact that the Liberals signed without, apparently, any plan or intention to do make the promised changes, I'd agree with you that they shouldn't have signed. But they did, and Canada is therefore accountable for it's lack of progress on GHG emissions. The responsible thing to do at this point is to show good faith by doing what we can in the remaining time, pay our fine, and do better in the next round.

A 'made in Canada' solution is not a solution for a global problem. As you say, Canada emits only a few percent of the GHGs that need to be reduced, so we can't solve this problem on our own. The solution will require international cooperation, and that means international agreements. We've been an abject failure at living up to our international commitments on this issue so far. Now that it's time to pay the price, we can't just say "we aren't going to participate any more" and pull-out.



> Any other method is foolhardy and is the fundamental basis of the flawed Kyoto accord.


I'm sure that, had you been our negotiator at the summit where Kyoto was signed, you would've done a much better job, and a perfect agreement would've been reached. However, the flawed agreement was the best we could do, and that's what we signed, so that's what we have to live with.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> However, the flawed agreement was the best we could do,


Not necessarily true. You hear weird things in Ottawa. 

But yes, any international agreement will be flawed in some way due to the variety of interests and egos. Kyoto seemed quite reasonable particularly because its flaws were not permanent (actual targets only 2008-12).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Of course I get it, and yes we have to do something about GHG in the long term and the sooner the better. We agree absolutely on that.
> 
> What we disagree on is the method to get there. In my opinion, that method cannot be achieved via Kyoto. You on the other hand seem to think that paying millions to other countries is the way to go. That is a basic difference of opinion and nothing more.
> 
> I propose investing that money in our own country to further reduce GHG here on home soil. Any other method is foolhardy and is the fundamental basis of the flawed Kyoto accord.



but it doesn't bother you that harper allowed his u.s. task masters to steal 1 billion dollars in the so called softwood lumber deal?

millions bother you towards helping solve the planet's climate problems, but allowing the u.s. to steal a billion is ok?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bryanc is on track - surpluses from the energy windfall which are a large part of the increases could have been used to both reduce emmissions from the tar sands and from other sources as has been done elsewhere on the planet by signatories with less resources than we had.

It's a double black eye that we are not on track AND profiting mightly from heavy emission industries and allowing energy inefficient/polluting processes to go unchecked.

Kyoto V1 is a lead into Kyoto V2 or some other international initiative that one hopes could enjoy the success of the Montreal accord on Ozone depletion.

It disturbs me to no end that internal agreements like the Kelowna Accord can be just ignored by the politicians of the hour let alone international agreements like Kyoto.

Blatent breach of agreement by gov sets a very poor example for commerce and citizenry.

By all means I have no issue with gov of the day making a case for a change due to unexpected circumstances but we really have no excuse given the economic strength over the period to not have made a better effort.

This is an environmental deficit that must be faced up to just as the fiscal one was in the 90s.

It was hard then, it will be hard now in some areas.

We reap the benefit of the deficit fight now.
We WILL reap the benefit of the environmental effort later......big time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> You may argue that we shouldn't have signed. In fact, given the fact that the Liberals signed without, apparently, any plan or intention to do make the promised changes, I'd agree with you that they shouldn't have signed. But they did, and Canada is therefore accountable for it's lack of progress on GHG emissions. The responsible thing to do at this point is to show good faith by doing what we can in the remaining time, pay our fine, and do better in the next round.


When one makes a mistake in life, one immediately takes steps to rectify that error. Kind of like driving down a road and coming to that cliff you talked about in another thread. You must change course to avoid disaster.

So it is with Kyoto. One simply reneges on the treaty telling the world our negotiators at the time were brain dead. Sorry, but we're changing strategy. Simple as that and far better than enduring the damage Kyoto will inflict on us. I would guess well over half the signers of the treaty are not cold weather climates like Canada where it is far easier to meet their flawed goals. Following through with the treaty becomes just as flawed as the treaty itself. We have to stand up and say it is wrong.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> but it doesn't bother you that harper allowed his u.s. task masters to steal 1 billion dollars in the so called softwood lumber deal?
> 
> millions bother you towards helping solve the planet's climate problems, but allowing the u.s. to steal a billion is ok?


The billion you talk of would soon be two billion if an agreement of some type was not reached. There are times when one has to lick their wounds and carry on. The softwood lumber deal was such a case. It's over, so get over it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> The billion you talk of would soon be two billion if an agreement of some type was not reached. There are times when one has to lick their wounds and carry on. The softwood lumber deal was such a case. It's over, so get over it.


yeah, i'm sure you'd have the same understanding if it was a Liberal gov't that cut that deal

for many years the tobacco lobby refused to admit that cigarettes were harmful and people kept on smoking

you, yourself suffered serious health problems due to cigarettes and are now a strong advocate against smoking

kyoto is attempting to fix the serious health issues suffered by our planet before it goes overly critical and before we have to pay billions if our planet is forced into the emergency ward

ounce of prevention and all that SINC

i'm surprised you don't see the analogy between the tobacco lobby and the oil lobby aka anti-global warming lobby


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> There are times when one has to lick their wounds and carry on.


Why how VERY appropo to the Kyoto agreement :clap:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Why how VERY appropo to the Kyoto agreement :clap:


peter mackay doesn't seem to worry about documents and his signature so why would it bother any cons when Canada signed an agreement and now "the new gov't of Canada" decides to back out of it, citing "economic concerns" - yeah, concerns that their money from oil barons both north and south of the border will dry up

and it seems that "moving on and acceptance" only applies to the things SINC supports, but not to things like expansion of Canada's role in Afghanistan


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and it seems that "moving on and acceptance" only applies to the things SINC supports, but not to things like expansion of Canada's role in Afghanistan


Wrong again Michael. I do support Canada's increased role in Afghanistan and I support our troops being there in every way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Why how VERY appropo to the Kyoto agreement :clap:


One should never have to lick self inflicted wounds. No need to if you see the imminent danger and back off immediately. Like Kyoto for example.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Even tho most studies show there is almost ZERO chance of anything resembling a "win" in Afghanistan you'll spend billions there .

