myata

Whenever a straight question's asked, you simply know it's the time to expect stretch and twist. "Realistic", "every" and so on. We know that there was a real specific target for this particular country. What else are you curious to know?

This is the first yeat China's estimated emissions surpassed those of the USA. With approximately 4 times greater population. Are you keeping straight face while writing this? Why is emissions growth more important than the actual emissions size, Mr Scientist? And sure I care about CO2 and I'm not going to try to teach them to start cutting their emissions while we, with orders of magnitude higher income, should be allowed to burn to our hearts desire. Simply because I wouldn't be able to keep straight face. Only in your twisted logic world. Normally, those who created the problem, and are better equipped to address it, would invest their time and resources into finding working solutions. Then share the solutions with those less likely to afford that on their own. But not in your world; there, we burn, you - clean. They benefitted in the equal degree? Just like everyone else, in the developed world? Even when developed world sent oil guzzling warboats to shove opium down their throats? But anyways its a theoretical discussion, which could itself be disputed forever. Enough is to say that without showing some lead West has next to zero chances to bring developing partners to the table of real emissions reductions. To expect it would be, as you say, hypoctritical, not to mention, quite unlikely. So, who doesn't (care is such a stretchy word - I can care 25 hours a day and night to make Earth a green paradize - like some politician I know - but those China and India, they just won't let him move a finger - and I'm so deeply empathetic with him - but how about, e.g. "serious" for a change??) about the problem?

No, this is what's really breathtaking! Who is the largest emitter on this planet? For the last couple of hundred years? And per capita? Who has actually created the problem. Really, there's no limit to how far the reality can be twisted. Go ahead. What's your point, though? What everybody should just sit back and relax? We already know that. Can anything more be added? Oh yeah! Preaching around the world, to China, India, Mexico, Russia and Zimbabwe why they should step up to the plate , cut their emissions, embrace democracy, and buy a lot of MacDonalds, so that one day they could feel themselves as (almost) equial in the great democratic family.

It had a target. Specific measurable target in the set timeframe. Something the new glorious initiative doesn't. What else can be added?

Right. China and India, they are in the driver seat, they have taken us to this point and they should show the lead on drastically reducing their emissions first. Following which poor Canada still struggling to feed its people would (maybe) follow. It would be good for a comedy show, except this is the ideas which are shared by our government. No, it's not funny, it's sad. It shows that nothing will happen. Folks will keep pushing the button that'll promise them paradise forever, and when the reality strikes, it'll be left to the others to sort out the mess. At least we won't be first, and probably not last. We, as a species, are still generations away from the point when our brain would countrol our kick and not the other way around.

I like that. Kyoto been their feet wiping mat and near swear word, when real result are to be delivered, and now they turn around and glorify the fuzzy agreement to achieve some fuzzy targets (what's the base year??) somewhere in the fuzzy future. Go figure. Except its as obvious as clear water in the lake to anybody who cares to think. The folks aren't interested in real results. They want your votes, badly. And they'll say anything you want to get them.

Yet I never said that. Carbon trading system on a federal scale, given this country's political reality, will take a decade to set up. The real visible action must be taken now. If only to confirm that the problem is being addresses. Talk and more talk sprinkled with megatalk won't take one megatonne out of our carbon balance.

That quite likely is also Harpers deep held conviction. Let everybody else start getting busy with cutting their emissions, realigning economies and reducing energy waste. We'll just keep on going as if nothing going on. Or, make it out contribution to humankind to do educational preaching. We already adressed scientific sense, economic sense and beliefs vs reality. There doesn't seem to be anything more that can be added to this topic.

Other than rolling / unrolling earlier Liberal tax cuts, the only real tax cut so far is 1% reduction in GST. like? which police considers a highly useful tool (we've been there before). But he must be thinking that just rightful talk would get the job done. and that is about? and has nothing to his credit even thought the environment was proclaimed priority of his government. Canada is now at the very bottom of G8 on climate change action. tired old attack ad bs. Keep your brains regularly washed with a good dose of dumb propaganda instead of investigating something on your own for a change. Really? Can cite some example or just parrotting the author? Just saying it doesn't make it true no matter how much you want it. No credible alternative to loudmouth ideology driven policies? To ignoring and despising democratic process in favour of nonsense propaganda? To unquestionnably tailing big buddy wherever they might barge next? I guess, if these are your priorities.

