Slashdot Mirror
Canada First Nation To Pull Out of Kyoto Accord
Hugh Pickens writes "Canada will become the first country to formally withdraw from the Kyoto protocol on climate change, dealing a symbolic blow to the troubled global treaty. 'Kyoto, for Canada, is in the past,' says Environment Minister Peter Kent. 'We are invoking our legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto.' Kent, a Conservative, says the Liberals should not have signed up to a treaty they had no intention of respecting and says Ottawa backs a new global deal to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, but insists it has to cover all nations, including China and India, which are not bound by Kyoto's current targets. Kent adds that meeting Canada's obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6 billion: 'That's $1,600 from every Canadian family — that's the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent liberal government.' Kent's announcement came just hours after negotiators in Durban managed to thrash out an agreement at the very last minute — an agreement to begin a new round of talks on a new agreement in the years ahead. 'Staying under 2C will require drastic, immediate action — with global emissions peaking in the next five years or so,' writes Brad Plummer. 'The Durban Platform, by contrast, merely prods countries to come up with a new agreement that will go into effect no later than 2020.'"
wow.. I wonder how much a 2 degree change in average temperatures will cost Canadians?
By 2019 they will be saying "never mind about what we said about the hot weather, just get your mittens and coats ready when solar magnetic decline and solar minimum freeze (y)our (r)ears off in 2020".
I thought Durban managed an agreement that China and India *will* now be included.
Is this guy speaking for the government, or just another political blowhard?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Please,
stop sending politicians to fix a real problem. Send scientists and others.
If we can agree to put severe sanctions on some countries because a few nations like to be the only boys with toys. ...
Then surely we should be able to put minor 'green' sanctions on nations that ruin our planet and the environment of all nations on this planet?
What such a sanction could be? No more trade/import/export of 'polluting' substances with said nation. Coal, oil,
If they don't want to be clean, we can at least try to prevent them from getting/exporting the stuff they need for being dirty.
Whether GW is real or a farce is really immaterial. We know that the Earth, as a matter of its *natural* cycle, goes through periods of warming and cooling. There's no stopping it, and it doesn't matter whether we're the cause or simply incidental. Trying to stop nature from doing what it does is, at best, a recipe for disaster.
The key is to learn to ADAPT to the changing climate, not try to exercise control we don't and can't have.
I can't see the validity in an argument justifying Western emissions based on the emissions of developing nations. Just because they're not doing their bit, doesn't mean we shouldn't do ours.
Wait... you know that the US was never in the Kyoto Accord, right?
And that part of the reason Canada is pulling out is that the world's biggest CO2 outputting nations (US and China) weren't reducing their output?
We're trying to tell the teeming masses in India and China that they can't aspire to have luxuries like refrigerators, washing machines and cars. Quite rightly, they don't give a damn about our rank hypocrisy.
Even if every decadent Western nation beggars itself (and we won't) then India and China will pick up the emissions slack within a decade or so (and they will anyway).
Emissions restrictions are dead in the water on the global scale. Instead, how about we start from the premise that people are going to strive to live rich, comfortable, high energy lives, and that they're going to keep having lots of kids who will expect to have more than their parents had.
There are essentially two solutions: cull about 4 billion people, or throw resources at clean power until it sticks, and I mean trillion dollar tranches of funding at fusion.
tl;dr version - emissions will go down when it's cheaper to produce green energy than to burn coal, and not one moment before.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Conservative government that is about to make huge amounts of money for their oil buddies with the tar sands in the midwest part of the country.
Yeah I can see why they want out of the Kyoto protocol.
that $13 billion number is likely the amount they're about to reap from tar sand processing
China and the US not pulling their weight is only the official reason I guess.
The true reason must be the enormous CO2 pollution that the exploitation of the tarsand oil or what is it called is causing.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Unfortunately due to the earthquake, I wouldn't be surprised if Japan's CO2 output increased considerably this year. A very large # of nuke plants(not just Fukushima) have been shut down for maintenance and safety reviews, and may not be started up for a while. So Japan has made up the difference through a combination of saving energy and oil/coal plants. Obviously those plants have to be outputting a huge amount of CO2, not sure if it will cause Japan to miss it's targets, but naturally there is going to be a lot of pushback if other countries start complaining about Japan's CO2 output....
I can't say I'd blame them. As long as there are other countries gaining an economic advantage at the cost of environmental damage then I don't see that another country should pick up their crap and decrease their export because it's so cheap to produce in such "dirty" countries.
As long as there is such an active oil lobby and alternative energy sources like nuclear fusion is being treated like something from Star-Trek I don't see any short term improvement by forcing countries to reduce their carbon footprint.
BTW: Has Canada been given the favor they their trees are eating up a lot of the world's carbon dioxide and producing oxygen? Prolly the next thing scientists are coming up with is that oxygen is making global warming even worse.
I don't know about you but I'd rather the earth has its next climate burp in a few thousand years, not in this century thanks to our emissions. Citing natural climate cyles in a vague handwaving style is currently fashionable amongst the Ostriches , as if because something happens naturally that means its excluded from happening due to human intervention. I guess in that case because beavers build dams then there's no way we could have done the same. Or because tree's fall down on their own in a forest then lumberjacks must be some made up invention by the eco-industrial-complex?
By all accounts, it's a total shambles. There was an editorial in Nature a couple of weeks ago suggesting that its continued existence was a barrier to implementing a treaty that actually had some teeth.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
It is, They're called politicians. The problem is our current hamster wheel technology is to large for their stubby little legs to run on.
That and Canada has a good size oil supply to sell.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
1 China[10] 7,031,916 23.33%
2 United States 5,461,014 18.11%
also, from [http://in.news.yahoo.com/durban-kyoto-protocol-gets-extension-111511742.html]
Canada, Japan and Russia had said that they do not want Kyoto to continue as it doesn't take into account emissions of emerging economies like China and India. The European Union wanted that they will agree to it only if all countries agree to a single legally binding agreement to cut down greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The US is the only country that has signed Kyoto but not yet ratified it.
also, from wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_emissions_from_deforestation_and_forest_degradation]
In recent years, estimates for deforestation and forest degradation were shown to account for 20-25% of greenhouse gas emissions, higher than the transportation sector.[6]
from [http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/10-countries-with-the-highest-deforestation-rates-in-the-world.html]
1) Honduras: -37% 2) Nigeria: -36% 3) The Philippines: -32% 4) Benin: -31% 5) Ghana: -28% 6) Indonesia 7) Nepal 8) North Korea: -25% 9) Ecuador 10) Haiti: -22%
So the countries who are every bit as responsible for CO2 levels rising due to deforestation, get paid, by the countries with money. The whole thing is bs.
The issue is much more complicated than excusing Canada and blaming it on the US and China.