The world of Con "logic"......Orwell rampant.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Sorry, but we're changing strategy. Simple as that and far better than enduring the damage Kyoto will inflict on us. I would guess well over half the signers of the treaty are not cold weather climates like Canada where it is far easier to meet their flawed goals.


I certainly understand your misgivings, and I agree the treaty is not all it could have been - although most treaties are a story of compromise.

What I would appreciate is some statistics on the damage you mention. Of course, to tell the _entire_ story such statistics would have to detail the _sum total_ of the impact implementing Kyoto will have.

A list of expenses and predicted job losses simply will not do. The other side of the coin would have to be predicted and tallied up: new jobs created, returns on investment, the financial advantages of technological leadership and the impact of cleaner air and the avoidance of drastic climate change.

Every change in any sphere will have an impact, but that impact in turn will have it's effects. Only when you reach the point where predictions are based on weakly supported suppositions can you reach reasonable conclusions: and even then the door must remain open as new data emerge.

The arguments against Kyoto that claim to be based on economics are based rather on a subset of economic predictions, not on economic study. These arguments are being used as political tools so our Dear Leaders can look like they are taking action while avoiding any semblance of responsibility.

There is plenty to be nervous about in tackling climate change through Kyoto. But there is more to be nervous about in leaders that are messing up a threat that could be an opportunity.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Wrong again Michael. I do support Canada's increased role in Afghanistan and I support our troops being there in every way.


perhaps you misunderstood

canada agreed to only having troops in afghanistan until feb 2007
instead of honouring that agreement, harpo decided to not only extend the mission but to change it from peace keeping to search and destroy to appease his u.s. overlords

more dead canadians on harpo's watch


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> How much more could this be the case with Kyoto? I would argue that there is economic opportunity here, not threat. Great investment would come in research, manufacturing and the delivery of services. Great opportunities for suppliers and consumers alike. A planned disruption and series of changes is much preferred to the unplanned.


Right, we will just pass legislation that will effectively shut down the oilsands and put tight restraints on the Ontario economy and all of the lost jobs and investment are going to be magically replaced by new green technologies.

The EUB says there are 1.6 trillion barrels of oil in the oil sands, average that out at oil worth $50 a barrel and tell me what green technology is going to replace it.

Calculate the federal income tax on that kind of money and you will see why the whole country has an interest in this resource.

Yeah, we could implement Kyoto, effectively destroy this resource, reduce our worldwide footprint from 3% of GHG emissions to 2% of GHG emissions and still boil to death because the US, Japan, India and China won't do the same.

Of course, I don't need to make this point because every reasonable person in Ottawa already knows about it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

zoziw said:


> Right, we will just pass legislation that will effectively shut down the oilsands and put tight restraints on the Ontario economy and all of the lost jobs and investment are going to be magically replaced by new green technologies.
> 
> The EUB says there are 1.6 trillion barrels of oil in the oil sands, average that out at oil worth $50 a barrel and tell me what green technology is going to replace it.
> 
> ...


:clap: Best thought out post here so far. That is unless you can buy into that bit about "green technologies" replacing a destroyed economy. :lmao:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> :clap: Best thought out post here so far. That is unless you can buy into that bit about "green technologies" replacing a destroyed economy. :lmao:


with that kind of logic you would agree to keep smoking because others smoke?


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Not sure if it was mentioned so I'm gonna jump in blindly and take my chances....

We are over our allowed limit with Kyoto. So, we will need to buy carbon credits from Russia and others; $10 Billion in the first year alone! If we stopped the Oil Sands projects we would still be over. When Kyoto becomes a reality, we are going to have our pants pulled down even more than they are now when we get our paycheques... Apparently there is a clause that we can back out of Kyoto after a year.... so at best we'll lose $10 Billion. The problem is politicians want there names attached to big projects in the history books; I see it every day!


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Right, we will just pass legislation that will effectively shut down the oilsands and put tight restraints on the Ontario economy and all of the lost jobs and investment are going to be magically replaced by new green technologies.


I suspect you may not have read my post in it's entirety, or possibly not understood some of my points.

Nowhere did I suggest simply shutting anything down. Instead, I wrote about planning, preparation and being in control. This is far from magic and in other countries is referred to as responsible government. Some even wilder observers refer to it as leadership, but heaven forbid we should ever suggest Canada will reach such a lofty state in this regard. 

On a separate but related topic, I note that you value oil from the sands at $50 a barrel. Stand back and look at the momentum of change in sectors that depend on oil. It is entirely likely that as alternative technologies take hold each new element will add momentum, slowing demand for oil. There are other factors that will could lower the price. We all know that the economic viability of the oil from sand is precarious. Why not plan a way out, gradually reducing dependence, rather than have change thrust upon us? At the same time we would make environmental gains.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I admit, I didn't read the full post..lazy, at work and much to catch up on. I do agree with you that something needs to be done to helpthe environment but Kyoto is not it. I would like to see Canada develop and implement it's won strategy taking some points from Kyoto. Kytot could be good if you weren't penalized for being over.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Lets' see the oil companies themselves say zero GHG from production is $2.50-10 a barrel and they are more than willing to play as long as the field is level but the "shut down the economy" crowd doesn't get it.

You think the rest of the planet will STOP buying as much as the oil sands produces???

I don't see Europe or Japan "shut down" - yet they've dealt with much higher energy costs and California seems quite unfazed and is going after even steeper cuts.

It's just apologizing for failure to lead.

Chicken****s the bunch of ya

Perhaps a bit different approach would make the $10 billion penalty look like chickenfeed.

Norway versus Alberta.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/sheppard/20060324.html



> Think Alberta's rich? You should see Norway's bank account
> 
> CBC News Online | March 24, 2006
> 
> ...


Hmmm same resource base - Norway at $165 billion.....Alberta at $14 billion.....and this is the province wagging it's finger ????

Perhaps a renewed NEP IS in everybody's interest including Alberta 's with that kind of comparative result. 

Oh yeah Norway is a Kyoto signatory.