Of course! Remember these courteous and respectful attack ads? Or deeply thoughtful comments on his opponents' climate change strategy?

We certainly have a choice to ignore reality. Examples of countries successfully developing alternative sources of energy were cited. A virtually untouched field yet is to use appropriate tools (tax shift being very effiecient one) to influence consumption behaviour away from unnecessary energy use. All this of course falls on deaf ears of somebody who isn't convinced the problem even exists. That summarizes your (and, I think, Harper's government, if they we ever to disclose their deeply held beliefs) position on the issue very well. I don't think anything can be added to that. Except that these "ideas", if unchecked, tend to become self fulfilling prophecies. It's up to us to make change happen, or to persist in "proving" that it's impossible. On every turn on evolution, biological as well as social, those who embrace and adapt to change go to the next round, the others stay behind.

OK, take it on record. Price of oil have spiked before, and many economists are pridicting that it'll come down. Again, using your own crystal ball? So what if oil comes down again? What will make those renewable more attractive then? You're advocating just the same as what was said before: burning out all extractable oil, then see what happens. Maybe renewables will naturally become more attractive. If there will be many to enjoy them. As in the experiment with gas tank in the house, when gas all burned out, the fire will sure stop, naturally. Should we be getting much consolation from that?

Not the "debate" of calling people names (from behind the corner) and the "arguments" of the attack ads? I hope Canadians will have memories for that. If not, we'll just get our own moneys worth. One can vote to ignore the change, but it won't make the change go away.

What may have been meant (by e.g reference to Steyn) is that back there, one enjoys full unrestricted freedom to ascribe most problems in the society to some malicious foreign-born elements.

And now Harper refused to debate Liberal Green shift plan in a public debate: National Post story. In the words of government spokesman, "... the debate started weeks ago..". OK, now everybody knows (who hasn't already) that in Harper's mind, a public debate is nothing but calling the opponing names (from where he can't get at you) and demented attack ads. And, to say, who really needs that public debate? In China, or e.g Russia, they don't (e.g. there's been no public debate in the last presidential elections - the opposition candidates were simply dismissed as a joke - does something ring a bell here?), and both are doing just fine. But maybe, this time around Harper's pushed it a bit too far. Perhaps imagining himself already in the boots of De Champlain on his true battlehorse. Environment is on the minds of Canadians and hopefully they'll choose the real stuff against Harper's juvenile atticks and attitudes.

I think its an award by a pro-Jewish organisation for an obvious pro Israel (and generally, pro American) shift in Canada's foreign policy. This organisation isn't known to be a champion of universal human rights, and hardly much can be read in it calling its award "humanitarian". PLO could do the same, and give to e.g president of Iran, so? Peace in the area (and associated progress in human rights, for all residents) will be achieved by presenting, and insisting on, just conditions of settlement, not by unilaterally supporting one side in the conflict, as has been the policy of US, and now increasingly, Harper's Canada. Specifically, Propping feeble and corrupt government as a humanitarian project? Let's just say it's an element of (failing) US "domino" policy in the Middle East, which Israel happens to support. That creative phrasing most likely meant the full blown war Israel has unleashed on Lebanon, in response to kidnapping of 4 (or 8?) of its soldiers. Definitely, a humanitarian achievement. Just like we do here: a guy heists a bank and takes a hostage, we bomb flat the block where he lives. BTW, according to the latest news, they still demolish alleged terrorists homes there (collective punishment for the entire family). Wow, another wonderful innovation in human rights. Probably in mertits a consideration for another award too. Correct, they are the wrong kind of democratically elected government, not our kind. And whatever we do must for the human rights (by definition), correct? Can't say anything about that. Apology was needed and it was indeed heartfelt. Without that last item the "humanitarian" content of award would appear somewhat (if not entirely) thin.

OK, you're right. So? The Sun rises in the east and sets in the West. How does that address the question that was asked and to which neither learned opponent, nor yourself cared to provide an answer? Here's one more time, for the record: what is the link between increasing content of GHG in the atmosphere, and the price of oil in the market? What is the mechanism that would "naturally" drive the price of oil up as the concentration of CO in the atmosphere raises and the planet warms up? That is the key argument (other than of course, "I refuse to believe it", which was already addressed) for the "we don't need to do nothing, it'll all take care of itself, naturally" position. To MM: CHCs are regulated. It's another way to put a price on an unwanted commodity. I.e. via fines and possibly even criminal prosecution.