There is no fair treaty acceptable to the West. Some of us westerners dabble with percentages ("20-20-20"), but the fair treaty would take the total sustainable emissions and divide it evenly between every man, woman and child on the globe.
That fair deal would of course send all of the rich nations back to the 19th century, and no politician would seriously even speak it out loud. Easier to blame India and China for being the worst polluters.
In fact, even that "fair" deal wouldn't be so fair since the rich West has already been able to grow its industries for centuries with virtually no pollution controls. So we should allow the developing nations a similar century of free reign, and to balance, maybe ban all emissions in the West during those hundred years.
And in the end, the fundamental problem is the sheer number of people on the globe. If only we could get the total world population down below one billion, we could get a handle of the problem. The population reduction might come yet, but is there a way to do it humanely by voluntary birth-control?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-30/world-shouldn-t-wait-for-u-s-resolution-on-climate-agreement-japan-says.html
Canada may have been the first to formally withdraw but Japan started the ball rolling by refusing to extend the Kyoto Accord.
yea, and it's not that those coutries aren't in an economic strangehold by some large corporations and international institutions ...
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
(US and China) weren't reducing their output?
Also, from [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States]
The White House announced on 25 November 2009 that President Barack Obama is offering a U.S. target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the range of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. The proposed target agrees with the limit set by climate legislation that has passed the U.S. House of Representatives, but the U.S. Senate is currently considering a bill that cuts GHG emissions to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. The White House noted that the final U.S. emissions target will ultimately fall in line with the climate legislation, once that legislation passes both houses of Congress and is approved by the President. In light of the President's goal for an 83% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, the pending legislation also includes a reduction in GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2025 and to 42% below 2005 levels by 2030.[9] The day after the White House announced the U.S. GHG targets, China announced that it will reduce the intensity of its carbon dioxide emissions by 40%-45% by 2020. Carbon dioxide emissions intensity is defined as the amount of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP).
So please stop pretending the US and China aren't doing anything.
>>And that part of the reason Canada is pulling out is that the world's biggest CO2 outputting nations (US and China) weren't reducing their output?
Are you aware that the only countries that significantly reduced their output... didn't? That it was only a statistical artifact from the badly-chosen start date of 1990? And that 1990 was deliberately chosen because it would give these fake savings to the UK, Germany, and Eastern Europe?
The UK "reduced" its emissions by choosing 1990 as a start date, which was right before they switched from coal to NG as a way of fighting the coal miners' unions.
Germany "reduced" its emissions by absorbing Eastern Germany. Eastern Germany reduced its emissions via the mechanism below.
Eastern Europe "reduced" its emissions by having the USSR implode, which subsequently killed its industry and thus CO2 emissions.
Australia also liked a 1990 start date, due to unusually high emissions during that year.
Read Liverman's discussion of the process here: http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf
She makes a very good point that the date was set so that business could continue as usual, with certain countries winning "free" carbon reductions via a shady political process. Well worth the read.
If you want the US to make reparations payments for our global hegemony, just call it that, and stop pretending that you're doing it for other reasons, then.
I hate fucking bullshit like this.
The problem is that we need people who think long-term to solve this. But none of the people in power do.
In the west, politicians think roughly until the next election and that's it.
The 3rd world countries either don't care or are so unstable that anything that hurts now in order to get a big pay-off tomorrow means the end of the current regime.
And China, India, Brazil, etc. are growing so fast that pretty much the same holds true, except that it's because of the growth dynamics and not political instability.
So basically, we're heading for the wall. We know it. Nobody dares to grab the wheel because it means unbuckling your seat belt.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
At least they were prepared to make step1, knowing there would come a step 2, 3 etc. which then would become painful for them. The US and China simply refused completely.
An interesting explanation of what lead to this was posted by an user on Reddit. (Disclaimer: I'm not from Canada, so I can't confirm/deny what that user said, but there's plenty of upvotes and comments from other canadians lending some credibility to his explanation.)
"This is actually way more complicated than the one paragraph article makes it seem. To fully understand this, you have to know a little bit about Canadian politics. So now I'm going to talk a little bit about Canadian politics.
By some measures, Canada is the most decentralized country in the world, barring absolute anarchies in Africa and all that shit. Power is divided between the Federal Government and the Provincial Governments in an entirely non-hierarchical manner; provinces and the Federal Government each have their own distinct spheres of influence, and the Federal government cannot tell a Provincial Government what to do within the provincial sphere any more than a province could give the Federal Government orders within the federal sphere of influence.
Without getting into huge amounts of details about how power is divided, it's sufficient to say that much, if not all of the powers that would be required to enforce the Kyoto protocol are within the Provincial sphere of influence, however the Kyoto Protocol was signed by the Federal Government essentially unilaterally. So then the Federal Government has to try to bring the provinces on board with Kyoto, to avoid shirking international responsibilities, but it has no power to force the issue. So then, surprise surprise, some of the provinces dont feel like shooting their oil economies in the foot to play ball with a treaty that they never agreed to. Particularly Alberta, which is basically Canada's Texas, decided that the Federal Government had nothing big and scary enough up their sleeve to threaten them into compliance, so they decided they were not going to enforce the Kyoto Protocol internally at all, and the Federal Government could do absolutely nothing about it.
So now it's in a position where it has to either severely cut carbon for every other province that's willing to play along or pay internationally for Alberta's decision to not give a shit. Yes that's right, the Federal government would have to pay for Alberta not meeting the pollution requirements. Not fair? Well then the Federal Government should have made sure people were on board with this before signing instead of bringing home an unpopular treaty it had no power to enforce. OR the Federal Government can drop out of the Kyoto Protocol, as it has done, learn from the mistake and make sure to get the approval of Provincial governments before signing the next environmental treaty that will undoubtedly come up.
TL;DR: Canadian politics is hella complicated, and while no one likes pollution, Peter Kent is 100% right in the article: Signing Kyoto, especially in the way Canada signed it without enough internal support, was a mistake."
My sig became obsolete, and I lack the imagination to create a new one.
It is easy to promise that later presidents or governments will do something, then do nothing except watch the divide between the emissions and the emissions target grow larger every day. What mythical president is it that will slash emissions by 20% + whatever increase there has been between 2005 and whatever year the reductions will start? If we can't start now, what makes anyone think we can start later, when the costs will be even greater?
Note that China has not even promised to reduce its total emissions. As long as its GDP is growing by double digits every year, reducing the intensity of the emissions even with 80% won't reduce their total emissions by 2020.
And meanwhile the scientists are debating whether we are passing the threshold of catastrophic changes the next few years, or if we already have passed it.
We are so screwed.
The UK switched from coal to NG? That's news to me.
At this exact moment in time, UK electricity generation is:
Coal: 21.42 GW
CCGT 12.23 GW
Nuclear 7.29 GW
Wind 2.9 GW
It's not a switch from coal, rather increased capacity via CCGT. Coal still produces the lion's share of electricity.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
We are so screwed.