> Norway has established a national emissions trading system. The Act relating to greenhouse gas emission allowance trading and the duty to surrender emission allowances (Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Act) entered into force on 1 January 2005. According to the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, all the 32 installations to which the scheme applied in 2005 complied with their obligations. Emissions from these installations totalled 5.66 million tonnes CO2 . This was four per cent less than the CO2 emission allowances allocated to these installations (Norwegian Pollution Control Authority 2006b).


http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2006-11-09-01-en.html

Vision, leadership, management.....alive and well in Norway..........MIA in Canada......clearly.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Not sure I know where you are going with that except to say that they have a plan in action to follow? (Perhaps I need a nap) I agree we need a plan. What I was referencing was how high our usage levels are; even if we stopped extracting and producing oil from the oil sands we would still be over our allowed kyoto limits. What your information does show is how poorly managed our country is. I think it may be also difficult to compare Norway to Canada; we have over 32 million people and they have 4.5 million.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

There are all sorts of comparisons to show Canadian mismanagement. 

Ontario electricity efficiency versus U.S. neighbours is a big problem too. 

The AB Heritage Fund thing is a mix though. They did grossly mismanage it (how many provinces in the 1970s and 1980s did not also screw up their finanaces?) but they also make large net transfers to the rest of Canada.

Bottom-line: Provincial finger-pointing is another Canadian speciality. If we could harness it and sell it, that would be a part of our clean and prosperous future economy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Comparing Norway to Canada is apples to oranges in every single sense of the word, consider land mass for openers, but hey if it helps prove your point you have to run with it.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Nowhere did I suggest simply shutting anything down. Instead, I wrote about planning, preparation and being in control. This is far from magic and in other countries is referred to as responsible government. Some even wilder observers refer to it as leadership, but heaven forbid we should ever suggest Canada will reach such a lofty state in this regard.


You talked about a "planned disruption" which certainly seemed to imply some kind of stoppage. If you didn't mean that, fair enough, however, I am not sure that you fully appreciate the expense and delicate nature of oil sands production.

The industry itself is aware of the environmental issue and is looking at ways around it, including nuclear power or pumping the ghg emissions back into the ground, however, both are still being looked at and more time is required.

Before you say time is up:

1) It is already too late to change the next 100 years
2) Our total ghg emissions are less than half what any one of the big emitters are puking out right now with no intentions of stopping.

Kyoto was a worthwhile effort at the time but the government didn't act on it and now it is not practically reachable. We need a made in Canada solution to reduce our GHG emissions in a practical and deliberate way..


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Seems at least Ontario is getting off it's duff. :clap:



> *Ontario aims to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels*
> 
> MURRAY CAMPBELL
> The Ontario government is putting finishing touches on a climate-change policy that officials say will match the best efforts in North America to deal with greenhouse-gas emissions.The policy, which involves 11 different ministries, could be presented to cabinet as early as next week with the goal of having Premier Dalton McGuinty unveil it in mid-April. Final decisions on a range of initiatives have yet to be made, but it is understood that, at a minimum, Ontario will propose reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. More ambitious proposals still on the table would cut emissions by 10 per cent or more.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...8841:4;10555081:0;240501:0;&force_login=false

The concept is to BE SEEN to honour international commitments to the BEST of our ability.
Sayings it's impractical when others have done it, while reaping enormous benefits that other's don't have.

Sorry.....no excuse.
By all means argue Canada's forests should be carbon credits....trade smart on the carbon market as even the oil companies want to......but to throw up hands and say - "well we can't do it so we're leaving".....when everyone on the planet knows how hypocritical that is.......???
What a grim joke. 

Kyoto V2 is in the planning stages and we can have input into that as well to soften the obstacle course for the timid....but no imput if we revoke our treaty obligations unilaterally.



> Canada faces lawsuit over failure to meet Kyoto commitment
> OTTAWA, Oct 31 (AFP) Nov 01, 2006
> Environmentalists threatened Tuesday to sue Canada to force cuts to greenhouse-gas emissions agreed under the Kyoto Protocol, despite officials' claims the target cannot be achieved.
> The Friends of the Earth presented Environment Minister Rona Ambrose with a legal opinion asserting that Canada is in breach of the international treaty to reduce air pollution that causes global warming, and asked her to respond.
> ...


http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061031230116.bm84p217.html

One of many I'm sure would arise.

Time to act to honour the spririt of the commitment.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Time to act to honour the spririt of the commitment.


Funny, but as I recall, you would do the exact opposite by pulling out of Afghanistan immediately.

You would honour one, but not the other commitment? Interesting set of values.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Ontario will propose reducing greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020.


Which is far short of Kyoto and much more reasonable. I've advocated this kind of approach for awhile now.



> Environmentalists threatened Tuesday to sue Canada to force cuts to greenhouse-gas emissions agreed under the Kyoto Protocol, despite officials' claims the target cannot be achieved.


That would be a very interesting legal case that I would love to have a ruling on. Strictly speaking, international treaties do not have direct legal effect domestically until they are implemented in domestic legislation, Kyoto hasn't been implemented in this way.

However, there is something called "intrepretive presumption" which might have an indirect effect because the courts could operate under the belief that, because the treaty was signed, legislation will be forthcoming that will reflect our obligations under the treaty. This could effect their ruling.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Seems at least Ontario is getting off it's duff. :clap:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yey, another thing to do to get voted back in just to break his promise after he wins...thats Dalton Mcguinty...a liberal...


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

double


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

This let's blame India and China track is pretty old. Both countries ratified Kyoto and both countries produce way less GHGs per capita than USA or Canada. Quite frankly the hypocracy is astounding. China has over a billion people and produces 54% of the amount of GHGs as USA with 350 million people.



> The U.S. puts out more CO2 than any other nation on earth, including China and India, by a large margin. Considering the relative populations (a billion-plus each for China and India versus 300 million in the U.S.), per capita emissions in the U.S. are many times larger. This has been true for the past 100-plus years of CO2 pollution.
> 
> For the U.S. to refuse to take any steps until India and China do the same is like the fattest man at the table, upon realizing the food is running out, demanding that the hungry people who just sat down cut back just as much as him, at the same time.
> 
> ...