Market, prices are the main mechanism that communicates consumption priorities in a market economy. What there's at this time neither cost, no regulation of GHG emissions, tells market players (businesses and consumers) plain and simple that from the market perspective, the problem does not exist.

I.e. making 9 units of energy out of nothing? Congrats on breaking the fundamental law of conservation of energy. This pearl proves beyond all real reasonable doubt that these deepthought discussions of physical models and statistical consequences are in fact nothing but yada and dada talk. Again all that is just your saying. There're still huge supplies of oil which aren't going anywhere. Spikes of oil prices happened before, and, btw you haven't answered the question. One more time, what is the relation between the level of CO in the atmospehere, and the price of oil? Existence of that link is fundamental to your idea that things will naturally settle themselves and nothing needs to be done. Otherwise, the situation is more like that of a dude buring gasoline in the house, while pondering, whether some natural mechanism would kick in to stop the house from blowing up? In other words, there will be no change (in carbon emissions) because change is impossible (in technology). We've already visited this logical pearl. See multiple examples to the contrary in this very thread.

OK, just because you keep bringing it up, let's now address that point as well. You're making this implicit assumption that there's some kind of relation between the price of oil, which is usually governed by the fluctuations of demand and supply, and the current events, and speculations, and the increasing content of CO in the atmosphere which is causing global warming. I.e that increasing CO content, by itself, would somehow cause the price of old to raise. All without any justification, or, god forbid, corraboration. Not a good prospect, for an aspiring scientist. We may be burning oil for another 100 years, if new supplies are found, if deeper tar sands are unearthed, etc. Moreover, given the progress in extraction technology, and no control in sight, we could probably end up burning more or less all of organic carbon that's been absorbed in millions and billions years that life had existed on this planet. Which would bring us where? Right, up to where it's all started before there was ever life here. Such a cool experiment it would be! Will it come up, again? Or not? It's really, simple. To start reducing carbon emissions, we, society should send a signal that lots of emissions aren't desirable. Not desirable regardless of market situation; whether the price of oil is high; and especially if it's low. That's what them scientist people mean by "setting a price on emissions". Very much like the tax on cigarettes. Really, why should there be a tax on cigarettes? Ever thought of that? Let's see, there shoud be a way for it to take care of itself, right? Only how? Why would the price of cigarettes shoot up steeply to make everybody "naturally" abandon bad habits, if there were no government to ask, no insist on it?

Possibly, but it's just can't be seen from anywhere in the information you posted. Or, shall I explain the difference between 50-85% reduction from the peak of 2015 (now's 2008, and we're 35% above 1990 level, remember), and ???. OK, (though it falls into 3 grade math), here it goes: a half of a very big number - can't be 0. Period. Mathematical impossibility. I've no idea who Weaver is and there the quote came from, so ignored. Obviously, we're comparing technologies of two generations forward in the future with those of today. That wasn't made clear enough? How would carbon emissions of a nuclear plant compare to that of coal, of the same power generation capacity? Hydrogen engine (running on hydrogen distilled with wind generated power) against gasoline based one? What's wrong with non-carbon based economy of the future showing better carbon efficiency than a lousy carbon based economy of today? Wouldn't it be like comparing apples and oranges?

When you'll only have to prove it. Anybody can show a knee-jerk reaction to pretty much anything, it's not a rational way to address problems.

Certainly as one of the options to ensure stable long term energy supply, and mitigate the raise of greenhouse emissions, where and if it's feasible and practical. I'm not into purist environmentalist religions of any kinds; we have a problem on our hands and it needs practical solutions; dressing in green and preaching total absistence wont' be one of them.

I'd like to see more specifics on this. Who exactly are the "alarmists" who have made this particular claim? Has Hanses been on records saying anything of the kind? Unless these are your very own usual (and usually, incorrect) interpretations of other's positions?

I want to prove that alternatives do exist, where a claim has been made that there're none. Which alternatives, and in which mix are better suited to achieve the stated goals should be a subject to an informed rational discussion. Which is of course a tough undertaking with positions a la "je ne sais pas pourquoi, but over my dead body". And obviously, those goals, they must exist. Exist as real practical objectives, rather than a banner to flow at election time, then ignore and forget.