This may very well be the case. However, the optimistic part of the process thus far, has been that the climate change deniers are now pretty much looked up as quacks, when the initial reaction was total denial and skepticism. We've moved beyond that, to the point where people and governments, individually and collectively, are working on the "how" part.
;)
If we do indeed end up being screwed, it will be a direct result of our great success as a species, and however ironic and evidential a fact of life it may be, we at least have our success in which to take solace.
It's going to be hard to convince any nation to sacrifice for air quality when China has smog as thick as peas soup over major cities and pretends it is not a problem (link goes to http://observers.france24.com/ article):
http://tinyurl.com/85xkhka
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Politics in Canada are actually suffering from too much imitation of the US these days.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
... the western economic model is a giant ponzi scheme based on getting people to buy more and more crap they don't need - ie growth. One day its going to collapse - badly - but the head in the sand economists just don't want to know.
Under Kyoto, would emissions from buyers of Canada's oil count against Canada itself? Otherwise, I don't see how having a big pot of oil *to sell* would be directly affected by Kyoto. Even if the biggest consumers cut back on emissions and thus cut back on buy, there'd be plenty of smaller countries willing to buy the stuff.
Mr Kent,
It's 13.6bn dollars that would affect the Canadian super-rich companies, not the average Joe Canadian. If the wealth were equally distributed, maaaybe.
Such populisms are old tactics and it's not exactly flattering for you to use such an old impression stunt...
I'm no longer fed up with MS Windows: I go rid of them
Am I the only one who initially read the headline to mean that one of the Canadian First Nations (i.e. what USers call Native American tribes) had pulled out of the Kyoto Accord, and wondered when they became recognized for international relations?
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
You might want to read about the "Dash For Gas", then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_for_Gas
It ties in with Thatcher and the coal mine issues during the 80s, too.
"China announced that it will reduce the intensity of its carbon dioxide emissions..."
Please be aware that the term "intensity" refers to the increase of the rate of production i.e. the acceleration. It's not putting the brakes on.. not even coasting... just lifting your foot a bit off the accelerator. I hope the U.S. numbers are indeed about reducing emission rates.
There's probably no anthropogenic global warming.
Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Oh, gee, thanks for the ostrich.
So demanding we step back and try to find solutions that actually work, as opposed to asking everyone nicely to go out of their way for their fellow human being or possibly fictional future offspring, is now a reason for sending condescension my way.
Nice to know how much respect I can expect for trying to remain level-headed.
Did it occur to you that "the climate change itself isn't that much of a problem" does not equal "Let's do nothing about pollution and our extremely problematic consumption of resources!"?
Jesus fucking H Christ... Sometimes I understand mass murderers...
Most of the oil in Canada is in the form of tar sands. The product requires a lot of processing to extract and I'm guessing that releases a lot of emissions. So for every say, 6 barrels you export, you have to burn a barrel yourself.
This really impacts the ability to exploit fossil fuel resources without busting your emissions cap. Which to be fair, is probably by design.
If you roll the emissions from extraction into the emissions count for the nation that purchases the oil, it discourages purchase from low EROI fossil fuel sources ; which would continue to have the desired effect of reducing emissions. But Canada are still not going to like it, because it makes their product less desirable.
The EROI of tar sands is now marginally worse than that of photovoltaic cells ; barring significant improvements in the production process for tar sands, and zero progress in solar panel research, this comparison is only going to get worse.
They're a oil producing country of course they rather have people rely on oil than other sources.
Dear Stephen Harper:
Fuck you.
You've obviously decided my family (and every family in Canada) can afford the $3,800 we're putting toward the new F-35s. But thank you, thank you, for saving me the money that would be wasted doing my part for the world.
They're not. They're carbon trading with India, among other places. So while developing and third world nations are trading worthless cash for a carbon cap they will NEVER hit this Century unless by some freak accident the country catches fire, the US, China and other industrialised nations carry on as normal and PRETEND that they have reduced their carbon output. No, all they've done is buy an offset to top off their own cap which they're hitting so hard it's bruising.
It's all one big con, a huge lie and a fucking ripoff, and the losers in this are you and I.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to measure output per capita rather than per country? From a rough estimate that puts the US and Canada neck and neck at about 2.5x the per capita output of China.
Sig is on vacation
No, they pulled out because they finally realized the whole thing was full of completely unrealistic expectations that they can not afford to implement.
Yeah...is why I put systems on line crunchin' to find new materials for solar alternatives.. The carbonaceous industry has too much wealth...too much power...too much distaste for the many of humankind (I extrapolate that last assertion from their behavior).
So I figure if you can't beat 'em, obsolete 'em.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
So please stop pretending the US and China aren't doing anything.
Hmpffff! The political system in the US is currently incapable of doing anything, not even talking about doing something desperately needed. It goes 1 step forward, two steps back. Just wait after the 2012 election what kind of square dance is happening then.
Canada gets out of Kyoto because of their oil-sand dirty industry which became profitable due to high oil prices. The given reasons - other countries are not participating and high penalty payments are secondary.
We just need to drive turbines with all the hot air, like a solar tower but with congressmen at the base.
> Why do you use it again?
If I had to guess, it's because American is too ambiguous for his pedantic mind (i.e., North? South? Central? USA?)
Either you replied to the wrong post or you forgot to post AC this time. Whoops.
Sorry if you can't handle criticism but I guess you'll just have to suck it up.
"Jesus fucking H Christ... Sometimes I understand mass murderers..."
Now you're making no sense at all.
I'm not troubled by any of this. Canada First Nations represent only 2% of Canada ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
In our case the commons resource is the amount of oil extracted and spent to generate CO2 in the atmosphere. Since you can bet all you want no nation will back off until they feel bitten in the ass, we are like lemmings deciding that they will not break before jumping off the cliff, if the other don't break either. I am sad for the children born today and tomorrow which will inherit from our gluttony and be left with their eye to cry (in 50, 100, 200 years take your pick).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"Envirowack" - person who suggests that the curernt scientific consensus may be correct.
Sigh.
... I'm ashamed of being Canadian.
It is easy to promise that later presidents or governments will do something, then do nothing
We are so screwed.
Notice how it's the EXACT same thing going on with our financial problems. Kicking the can down the road is easy til the can ends up filled with lead.
We are so screwed.
I apologize.
So please stop pretending the US and China aren't doing anything.
They're not doing nothing. They're just doing way too little.
If science is correct (which is generally the concensus on Slashdot, except when it comes to climate change), the reductions proposed by the US are nothing more than a token and in no way enough to solve the climate change.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Except that a good portion of Canada's output is actually fossil fuel production which, by any sane measure, should be counted against the country that burns the oil, not the one that produces it.