Enough with the China /India lies. We as individuals should commit to Kyoto (I have by purchasing carbon neutral electricity (Bullfrog Power)), as a city, as a Province, and as a Country. To say it is impossible is a lie I did it for approximately $20 extra a month. I've already met my Kyoto challenge and that isn't even including conservation efforts that have reduced my electricity consumption.You can too. Stop talking and take personal action now. Then look to your city and province to shape up. We can do this and expand our economy if we use our heads. As has been pointed out if we just wait the economic problem will be worse but if we act now we may come out ahead.

We need to stop pointing fingers and get our house in order first. Those who keep pointing to India and China are simply obstructionists. Ignore them and move forward.
Take responsibility for you own action then worry about others. If we all wait for others to take action nothing will be accomplished and this is what the Harpers and the Bushs of the world want. Don't let them win.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Take responsibility for you own action then worry about others. If we all wait for others to take action nothing will be accomplished and this is what the Harpers and the Bushs of the world want. Don't let them win.


Wrong again. Well maybe not about Bush, I don't follow US GHG reporting, but dead wrong on Harper.

For the umpteenth time people, the Liberals did zero, nothing, nada, ziltch and sfa about the GHG situation in Canada for a decade after signing Kyoto. That is fact, so suck it up.

Harper on the other hand tried something, albeit not enough and that bill is now being revised to suit all parties concerns, yet you continue to diss him for finally making an attempt at what no other government would. Get real.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Wrong again. Well maybe not about Bush, I don't follow US GHG reporting, but dead wrong on Harper.
> 
> For the umpteenth time people, the Liberals did zero, nothing, nada, ziltch and sfa about the GHG situation in Canada for a decade after signing Kyoto. That is fact, so suck it up.
> 
> Harper on the other hand tried something, albeit not enough and that bill is now being revised to suit all parties concerns, yet you continue to diss him for finally making an attempt at what no other government would. Get real.


And for the "umpteenth billionth time" Harper canceled the legislation right after being elected. It is disingenuous to rescind legislation then complain it didn't exist. It is a lie to say the liberals did nothing when you ignore the fact the legislation was already passed. It is a bigger lie to say Harper is doing something about it when he is the one who killed the legislation and is fighting Kyoto tooth and nail. You get real!


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> This let's blame India and China track is pretty old. Both countries ratified Kyoto and both countries produce way less GHGs per capita than USA or Canada. Quite frankly the hypocracy is astounding. China has over a billion people and produces 54% of the amount of GHGs as USA with 350 million people.


If we want to stop global warming we are going to have to dismiss the per capita numbers and focus on net emissions.



> China
> 
> China is the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but as a developing country is not yet required to reduce its emissions.
> 
> ...


Link

India hasn't even reported since 1994 and isn't required to reduce emissions either:



> Developing countries like India are not obliged to make any cuts in greenhouse emissions under Kyoto. But as they raise living standards their emissions will increase. India's emissions are estimated to have risen by more than 50% in the 1990s, although the country has only submitted emissions figures to the UN for one year, 1994.


Of course, the US is a big problem as well, I don't deny that.

If you want to tank our economy to save a paltry 1% of total worldwide ghg emissions while countries like China and India go crazy, you are entitled to hold that opinion. I don't.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> If we want to stop global warming we are going to have to dismiss the per capita numbers and focus on net emissions.


Quite the opposite. The long-term framework that can work (decades down the road) must be based upon per capita numbers with small and reasonable adjustments from that baseline. That's the only workable approach, although some small rumblings I've heard about land-based targets sounded great for Canada (lots of land, few people...burn baby, burn!).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You know I'm getting seriously fed up with this "tank the economy crap"

Is Britain, Europe or California "tanked" - jeez what a bunch of luzers.

Alberta is pissing upstream and making a barrel of money off it and it's gotta stop. It is just flat wrong.

Bunch of cry babies.....if other jurisdictions with less advantages can take strong action so can we.

Getting real tired of the whining about tanked economies - horsepucky. 

*Not one person has said why if NL has to curb pollution into the ocean from it's oil extraction why Alberta shouldn't have to curb it from entering into the atmosphere.*

I'm listening........


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: I'm getting sick of people who still seriously think we can hit Kyoto targets without massive credit purchases or just rolling over the penalty (the people do not want the shut-down option). The last (penalty) is my preference...do what we can reasonably (yes, the economy does matter) but be honest about what we can accomplish. From there, try to ensure Kyoto v2 has a long enough timeline for us to impress everyone.

Britain tossed coal generation, as one example but, yes, Europe has done more. 

As for regulating pollution, sure the ocean ones exist. And it takes time and it isn't absolute. It is a long road. We're on it now. Asking "why" is not the key question. It's "how".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This wrecking the economy is patently absurb given examples around the world. It's just a smoke screen for doing nothing.

We have a much stronger economy than many who have done far more.

I'm not asking for an absolute adherence to the Kyoto target - I want to be seen to be doing at least as much as the best of the others are given the situation with the oil sands.

If the oil sands went zero ghg in 5 years and were into carbon trading I'd see that as a terrific start as I think the provinces themselves can move on other fronts to accelerate reductions.

It's this continual whining about economy wrecking.

If the ocean ones exist then it's completely unfair and illogical and immoral to make NL adhere to standards not imposed on other energy producers. Period..full stop.

Kyoto be damned...NL should sue the Feds for unfair treatment and Sask should sue for air and water pollution.

This bloody dodging and ducking responsibility is simply appalling

today!!!



> Kyoto costs reasonable, MPs told
> 
> 
> Feb 21, 2007 04:30 AM
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/article/184014

*Polluters fair share.....exactly ....if NL MUST - so do others.*

HALF the damn emissions are heavy industry most of which are BOOMING.....GIVE ME BREAK ......economy wrecking.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If the oil sands went zero ghg in 5 years and were into carbon trading I'd see that as a terrific start as I think the provinces themselves can move on other fronts to accelerate reductions.
> ......................
> If the ocean ones exist then it's completely unfair and illogical and immoral to make NL adhere to standards not imposed on other energy producers. Period..full stop.
> 
> Kyoto be damned...NL should sue the Feds for unfair treatment and Sask should sue for air and water pollution.


