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
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."
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.
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.
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.
(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
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.
The key is to learn to ADAPT to the changing climate, not try to exercise control we don't and can't have.
And that is exactly what is happening. Continuing to cut down forests and emit CO2 during a warming trend, would be failure to adapt.
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
... 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.
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/
"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.
How frickin dumb are you?
If it's caused by human emissions of CO2, then it would seem that stopping the emissions before it gets too bad would indeed be stopping it. Not stopping pumping CO2 into the atmosphere would be making it worse.
So, it doesn't matter whether we're the cause or simply incidental, you're an idiot either way.
Noting that the reality in China and India make the Kyoto Treaty pointless is not the same as blaming China and India.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
This got to be Obama's fault. Didn't he meet Canadian prime minister just last week.
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!
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 ?
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.
Why? Do scientists and others need a chance to party in exotic locations on the general public's dime?
It's not like scientists and others can even SIGN a legally binding Treaty (unless they also happen to be the appropriate politician).
Much less make it legally binding....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
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..."
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
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
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
#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.