That's true, the Conservative Party of Canada who currently form the Government of Canada tend to base their views on what's "best" for Alberta, where they control all but one of the seats. The Prime Minister moved to Alberta as a child and has essentially become a caricature of Albertan disgruntlement with rest of Canada. It looks like the government was facing over $9 billion in fines for failing to act on Kyoto, mostly due to the tar sands projects which they haven't even bothered to monitor.
Although the CPC blames the previous Liberal Government, the CPC has been in charge for almost 6 years now. The Liberals didn't do much to meet the targets, the CPC has never had any intention of even trying to reach the targets. They've been actively working to sabotage international agreements since they came to power.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It is not insane to force Canada to reconcile the nastiness that is recovering oil from tar sands...
You're missing the obvious, if they are buying carbon credits, they're actually paying for the release of at least some of their pollution which is an improvement over paying for none of it. Why? Simple economics, anything a company has to pay for, it will look for ways to reduce what they're paying. That means once there's a cost for carbon emissions they will actually have a financial reason to reduce them. It's not a guarantee that they will be reduced, but it's a step in the right direction.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
There is more to it: some countries have been emitting lots of CO2 for a large number of years and the effect is cumulative. So even if per capita limits are used for everyone, many countries - poor countries that are growing - will object.
I would imagine the environwhacks will stop complaining at about the same time as all these whacky white guys stop complaining about discrimination against whites and proclaiming the need for a white people only political party.
Exactly. Regardless of the reasons for pulling out of the protocol (which I don't suspect too much, as even the Canadian Conservatives are somewhat more enviro-friendly than the US Democrats) it was the best thing to do. Kyoto is a relic that needs to be replaced.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
""reduce growth" = people freezing to death under highway overpasses"
BS. No growth simply means living conditions remain as they are, which given even the poorest in the west generally have satellite TV and a waistline that would sink the titanic are pretty good compared to truly how poor people live, all things considered.
This got to be Obama's fault. Didn't he meet Canadian prime minister just last week.
Canada's federal debt is estimated to total $566.7 billion for the 2010â"11 fiscal year
And the Canadian budget is ~$278B for 2011
So $13.6 billion over several years is small by comparison, and is an investment, some % of which would come back in taxes.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
You sir, are a genius!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Wait... you know that the US was never in the Kyoto Accord, right?
If we hurry, the Senate could ratify the Kyoto Accord, the President can sign it, and we can then cancel it and be the second to pull out!
Wow I had no idea you were completely insane.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
you can now officially 'Kiss Your Ass Goodbye".
So the triumph of emotion over logic is essentially complete. I was a fool to think it would be any other way.
Stupidity: it's a renewable resource!
I bet David Suzuki is pretty pissed at the Conservatives right now.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to measure output per surface area rather than per country or per capita ? I just don't think there's a fair method.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
However, the optimistic part of the process thus far, has been that the climate change deniers are now pretty much looked up as quacks, when the initial reaction was total denial and skepticism. We've moved beyond that, to the point where people and governments, individually and collectively, are working on the "how" part.
It depends which "we" you're talking about.
In the US, the Republican line is that climate change is a liberal conspiracy to destroy the capitalism and America, and any candidate that thinks differently (John Huntsman) is basically booed off stage. Europe has done something, but it's primarily to export most of the work that causes CO2 emissions to China, causing even more CO2 emissions when the Chinese use less efficient manufacturing processes and then have to ship the products halfway around the world. China seems to be doing its best to avoid doing anything because that would hurt their economic growth, and it's unclear whether they care about the consequences to anyone else (e.g. disasters like flooding in Thailand help China by reducing their competition, so they probably don't mind).
Basically, those in power collectively have decided to not do anything. Whether those not in power want to do anything is a different question, but governments pretty much shrug their shoulders at the thought of massive floods and storms so long as the top brass isn't in them.
I am officially gone from
Decrease in world demand (From their customers trying to be greener) means less product to sell.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Speaking out against enviromentalism in the 10's is, literally, like speaking out against nazism in the 30s. Maybe this time we'll be civilized enough to avoid another holocaust?
Godwin's Law definitely applies to this post.
I am officially gone from
We have all Canada customer use that service... How can I get that service in china ?
wholesale solid wood kitchen cabinets and bathroom cabinets direc from chinese rta cabinets manufacturer
Some time ago there was a fellow getting a lot of tv time here in Canada who suggested that the production process could be improved significantly by changing the process from one in which hydrogen is added, instead of carbon dioxide being released*. The catch, of course, is that the best way to produce sufficient amounts of hydrogen involved using nuclear reactors to provide the electricity. Needless to say, that idea didn't fly. Sad, really. Of course, if we weren't so squeamish about updating and exploiting nuclear power, we wouldn't need to process the tar sands at all. But that's another thread and another flamewar.
* This was a few years ago now, so consider this a very vague, likely inaccurate description of a more complicated process.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Except that the US government would also be owed reparations by formerly American and now multinational corporations. The US gov no longer has a hegemony, US corporate interests have bought out the gov's shares in that stock.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
I wish people would stop with the fantasy that Solar and wind are in any way related to oil consumption.
Very little of the power in the US comes from oil or in just about any other nation.
Solar and wind in theory competes with coal which is the worst source of carbon emissions.
Natural gas has very low carbon emissions and is being used more and more for power.
Oil is used by and large for transportation. The simple fact is that it will be a long time before EVs are a big enough percentage of cars for them to make a dent in total oil use.
Do please let's drop the solar and wind vs oil fantasy.
It is solar and wind vs coal folks.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
stop pretending that you're doing it for othe
NGO's and environmental organisations have been saying for years these issues were closely related.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Another high-priority reason Canada is getting out of Kyoto is pragmatic: we trade more goods and more freely of those goods with the US than with any other nation. If the US doesn't participate, and thus doesn't incur the expense of participation, while Canada does, everything we produce becomes that much less competitive with American products (including bitumen and refined oil products from the tar sands). Basically, we're stuck following whatever the US policy is in this regard.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
From the Summary: " including China and India "
This has to be from an American news source. I was listening to Radio Japan (shortwave radio geek) last night when they also announced Canada's stance, but claimed last night that it was because China and the *United States* do not adhere to the accord, so it's pointless, because the two biggest polluters in the world are ignoring the treaty.
Funny how the USA gets left out of the summary here. Hrmmm. Shades of 1984 when the news is changed to make your country seem not as bad as it actually is. I'd be suspicious of anything I read or hear from American news sources. Clearly there's substantial bias.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The earth doesn't care about output per capita. It only cares about the total amount of CO2 released. On the other hand, if you are constantly trying to portray more developed nations in a negative light, then yes, output per capita is the way to go.