Not going to happen nor should it given current technical knowledge. Even ON couldn't shut down its coal that fast.
......................
No. New international regulation takes time, as well as domestic. Because something similar exists doesn't make it "unfair and illogical and immoral", it makes it something that needs to be done. Water regulations didn't appear in their current form overnight and they are not yet done evolving. You want to point out unfair and illogical and immoral, then there's plenty of stones to cast. Enough of that, let's get on with the best way to tackle this problem.

Again, provincial finger-pointing is a Canadian specialty, just not a useful one. This will take time, but I'd like to see it move faster and more aggressively.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Quite the opposite. The long-term framework that can work (decades down the road) must be based upon per capita numbers with small and reasonable adjustments from that baseline.


My reply was poorly worded, I wasn't trying to dismiss the value of per capita numbers entirely and I agree that if everyone is playing ball they can be a valuable tool, however, not everyone is playing ball.

The reality that we face is that if Canada goes through the pain of trying to reduce our emissions by 30% over the next four years while China, India and the US continue to increase their own, we could face serious economic challenges in this country and quite literally make no difference on the actual problem of global warming.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Horsepucky - California and Europe are doing it - Japan is doing it NL has to do it TODAY - right NOW- spare me the lame rhetoric about economic imbalances.

Ontario has benefitted mightily from NOT charging the real cost of electricity. Chips are due.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Many things need to be understood about our targets.

1) They start next year.
2) If we go to the "market" we will move it. Prices will not be pretty.
3) Many of the credits that can be on it are based on non-GHG pursuits or gains from post-communist meltdowns...no help for the planet.
4) There are some opportunities to buy real useful credits
5) There is a very real possibility that the best contribution to the planet and Canada's prosperity (yes, it does matter and $10B tossed overseas for the wrong credits does not help the planet) is to take our 30% penalty and make sure we have time to make up for it in Kyoto 2.

Enough of the "horsepucky": learn the technologies (real current state), learn the timelines (research, verification, construction, gains from cost reductions with related delays, etc.), learn the costs (not the best-chance costs), give real value to the economy because, whether you care or not, most people do. Broad dismissive statements such as posted may give the wrong impression of one's understanding and knowledge.

The 2008-12 target is done. There are opportunities to find the right balance for Kyoto 2 (pick up some credits, get low-hanging fruit) but we will carry forward the bulk of the penalty unless a lot of real credits (ones that actually help the planet) appear or we walk (I wouldn't like that). We can do it, but it is time to really figure out the best approach and not be bamboozled...again, by either "side".

Enough with the deniers or pro-Kyoto lies. Time to get it done (it not being anchored by the arbitrary 2008-12) the only way it can be: good policies, small initial progress that accumulates rapidly. That is the nature of the problem and the solution.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I CARE that it gets started now and that the footdragging for spurious ....well Jamie doesn't have to" nonsense stops.

To be SEEN to be leading in the spirit of Kyoto - we signed on - do the best we can - we're not.

There were the same nay sayers always about taking on any major undertaking for a nation - 

A war of any sort is tough sledding and both positives and negatives on the economy.

This is a war. The Federal government is failing to lead - the previous government did not understand the threat and left it too long.

Pay now or pay way more later.......you know that very well Beej.

If we are behind we gain from the experience of those that are ahead of it.
Get the bloody legislation in place - even the oil companies want a level playing field.

Enough foot dragging.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I want Canada to do so well that it kills us. Only then will I be proud. 

Listen to Beej, MacDoc. The kid makes sense.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MD is so hung up on Alberta's oil sands wealth he can't think straight. 

But he finally admitted Kyoto can't be done. That is somewhat encouraging.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> But he finally admitted Kyoto can't be done. That is somewhat encouraging.


I don't think he did.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> I don't think he did.


I do:



MacDoc said:


> I'm not asking for an absolute adherence to the Kyoto target - I want to be seen to be doing at least as much as the best of the others are given the situation with the oil sands.





MacDoc said:


> To be SEEN to be leading in the spirit of Kyoto - we signed on - do the best we can - we're not.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Pay now or pay way more later


Easily repeated but not easily understood, particularly as was pointed out with the Stern calculations. I know that very well, but I don't get the impression that others do. "pay now or pay way more later" does not mean pay anything now and does not mean waste money now. That should be a very simple concept.

The whole problem is quite approachable and doable within the framework of advancing material quality of life (a basic requirement whether enviro-nuts like it or not and it is not inevitable just because we "green" ourselves). 

However, the deniers on both sides are quite useless to developing the right framework. This is a difficult multinational public policy issue amongst many others. Simply saying, "Pay now or pay way more later" means very little. It's very much like every other religious declaration. How much now, how much later (no, the common 20% quotes do not apply) and by pay is something actually being done? 

The worst thing about this political debate is that it is being dominated by ideological fools and "deniers" on both sides. Yes, both sides.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> I do:


Funny but nowhere in those quotes does it say that Kyoto levels can't be achieved.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Funny but nowhere in those quotes does it say that Kyoto levels can't be achieved.


No, not directly, but it implies we don't have to achieve them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> Simply saying, "Pay now or pay way more later" means very little. It's very much like every other religious declaration.


Stern in fact used the worst scenarios and matched them to the lowest possible input costs to arrive at this slogan. One of the missing parts of the equation is whether the expected savings materialize. If Global Warmers are only half right, the equation is even more meaningless, failing to balance costs against results (if results are possible at all).

I've seen an interesting scenario which examines something we do understand--the growth of real wealth all over the globe. It suggests that future generations will be so productive and wealthy that what might be a hardship for us financially (global warming "solutions") would be far more affordable 50 years from now. By removing investment dollars now, we would greatly decrease the wealth of future generations--robbing the future, as it were, for a little futile peace of mind and rah-rah morale boosting now.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

this sounds so familiar to the smoking problem
if we put warning labels on cigarettes what about the jobs lost by tobacco growers and cigarette makers?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> this sounds so familiar to the smoking problem
> if we put warning labels on cigarettes what about the jobs lost by tobacco growers and cigarette makers?