You fool, you bought into the fear-mongering and propaganda. Sure tar sands produces some CO2, some will even have you believe that its 3 times for than current conventional refineries. This is nothing compared to the current exponential increase in CO2 emissions from countries like China and India. Meanwhile those countries that don't give a shit about Kyoto can go on stealing all the industry and manufacturing. Pollution rates in the first world will inevitably decline as the unemployment rates increase. I don't know about you, but I want a job so that I can afford a future. Cheers.
To create a global currency - based on trading securitized CO2.
There are no technical or behavioral measures in any proposed treaty. Only carbon trading. How is this accomplished? Always by establishing derivatives. You know, like they did for real estate.
The whole scam is a part of the war for dominance between financial capitalists and energy capitalists.
Enlightened, educated and well-intentioned folk are the useful idiots of speculative, financial capital oligarchy on this one - just as the backwards fundies are the human tools of conservative thuggery.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Blame Canada!
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
I have yet to see a Global Warming argument that shows how rising temperatures would have any deleterious effects on me or my descendants. Yes, climate will change. Yes, farmers may have to start planting different crops to adjust for that. Yes, the sea levels may rise and some poor vagrants out in Nigeria may have to pack up their dirty rags and hike a few miles inland. Oh, and all of that will happen over a hundred years or so. A hundred years ago, there was a forest where I live. Three hundred years ago there was no sign of human habitation around here aside from an occasional indian.
After the planet warms up, life will still go on just fine. The Earth is not a fragile christmas ornament; it always finds a way to keep on going just fine. Half a billion years ago, when CO2 concentration was ten times it is today, and the global temperatures were quite a bit warmer, life thrived. Life will adapt and so shall we. The Earth will not become uninhabitable, only a little different.
In light of that, the anti-CO2 argument is basically that I and my kids should reduce our standard of living now without any tangible benefit to us in the future. My response, naturally, is "forget it".
The per-capita argument will be made by any poor country, you need to counter it with a strong fairness argument based on something else. For instance, you might divide by CO2 emissions by GDP instead and get a different map. The argument for that is that the goal is to lower CO2, but you want to increase the overall standard of living so a factory producing a widget at 1 ton of CO2 is preferable to one producing the same widget using 2 tons of CO2 no matter what country it sits in. Then the counter argument becomes, "Raw GDP isn't fair because some widgets will sell for less in China than in the US, you need to adjust for purchasing power." So then you adjust for purchasing power. After a series of such adjustments we can end up with something that a citizen in both a developed nation and an underdeveloped nation understand as fair. From that point you plug it into economic growth models and come up with efficiency targets that will over time lower world emissions as the world economy grows. How to meet those efficiency targets can be handled per country knowing you won't be penalized for your country's economy growing as a proportion of the overall world economy.
The point is how MUCH is being produced, not how many people are doing it.
That would be the point only in very-very-VERY-limited, overly generalized and utterly unrealistic approach to subject.
From any real life point of view, economical to biological, the number of humans producing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is a VERY important factor in the equation.
Cause countries, being imaginary lines on the land drawn by humans, produce no CO2.
You're pointing to that yourself with that Germany example - draw a line differently and the country's numbers may change, but a person riding a bicycle still releases less CO2 than a person riding around in an SUV.
Also, that Germany example is utter nonsense.
Germany reunified in 1990, and their per-capita CO2 has steadily declined since then - regardless of their population numbers.
In fact, due to their ever-dwindling population numbers they are back at the population size they had in 1996.
And yet, their CO2 level is down by 1.7 metric tons of CO2 per capita - since 1996.
Per capita numbers tell you if someone is producing CO2 because they have to (gotta put food on the table) or because they are being a selfish prick.
See why they matter?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
This is very true! The Harper Regime is a Neo-Con wannabe, with many fundamentalist Christian members exhibiting some fscked up ideas about the end of the world and heave based upon their ideas...Remember, their flavour of Christianity believes that the more money you make shows you are more in their God's favour. This idea came from the fact that when Protestants left the Catholic Church, they needed some way to see if God was going to let them into Heaven. So they decided that God showed His favour by allowing them to make money, thus is became an obligation to work and make money for otherwise, they could not know if they were saved. Hence what we call the Protestant Work Ethic.
Therefor, if you are rich, it means that you are part of "The Elect", and are going to Heaven. Why is this not surprising?
So things like environmental protection and other limitations to making money (what we call laws against fraud, and other regulations), and welfare (which they see as giving people money for not working) are evil and must be removed because it's against Gods will.
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
You are legally bound to file a tax return every year, even when you no longer work there.
This has nothing to do with being allowed to leave. Nor does the rest of your rant.
There is an entire documented experience of some guy who left the country and gave up his citizenship. In order to do it, you must first, leave the country and then fill out paperwork at a US embassy in your new country. For details of the mans experience, search the web.
But thanks for freaking out, it was entertaining.
Considering you don't know where I'm from, I'd say you are talking BS.
But yes, I do in fact know the penalty for illegal immigration, if the origin country is safe to live in you will be put on a plane and flown back - if it's an unsafe country you will be allowed to stay on a "tollerated" basis, e.g. put in an "camp" with people with same trouble, given food and shelter.
...and less innovation may well happen.
And I'm not sure about that either, cause getting all that human flesh onto another planet some 60 million kilometers away MAY require quite a few of them eye-now-aye-shins.
On a (slightly) more serious note, I foresee a 7-25 minute limit between posts on Slashdot for all Earthlings, as it would take that long for the message to go to Mars and back to Earth - depending on the current distance between the planets.
Also, a boost in the popularity of turn-based-games.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
> I assure you, the U.S. is lenient compared to your country.
Oh, really? I don't know much about law and thus probably can be taught a lesson or two, but my overall impression when comparing US and Brazil is that you're much better off on Brazil.
And not just now (I'm not talking from an exclusively economic POV).
It's already been signed by the USA.
Alas, the Senate refused to ratify it, and so it has no force.
Note that no action is required by the President once the Senate ratifies a Treaty. Senate ratification (which can only come after it has been signed by the Pres/whoever) makes it the law of the land (just behind the body of the Constitution, just ahead of all normal laws).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
China is also ramping up it's release of pollutants as it installs many more coal fired power plants (in addition to nuclear, solar, wind, dams etc.). The NOX and SOX and other pollutants released by industries and power plants are a worse problem than CO2.
China has a tough problem. It is expensive to expand industry without polluting, and they have often taken the cheap route in the past.
"Envirowhack" - person who goes along with the consensus reality because they can't think for themselves and have to feel guilty for taking a hot bath or washing their clothes.
Congratulations. This post looks like a demonstration of qualification to work for a Rupert Murdoch media outlet.
we even got a better extra long time offer for you. We'll also throw in a special of 6 months in jail for growing 6 weed plants or for downloading music BUT that's not all you'll also be a valuable asset to our new up and coming private correctional institutions, BUT don't hesitate and act now....
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
"mostly due to the tar sands projects" - oh fer christ's sake, the oil sands aren't even the largest emitters in fricken Alberta, never mind Canada. Our problem, as everywhere, is coal-fired electrical generation (#1 in Oilberta, #1 in Canada, #1 in the world.) $&%*!
Gradually shift electricity generation and automobiles to natural gas. US has over a century's worth now.
The chief concern is methane leakage. Methane is twenty times more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So a greater than three percent leakage would cancel its carbon benefit. P.S. Methane leaves the atmosphere much quicker than CO2.
Another good thing about natural gas is that appears to be market-drive by lower costs. Most of the US alternative energy initiatives fail when the huge federal subsidies run out.
It has been embarrassing to see my fellow Canadians elect Harper and his "Conservatives" (read: Reform Party in disguise/Canadian Republican Party) in the first place. I think his only goal is to maintain power so he can remake Canada into a miniature version of the US under the Republicans. No doubt he wants to have us give up our sovereignty and become additional states down the road. Sorry to all you US /. readers but I see that as a very bad thing :(
I wouldn't buy a used car from him. I am deeply embarrassed that my fellow citizens have been stupid enough to elect him and then give him a majority government.
Whatever they say is the reason for pulling out of Kyoto officially, the real reason will be that his corporate owners do not want to spend additional money to be environmentally responsible instead of making profits and he knows he has a stranglehold on Canada at the moment and can do whatever he wants.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Hopefully future environmentalists will be able to learn something from this. You can't just set a target for number to go down and impose fines if it doesn't happen. You have to take the bigger picture into account, and attack the problem at it's source. If you are going to impose fines, they'd better be spent in the country they were imposed.
Better yet, just secure an agreement to build new power, transportation, and flood control infrastructure across the world. Is it too much to ask that an agreement actually have something directly to do with the problem.
The current Harper government is a Conservative government; they'd use whatever reasoning they could to get out of something like this.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
China's growth is fueled by western capital and industrial espionage. They afford western capital by selling to the west. And without the west, they would have to conduct their own R&D. China desperately needs us.
Passing a bill, as the opposition, telling the government they have to somehow reach the Kyoto targets...
Yeah, that's real bold action there.
It's easy to say you want to achieve the targets, the problem is actually doing something to achieve those targets. That's the unpopular part that generally gets parties in trouble, that's why the other parties didn't propose any specific measures, they wanted the credit for achieving Kyoto, but they also wanted the Conservatives to take the political hit for taking the necessary action (and don't imagine the opposition would let them off easy).
The truth is since 1990 the only thing that's slowed emissions is the recession.
We actually did have one party actually try to take specific action to achieve Kyoto once, Stephane Dion ran on a platform of introducing a carbon tax, and then he lost the election because voters didn't want to pay for carbon (even though the tax was supposed to be revenue neutral and be offset by reductions in income tax).
We didn't cut our carbon because our economy and population were both growing. Now we could have done better than we did, more fuel efficient vehicles, starting to clean up our power generation, etc. However, since we had no shot at the Kyoto targets without major economic consequences we didn't have much motivation to do anything in between. I really think Kyoto was flawed that way and there needed to be some mechanism for countries with big primary industry, who obviously weren't going to hit Kyoto, to make gains from some intermediate action rather than volunteering to a giant slap on the wrist at the end.
As it is just yesterday we threw away an opportunity to clean up the oilsands, though in this case the environmental movement is probably more to blame.
I stole this Sig
As I see it, the right-wing Republican driven climate crisis denial conclave - backed by the money of big business (likely Big Oil in large part) is strong enough to sway public opinion in the US against actually doing anything. The reality of the situation, all the research that can be done, and all the information that can be provided to a generally unthinking public cannot beat the simplicity of telling those same people that its all a hoax and they don't need to do anything and don't need to actually learn anything or form an opinion - that they deserve their high standard of living because they are better people than all those foreigners and that its "God's Will"(tm). Its far easier for people who have little or no scientific knowledge to do nothing than to try to study a highly complex subject and form an informed opinion. Ignorant people resent those who are better educated generally, but everyone gets to vote.
Therefore in the end nothing will be done in the US (or Canada, my home, it seems now), and where the US does not go, no one else will either. China and India will lead the way to producing vast amounts of pollution on their part, using the West's inaction as justification, and the West will collectively point at the emerging nations and state they aren't going to do anything if they other side doesn't do it first.
The climate will change, millions of people will die, whole nations will disappear, the earth will be more or less permanently changed, the world economy will be a complete disaster, and in fact civilization as we know it will likely fall. There will be more major wars over resources disguised as attempts to promote democracy by meddling in other countries' politics and we will slowly slide down the scale of civilizations to become another footnote in future histories - if anyone writes them.
But that's okay because the CEOs of some major companies in our current world will continue to get multiple million dollar bonuses and the financial wizzes that get us into each successive disaster will continue to be rewarded by not being punished. The shortsighted view that keeps the power elite and the rich families in their place and the rest of us in our lower caste positions will be maintained.
The millions of dead will mostly be in other places after all, and we can just turn off the TV - or switch to news about something superficial like the latest celebrity news - and avoid all the ugly footage of people dying of disease and starvation and warfare.
I really hold out no hope for humanity. We are too shortsighted, too stupid, too easily lead around by marketers and politicians because we are too ignorant generally. Sadly the people who are going to die as a result of this monumental stupidity are not going to be those who perpetrate it.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
The only problem with this line of thought is that Kyoto is expiring ANYWAY. It doesn't need to be sabotaged to be replaced.
In the mean time, Canada puts itself next to the countries which chose to be part of the problem instead of the solution.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
As well, if we lock up more of our population - they can't be working either so that creates additional jobs. Harper wants Canada to emulate the US in every way it seems. If I am reading this correctly about 1 in every 100 US men is currently in prison (http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aaprisonpop.htm). That is a huge population of effectively slave labour that can be farmed out to businesses. Private prisons can engage more heavily in this of course.
When the first new prison is completed, Harper should be the first inmate. Placed in solitary.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Municipal planning has now moved on from trying to do their part to fight global warming (which no one city can make a dent in alone), and towards planning for a future where climate change is a given.
I imagine the rest of the world will be heading towards that approach as well. Rather than avoidance, it is mitigation.
We have a financial system based on unlimited growth, and an entire planet is being altered by our activities. One way or another, this does not end well.
The Atacama desert, the driest place on Earth, barely gets into the 70s.
It's not about the temperature, it's about the precipitation.
What Canada will get is the temperate zone for food production going northward, which is a good thing.
And voters in Canada, who finally put those funny guys in majority power, are doing what exactly?
Except for Quebec voters, which broke their long tradition of voting for their own local interests and went massively for the NPD, the rest of the country clearly chose the government they have today.