Apples and oranges. There are only a few thousand tobacco workers and hundreds of thousands of energy sector workers. Different impact altogether.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> 4) There are some opportunities to buy real useful credits


Without the US, China and India on board, and with at least China and India increasing their emissions, do you feel carbon trading is going to make a real difference with respect to global warming?



> 5) There is a very real possibility that the best contribution to the planet and Canada's prosperity (yes, it does matter and $10B tossed overseas for the wrong credits does not help the planet) is to take our 30% penalty and make sure we have time to make up for it in Kyoto 2.


Agreed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I've seen an interesting scenario which examines something we do understand--the growth of real wealth all over the globe. It suggests that future generations will be so productive and wealthy that what might be a hardship for us financially (global warming "solutions") would be far more affordable 50 years from now. By removing investment dollars now, we would greatly decrease the wealth of future generations--robbing the future, as it were, for a little futile peace of mind and rah-rah morale boosting now.


My generation and the next will show the wasteful boomers how it's done. 

Interest on an $700 billion dollar debt? Inflated pension premia to cover past under-contributions? Reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Lower portion of young workers to pay for everything? All at once? Bring it on. beejacon


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Without the US, China and India on board, and with at least China and India increasing their emissions, do you feel carbon trading is going to make a real difference with respect to global warming?


Initially, not a big deal, but a carbon market(s) is vital to do this efficiently. Sort of like a village building a school. Technically they may be able to do it with their own labour, raw materials and manufacturing of each item needed, if given enough time. But they could do it faster, cheaper and better within a global trading context while the village people (  ) do whatever they do best. That means they need to learn to work and trade with outsiders. "I'll sing a song for a math textbook, and do a dance for a chalkboard. Any takers?"

Programs in India and China can be a part of the credits mechanism. The important part is that they be real reductions and not over-priced easy fixes. Despite our "wasteful" ways, Western nations have far more advanced, efficient and expensive technologies, so it's often cheaper to improve things elsewhere. It is better for an economy to invest $10 overseas to get X done than $100 domestically to get the same thing done. 

It's a tough game to regulate (creating a brand new market), but worth it. It will take time to get things working well and, along the way, there will be problems as already shown with some credits from China.

Canada would benefit greatly from U.S. involvement specifically due to the physical nature of our energy systems as well as the economics (shifting emissions versus reducing them). There are some cheap gains available from just optimising the continent's energy use.

With the recent B.C. and Ontario announcements, as well as a number of U.S. state announcements, attention seems to be shifting to 2020 targets. 13 years out. 1997 (ratification) to 2010 (Kyoto target mid-point)...hmmm. Lucky number 13?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> With the recent B.C. and Ontario announcements, as well as a number of U.S. state announcements, attention seems to be shifting to 2020 targets. 13 years out. 1997 (ratification) to 2010 (Kyoto target mid-point)...hmmm. Lucky number 13?


It is regretable that we had so many discussions back in the 90's about this and then didn't do much to prepare for what we negotiated. However, at this stage, the 2020 date sound much more reasonable and reachable.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think this river of tears over Kyoto's death is a waste of energy. Stop trying to prop up this dead horse and look ahead, folks.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I think this river of tears over Kyoto's death is a waste of energy. Stop trying to prop up this dead horse and look ahead, folks.


why do European countries support Kyoto?
are they stupid?

they've lived thru wars and famines multiple cultures and language and nations very close to each other

what would they know?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Cut pollution and make money at the same time*
> 
> *Canada missing out emission credit trading system*
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/185214

Chicken****s...we can't do it ...we can't do it..........










Horsepucky just to continue the pig slough imagery.......


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

There may be some real fear regarding the uptick in Canadians environmental awareness on the part of the oil & gas sector, but I don't think they're breaking out in a cold sweat yet.

Those guys are about as well connected politically as it is possible to be, and the current government is completely under their control. If the Conservatives had a majority government, the oil-barrons in Calgary wouldn't have anything to worry about, and that's their current objective.

What the liberals should be doing is using every opportunity to highlight the ties between BigOil and the Conservatives, and simultaneously try to collect the voters that will be defecting from the NDP. Disaffected NDP voters will be torn between the Greens and the Liberals. If the Liberals can emphasize their 'social values' and the Greens don't succeed in gaining more credibility, they could unseat the Conservatives in the next election. I think the key here will be to continue pretending the Greens don't exist, because saying anything bad about them will simply increase their credibility.

So the objective of the Liberal campaign should be to cast this election as a race between "The Oil&Gas Party", "The Shrill Extremist Party" and the "Natural Governing Party of Canada."

Cheers

P.S. I should add that I'm not generally a Liberal supporter... I may vote for them in this election in an effort to get rid of the Conservatives, but I would prefer to vote Green.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I actually think big oil knows that the caps will come and simply want a level playing field as there is money to be made.
In my mind it's the politicos that are the barrier....and a few chicken****s scared of change.

ooooooh if we control acid rain it'll kill industry....seems I remember that not so long ago.

Worrisome is that CFCs have reared their head again 



> *Antarctic Ozone Hole Dying Hard*
> Larry O'Hanlon, Discovery News
> 
> 
> ...


http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/07/03/ozone_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20060703110030

Third world nations still use the damaging form of refrigerants and as populations are more affluent they want a/c.
Also catastrophe's like the tsunami and Katrina end with more being poured in the atmosphere from damaged refrigerators and a/c units.

Nasty spiral as adding U/V stress to heat stress will be even more devastating to agriculture in some areas.....Australia is very vulnerable....situation there is already dire withuot still another impact.

.....and 50% MORE humans still to come over 30 years.....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Somebody willing to tell it like it is :clap:



> *Alberta green record dismal: Suzuki*
> 
> Feb 25, 2007 12:43 PM
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/185548

No excuses.....I'm glad he got under Stelmach's skin - maybe we'll sometime see a "made in Alberta" solution .....as it should be.

The level of pollution is unconscionable especially in light of Alberta's finances.

The only message I've heard from Alberta and it's Federal lackey so far is STFU 

*We're makin' tons of money and we could give a rat's ass that we're polluting on a global scale*

Anyone care to disabuse me of that notion with REAL information.....not nostrums, ducking and dodging.......or that perception perhaps only too correct??


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The only message I've heard from Alberta and it's Federal lackey so far is STFU
> 
> *We're makin' tons of money and we could give a rat's ass that we're polluting on a global scale*
> 
> Anyone care to disabuse me of that notion with REAL information.....not nostrums, ducking and dodging.......or that perception perhaps only too correct??


Stelmach Fires Back:


EDMONTON - Premier Ed Stelmach fired back Saturday at Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, who a day earlier questioned his ability to lead the province.

Suzuki said Friday in Calgary that if the premier "doesn't realize not doing anything about greenhouse gases is going to wreck the economy," he doesn't deserve to be a leader, according to a story in the Calgary Herald.

Alberta needs to ease up on oilsands development until industry catches up with more efficient ways of extracting energy, Suzuki said.

Stelmach hit back on Saturday.

"Tackling the issue of greenhouse-gas reduction will require more than hot air and grandstanding. It requires recognition that C02 reductions will require sacrifice on behalf of all Canadians in reducing individual energy consumption," he said.

*"Mr. Suzuki's comments reflect the unproductive emotional rhetoric and personal attacks that distract from efforts to find constructive solutions."*

Seems to me Stelmach has a plan and Suzuki is full of GHGs. :clap: :clap: 

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn...=edb81a49-1526-4fd9-9488-4ac3388a4f99&k=69938


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

If Suzuki thinks Alberta is a greater separation threat than Quebec and can't remember our Premier's name, it is hard to take him seriously when he talks about our province.

When Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol back in 2002, the Alberta Government brought in the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act (1 year later) to ensure that Alberta would be compliant with Kyoto. We were the only province that did so at that time.

It is now the law in Alberta, and has been for almost four years, that our GHG emissions must be reduced to less than 50% of 1990 levels no later than 2020.

It also allows for Alberta to take part in emission offsets, carbon trading and sink rights under the Kyoto Protocol.

This law doesn't just make corporations liable but also makes any agent, officer or director who allows a company to exceed these targets personally liable for a fine or other punishment. In fact, the wording of the legislation implies that individual consumers could be held responsible for the emissions from their vehicles and houses.

Climate Change and Emissions Management Act


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Isn't David Suzuki the same guy who predicted a global freeze was coming back in the 70's?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> It is now the law in Alberta, and has been for almost four years, that our GHG emissions must be reduced to less than 50% of 1990 levels no later than 2020.


It's an intensity target, and not a hugely aggressive one at that. Emissions can still go up with the target.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Suzuki is full of GHGs.


He's quite over-the-top on this. I still hope Stelmach comes out with a better plan (maybe 2025 targets, something like B.C.'s with mandatory sequestration or credits).

However, MD, just because within the last few weeks B.C. has announced and Ontario has mentioned targets (not full plans yet) doesn't mean that they were saying anything but, "We're makin' tons of money and we could give a rat's ass that we're polluting on a global scale." up until then. Yet dwellers in born-again provinces become even more shrill.

It's not up to us to disabuse you of your notions. It's up to you to make yourself more informed. Your method appears to be screaming 'til you're blue in the face. Interesting approach, especially when followed with the "challenge". 

Yes, Alberta's political leadership has fallen behind and they are missing a huge opportunity to lead and fend off the Feds. Aside from the recent moves, the political gap between provinces is quite narrow (look at what governments actually did) and the details in the plans need to tell a different story.

Nothing to strut about here in Ontario. Some kudos soon, sure. If Stelmach still isn't budging by the end of the year, that would look worse, but a hastily tossed together grab-bag of initiatives with a Green Plan label slapped on are not the answer. That's just how you buy votes from the screamers.

[Edit: ON-timing]


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thata's a BIG SHOCK--Doc announcing that David Suzuki is "telling it like it is." 

That's David "I've had five kids but you damned Canadians do something about *YOUR* environmental footprint" Suzuki.

And why are you linking to a CFC article from last July like it's news?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Isn't David Suzuki the same guy who predicted a global freeze was coming back in the 70's?


Link?

Back in the 70's Dr. Suzuki was a research geneticist. I doubt that he would've been predicting any kind of climate change. His interest in (and extensive knowledge of) climatology began when he was hosting 'The Nature of Things' in the 80s and 90s. During this time, he found that he could no longer remain a dispassionate observer of the damage our species is doing to the ecosystem that supports us, so he stopped doing science and became an advocate.

Some would argue that his positions are 'over-the-top' and 'one-sided' but what do you expect of an advocate? And more importantly, what are the flaws in his data and/or logic. Dr. Suzuki knows more about climate change than anyone here... I wish I could say 'Ignore him at your peril' but I'm afraid the peril is for all of us.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Link?
> 
> Back in the 70's Dr. Suzuki was a research geneticist. I doubt that he would've been predicting any kind of climate change. His interest in (and extensive knowledge of) climatology began when he was hosting 'The Nature of Things' in the 80s and 90s. During this time, he found that he could no longer remain a dispassionate observer of the damage our species is doing to the ecosystem that supports us, so he stopped doing science and became an advocate.


 It was a question, thanks for answering. But from what I remember there was a big hoopla over global freezing in the 1970's, David Suzuki or not, what makes him more credible than the last advocate?



bryanc said:


> Some would argue that his positions are 'over-the-top' and 'one-sided' but what do you expect of an advocate? And more importantly, what are the flaws in his data and/or logic. Dr. Suzuki knows more about climate change than anyone here... I wish I could say 'Ignore him at your peril' but I'm afraid the peril is for all of us.