And there's no excuse of the "I didn't know" sort. This same government which is now majority has been announcing all what it's doing now in the past minority-years. It's going exactly according to its promises.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
People in Gitmo are in Cuba and are POW's.
No, the Bush administration dubbed them "unlawful combatants" so they wouldn't have to be treated according to the rules for either POWs or accused criminals.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Screw it, I'm going to Mars.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
Per capita makes sense if you start with the assumption that every human in the world intrinsically has equal rights, including an equal right to emit CO2. If you assume that some have a right to emit more than others, then it doesn't.
Surface area doesn't make sense - current global warming is caused by human industrial activity, not land.
Having an emissions limit per country implies we could halve the problem by splitting each country in two, with half the population going to each. National borders are arbitrary from a geographical perspective.
I am not embarrassed to be Canadian. The Kyoto Accord was a joke from the very beginning. Without the big polluters like China, India and the USA actually bound by it, it is completely meaningless. When China, India, and the USA actually agree to be bound some future international treaty regarding pollution, then it will be time for Canada to participate. Paying to curb our emissions while those other three do as they please is the equivalent of pissing into a hurricane.
It is classically disingenuous, hypocritical and opportunistic for the Conservatives to declare the Liberals would not honour Kyoto.
The main obstacle to progress on Canada's carbon reduction is the Harper Conservative government's devotion to the vastly damaging oil sands projects, and its greedy cronies in Alberta. But lying and manipulation is what Conservatives do best.
An extraordinarily offensive advertising campaign is currently running in Canada defending this ecological disaster with photographs of beautiful wilderness.
you had me at #!
Your views intrigue me, Where can I sign up for your newsletter. I am not sure what country you are in, but I havent seen anyone looking for a "white people only" party.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I really think Kyoto was flawed that way and there needed to be some mechanism for countries with big primary industry, who obviously weren't going to hit Kyoto
You mean like Japan, France and Germany ? All of which export more than Canada, and have met their Kyoto targets.
The agreement has been a total disaster. It has actually encouraged nothing but political tom foolery. Each participating nation has done little to get off CO2 emissions. Hell, the bulk of EU is moving their worst emitters over to nations that are NOT covered by kyoto. That is a joke. EU is killing their nuke power plants and then buying from either other nuke plants OR buying from coal plants outside of kyoto. In addition, you have EU 'BUYING' CO2 credits. It is INSANE.
The ONLY way to make this happen, is for nations to TAX ALL GOODS (local and imported) based on CO2 emissions from where the item is assemblied and where the largest sub-components come from. Keep in mind that this is not a tax that remains there. It is up the nations where items are produced. If a nation has close to the accepted amount of emissions, then they will have no taxes. OTH, a nation like China will have 100% of the increasing taxes (yes, CHINA). In addition, this tax needs to be calculated NOT on per capita, but on PPP GDP or SQ km of land. The fact is, that ppl are not the major emitters. It is the GDP that does it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
China is NOT doing anything. Hell, they put 1-2 new coal plants on-line EACH WEEK. And in every case, they have pollution control INSTALLED, but not running.
Their output is 3x what is claimed. In fact, it is quite close to America's output. This will become obvious when OCO2 comes on-line and the Chinese gov. can not play games.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Because it's toxic to humans, which is what I am.
Not at any concentrations you're likely to see on Earth. You wouldn't notice a 25x increase in CO2 ppm.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
yes, the earth cares only about the total amount of CO2 released, because for hundreds of millions of years the C in CO2 was trapped underground, starving the biosphere ...
too bad you did not sign, would have followed your posts :)
Green is the color of blackmail: two years ago Bulgaria, already at some 40% of its Kyoto quota, got it's carbon emissions quota lowered even further and was forbidden from buying carbon credits or selling them (yes, EU functions that way), while other countries were allowed to buy more, even if they're way above their cc and show no sign of slowing down.
or rather "green is the color of bullshit": all the "green" NGOs are massively financed from government or corporate money.
But surface area stays relatively constant.
A country could game the system by encouraging rapid population increase, which would, at least in the near term, lower their per-capita emissions, and really that's the exact opposite of what we'd want.
or maybe Canada is tired of financing the CC intermediaries
if Canada sticks to this I'll add July 1 in my calendar, and ... I don't know, give up meat or video games that day ... November 11 already there since Poland blocked the EU patent regulations.
Tar sands account for about 5% of Canadian emissions, less than 0.1% of total global emissions. It's not the reason.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Heck, I researched the IR spectrum of various polluant , absorbance, half life in atmosphere (CH4, CO2, SF6 , etc...) and a model on them. So.... your trolling fall flat on the face.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
except the nastiness isn't so nasty. A cold winter causes higher emissions than the oil sands.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Even if such a thing could be done (and it would be a pretty desperate approach, there are easier ways), It would be unlikely to lower the per-capita emissions. After all, all these extra people would have to be supported with the same industrial system as the rest of the population, with a corresponding increase in consumption of all kinds, increasing emissions.
With a total approach, someone could game the system by wiping out a large fraction of their population (or encouraging emigration). But that's not too likely either.
I don't think anyone's actually proposed putting per-capita values into the treaty as the measure by which emissions reductions are calculated. But it's a useful number to assess the relative blame of different countries, and how much they can be reasonably expected to reduce emissions.
In the US, the Republican line is that climate change is a liberal conspiracy to destroy the capitalism and America, and any candidate that thinks differently (John Huntsman) is basically booed off stage.
Probably one of the many reasons why Arnold Schwarzenegger will never get anywhere in Republican presidential politics.
oil sands are only 5% of canadian emissions which are less than 2% of global emissions. That's just political rhetoric.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
And you don't think that at some point those nations will realize that it's cheaper to actually reduce the emissions than to keep paying these 3rd world countries? Especially when some of these 3rd world countries start using this cash to pull themselves up in the world?
Remember we're talking about growth. The dirty East German industry collapsed shortly after reunification, so Germany got a big boost for doing nothing. Japan's economy has been struggling for the past two decades so it's not hard to keep emissions down when you're not actually doing more. As for France, I don't know much about how they found their success, but I'm guessing it's in large part due to going Nuclear, which is what everyone should have been doing (instead people seem to be more afraid of Nuclear than AGW).
Also Canada (and the US) are big spread out countries, so it's hard to grow while being low carbon since we don't have the densities to support things like proper transit.
There's also things like the oil sands, which is apparently about 5% of our emissions. The problem with shutting down the oil sands is it is also responsible for ~2% of Canada's GPD (I'm not sure how reliable that number is). Do you really think those other countries would give up 2% GDP in what amounts to a symbolic gesture?
I'm not happy we gave up on Kyoto, and I'm even less happy that we've done virtually nothing to cut our emissions. But I don't agree with the claims of moral superiority from countries who achieved their targets largely by facing very different circumstances.