He's one step away from wearing "the end is neigh" on an a-frame and ringing a bell on a street corner.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I lost all respect for Suzuki after he wrote a column stating that it was wrong for scientists to work on extending the lives of people through means such as artificial organs because if one's heart fails it's clearly time for that person to die.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> He's one step away from wearing "the end is neigh" on an a-frame and ringing a bell on a street corner.


When asked about his twice-as-large-as-average family, he takes a "Tee Hee, I guess I'll have to teach then to be environmentally sensitive" attitude. Just another hypocrite who snuck out a few more kids before demanding everyone else change their ways


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> But from what I remember there was a big hoopla over global freezing in the 1970's, David Suzuki or not, what makes him more credible than the last advocate?


While there were a few climatologists who's models predicted global cooling, there was never any consensus in the scientific community. Any 'hoopla' was media spin. What makes Suzuki more credible is that he is articulating the scientific consensus that has emerged out of the past few decades of research on this problem.



> He's one step away from wearing "the end is neigh" on an a-frame and ringing a bell on a street corner.


If you consider the scientific method one step removed from religion, I'm afraid there's no further point in discussing this with you.

Scientists have successfully and accurately predicted every major ecological catastrophe that has occurred in the past 100 years (i.e. the collapse of various fisheries, the cause and consequences of acid rain, the cause and consequences of eutrophication of estuaries, the devastation of the world's coral reefs, the probabilities and consequences of major oil-spills, etc. etc. etc.) Yet politicians and society in general refuse to listen, and increasingly portray scientists as alarmist fools. I can understand not wanting to constantly hear bad news, but what the hell is the point of having researchers find out what's going on if you're not going to do anything about it they tell you? Suzuki is just doing the best he can to get people to listen to what the scientists have been trying to tell you for the past 10 years.

What would you do if you'd spent years studying the problem, and had come to the same conclusion that thousands of other very bright people who've also spent years studying the problem from every conceivable perspective, and it looked like there was a serious chance that our civilization could be on the verge of destroying itself? It's pretty obvious that the politicians aren't going to fix the problem unless there's a clear interest in doing so on the part of the electorate. So the key is to convince the electorate of the importance of this issue, making it the key campaign issue of the next election.

Given the uniformly abysmal record the scientific community has with respect to getting policy makers to take action on well-established scientific facts, even after they've become an obvious crisis, I don't think you can fault Suzuki for trying to dramatize the situation. If he sounds alarmist, maybe he has good reason to be so.

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Global cooling was part of the human induced changes in climate - the particulates from coal, diesel etc increased the albedo of the earth reflecting more sunlight.

This was London 1952









It actually masked the GHG impact from being fully expressed. When the air did start to get clear after efforts around the world to reduce particulate emissions the masking effect was gone and in the 90's the effects of the GHG rise became abundantly clear....pun intended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

If you think pumping more particulates into the already badly soiled atmosphere is a "solution" .... ...pity the children.

The problem is human induced climate CHANGE.

Our activities affect the very complex climate and eco systems and destabilize them.

Global cooling was only one aspect of human induced changes.
We are proposing more "changes" - to cap the amount of GHG we put in and hope that none of the runaway feedback loops ( methane for instance ) have been irrevocably triggered so far.

But then some people think the earth its flat too......


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> But then some people think the earth its flat too......


Hey, some people travel 'round the world on mere vacations when the Earth is burning. I suppose these folks can wear the Flat Earthers' "I'm in denial" T-Shirts quite comfortably.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I lost all respect for Suzuki after he wrote a column stating that it was wrong for scientists to work on extending the lives of people through means such as artificial organs because if one's heart fails it's clearly time for that person to die.



just think of the money spent on creating artificial organs instead spent on health food choices for kids in school teaching them good eating habits
and making one hour of daily physical activity part of the daily cirriculum in at least primary and secondary schools

ounce of prevention and all that


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ...and making one hour of daily physical activity part of the daily cirriculum in at least primary and secondary schools
> 
> ounce of prevention and all that


Halfway there...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> just think of the money spent on creating artificial organs instead spent on health food choices for kids in school teaching them good eating habits,,,



Suzuki wasn't arguing that no _public _money be spent on it. He was arguing that people who have organ failure requiring artificial replacement should die.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> He was arguing that people who have organ failure requiring artificial replacement should die.


Link?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Tell me again about Alberta's commitment to the environment - the depth of hypocrisy.....when jurisdictions all over the world are sunsetting coal fired plants.....Alberta ....champion GHG emitter for Canada......builds a new one. 



> Coal-Fired Generation Projects Face Some Opposition
> 
> While one electricity power generation proposal near Edmonton has progressed to the hearing process of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and another in the southwestern sector of the province has filed documents to proceed with the public consultation and permitting stage,coal-fired projects continue to face opposition.
> 
> ...





> TORONTO (Reuters) - TransAlta Corp. (TA.TO: Quote) said on Monday that it will start building the Keephills 3 power project near Edmonton, Alberta, together with Epcor Utilities.
> 
> The project, which has an estimated capital cost of about C$1.6 billion, is expected to be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2011.
> 
> ...


http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne...TRIDST_0_BUSINESS-TRANSALTA-KEEPHILLS-COL.XML

Alberta Environment???....the latest fad in oxymorons.

Meanwhile ........



> *Flexing muscle on emissions*
> 
> Schwarzenegger invites Canadian premiers to join him in battle to reduce greenhouse gases
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/article/185990

Gee - Alberta too embarrassed to show it's face perhaps???

Can we add another phrase to the Catholic lexicon....*Sin of Emission.*


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

An excellent opportunity for the government to step in and make this one sequestered. If that works, there are many coal plants in that area to apply the know-how to, depending on the technology. 

Of course, they can also go the credits route: "EPCOR has said the company will offset GHG from the Genesee expansion, to make them equivalent to those from a gas plant, by developing some renewable energy and purchasing credits from other projects."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/b...000&en=a692e50cc3a0de27&ei=5088&partner=rssny


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Waan't their a ban on animated images imbedded in messages? There should be a ban on extremely badly done animations anyway.


----------