I stole this Sig
It has a lot more to do with Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution. See also "natural born citizen"
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Yeah, the ones that deny "Piltdown" Mann is a utter fraud. The ones that deny the USA got hotter in 1934 (we saw them have to fudge the numbers TWICE to dethrone 1934 for 1998).
Score:5? Seriously?
Quick question to see how much you really know: How much does Alberta and the oil industry contribute the federal government coffers?
The entirety of this nation has been propped up by the oil sands, like it or not.
"reduce growth" = people freezing to death under highway overpasses
Because the cause of homelessness is that there aren't enough houses?
#1: I think it is funny that Peter Kent is our environmental minister. He is best known for being a business commentator for a TV show. How is this guy our minister of environment!
#2: In Canada's defense the treaty makes no sense if the big guys aren't on board. I mean Canada is pretty brutal per capita, but we only have 30 million people. We are really small potatoes. Without countries like USA, China, India, Brazil, etc... what is the point?
#3: We were at least part of the treaty at one point in time, unlike all the a fore mentioned countries (sort of, I know some are members, but are required to make no sacrifice, which is BS). Of course that is not to say we actually made a like of progress towards those targets during that time. If fact I wouldn't be awfully surprised if we had increased CO2 since then.
#4: Yes this is about the tar sands. It is obvious. However as a government, they have to weigh the pros VS the cons. Yes this will increase CO2, and cause environmental trouble. However it would be a HUGE boon economically. The future of Canada for the next 50 years. It is understandably hard to throw that away. I think they have just proven they are willing to take a bit on the chin if it means keeping that advantage. This position is also made easier by the likes of the USA and China (which is funny as they called it preposterous!) Hell there is serious implications in that the USA certainly does not want us in it, and closing down the tar sands, which is really the only way they are going to have some independence from middle east energy issues. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a fairly weighty amount of pressure being applied by the USA to Canada to withdraw.
Before you flame me all to bits, I consider myself on the left and an conservationist/environmentalist. I am merely a little more pragmatic than most.
Alberta as a whole contributes about $36 billion annually to the federal government revenues. About half of which is income tax and the rest is other taxes including gas and oil taxes. According to what I was able to find the estimate was that direct oil and gas corporate taxes represented a meager $1.3 billion dollars each year, though that information may be old. Also as of 2005, the oil and gas industries were receiving $1.5 billion in subsidies a year.
The oil sands themselves don't seem to propping much up, though they do hold vast reserves of hydrocarbons.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
We have a financial system based on unlimited growth, and an entire planet is being altered by our activities. One way or another, this does not end well.
I think that we can mitigate global warming, and at the same time, not lose jobs, or in fact create new jobs. As an example, if we use more insulation in houses, it will create more work for the insulation people, although at the expense of the power people. Just one, simple, example.
;)
To help the problem however, we will need officials who can't be bent by {A} special interest or {B} special interest over the overall well being of the people and planet. To find them, I imagine voters will have to use an endoscope on all prospects.
In fact the Liberals did the exact opposite - after signing on to Kyoto the Liberal Government let the problem worsen dramatically so that by the time the Conservatives took power it was a hugely worse problem that would be fantastically more expensive to fix (as in meet Kyoto targets). It's an old political tactic - make big promises that your successor will have to pay for.
Funny how all the people blaming the government for pulling out of an obviously failed process aren't pointing the finger at the government that made it so much harder to make the process work. Shame!
Sorry but you can't avoid the facts, anyone criticising the Conservative government for not renewing Kyoto but not also pillorying the Liberal government, who signed onto Kyoto and then ignored the agreement they had just signed and allowed the problem to become vastly worse, is just here to score political points not because of any actual concern about global warming.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
... you need per-capita numbers to be able to make anything out of those emission numbers.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Most talk of reducing emissions in Australia uses a start date of 2000. It is often criticised for this because a 5% reduction on 2000 levels is much less than 5% below 1990 levels.
What mythical president is it that will slash emissions by 20% + whatever increase there has been between 2005 and whatever year the reductions will start?
The sacrificial lamb. Consider the situation in Australia - Gillard (the PM) is going to push through an emissions trading scheme. She is widely considered a terrible PM, and is likely only being kept around in order to do so. Once the next election comes around she'll get kicked out, but the mess of tax breaks which are intertwined with the ETS will make it very difficult to remove.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
... So the countries who are every bit as responsible for CO2 levels rising due to deforestation, get paid, by the countries with money. The whole thing is bs.
The countries with low deforestation rates have already completed their deforestation effort.
The countries with low deforestation rates have already completed their deforestation effort.
I thought the issue was greenhouse gas and climate change ? You mean deforestation doesn't count ?
Because if someone at the UN makes me pay, I'm going to cut down trees and saw them into lumber to raise the money.
Good point. The tarsands are a huge environmental mistake.
This is nothing compared to the current exponential increase in CO2 emissions from countries like China and India
Still, the US and Canada produce 5 times the CO2 per person than China. Australia is not far behind.
So for every say, 6 barrels you export, you have to burn a barrel yourself.
This may shed more light:
"Making liquid fuels from oil sands requires energy for steam injection and refining. This process generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the "production" of conventional oil.[3] If combustion of the final products is included, the so-called "Well to Wheels" approach, oil sands extraction, upgrade and use emits 10 to 45% more greenhouse gases than conventional crude.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands
Also, After speaking a few times with my local Conservative Party MP I believe they reject two of the underlying ethics of the Kyoto Protocol.
The first ethic they reject is what I would call the "fair play ethic" which basically asserts that the developed world should allow the developing world to pollute a little longer so they can catch up and finish developing.
The second ethic they reject is the "per person principal". Conservatives continually drone on and on about how much China pollutes compared to China as "a nation". Of course they don't bother comparing Canada to say Luxembourg. If they did compare the per capita emissions it would show that we emit 4 to 5 times as much as each Chinese citizen.
These position have been hashed out over and over by professional ethicist, so it is accurate to say that technically, the Canadian Government is behaving unethically.
As a Canadian who worked very hard to prevent this Conservative Party from getting a majority Government, you have my apology for failing.
It has a lot more to do with Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution. See also "natural born citizen"
That can be fixed. If Schwarzenegger hadn't blown his chances in California (mostly by not being a hardcore "Conservative") I think you'd see a lot of work now to amend that section.
But really, the environmentalism and his inability to break deadlocks imposed by the State Congress have torpedoed any chance that the Republican Party would want to go to bat on his behalf.
No. I mean those countries with low deforestation rate has no forest, therefore its impossible for them to deforest. They are the countries that should bear most responsibility for global CO2 emission,
Um ok, that is kind of an odd way of thinking about it given the low rate of production from Alberta sands compared to net annual consumption.
Check out GP signature, he points to some activist group with that exact goal.