Canada blocks Commonwealth climate-change deal

[Keepitsimple]

Does anyone have a link to a report that shows how all the Kyoto countries are doing on their targets? The David Suzuki Foundation has one but it's based on 1999 data. My understanding is that many countries have done worse since that time - they started off with a bang because the year 1990 gave them credit for all the dirty factories closing down the the collapse of Communism. But good or bad, it's always good to have access to meaningful data. Any links would be appreciated.

[Canuck E Stan]

In what California has done?

Geez, you said

I believe Dion's policies were too timid in the end and having seen what Arnold Schwarzenegger has done in such a short time, I believe this is what Dion should have done. California's economy hasn't shattered and it is having a transforming effect on technology and policies in regards to emissions.

What policies, besides naming his mutt Kyoto does Dion have?

What wonders has Arnie done outside of the Terminator films that you think Dion should follow?

What transforming effect,(and we're not talking Hollywood special effects) are you referring to?

How can all these unnamed revelations you attribute to the Governator be applicable to us here in the frozen north?

[jdobbin]

Geez, you said

What policies, besides naming his mutt Kyoto does Dion have?

What wonders has Arnie done outside of the Terminator films that you think Dion should follow?

What transforming effect,(and we're not talking Hollywood special effects) are you referring to?

How can all these unnamed revelations you attribute to the Governator be applicable to us here in the frozen north?

I've said that Dion's policies on Kyoto were largely a failure since they didn't decrease greenhouse gases. He was appointed in 2004 and spent a great deal of 2005 trying to get the world onside in 2005 in the Montreal conference. He was able to get more money into the budget in 2005 and made changes to environmental policies to improve funding for alternative energy, protecting boreal forest and improving efficiency in buildings. However, it was mostly technical changes and there was no real industrial emissions policy.

Schwarzenegger has been able to put a hard caps emissions policy in California and the transforming effect has been to get industry all over the U.S. onboard in reducing emissions. This is especially true for the auto industry which is forcing the car companies to bend over backwards to create more efficient, low emissions products.

Schwarzenegger was responsible for pushing this act through California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warmin...ons_Act_of_2006

Car companies have been introducing new technologies to meet California's rules.

Dion should have done the same when he was in power at the very least.

Dion should have done what Arnie had done in creating a hard caps policy, especially in cars. It would have had a dramatic effect in everything from smog to greenhouse gases.

Edited November 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[Canuck E Stan]

I've said that Dion's policies on Kyoto were largely a failure since they didn't decrease greenhouse gases. He was appointed in 2004 and spent a great deal of 2005 trying to get the world onside in 2005 in the Montreal conference. He was able to get more money into the budget in 2005 and made changes to environmental policies to improve funding for alternative energy, protecting boreal forest and improving efficiency in buildings. However, it was mostly technical changes and there was no real industrial emissions policy.

Schwarzenegger has been able to put a hard caps emissions policy in California and the transforming effect has been to get industry all over the U.S. onboard in reducing emissions. This is especially true for the auto industry which is forcing the car companies to bend over backwards to create more efficient, low emissions products.

Dion should have done what Arnie had done in creating a hard caps policy, especially in cars. It would have had a dramatic effect in everything from smog to greenhouse gases.

Your enthusiasm for Arnold, who became governor on November 2003, has little to do with California and automobile emissions,history will show that California has always since 1945 been in the auto emission control business and has since 1945 made emissions a priority.Dion's dog could have been governor, and these changes would have been made because of California's history with smog.

[Wild Bill]

Word for word. Have you?

Yes!

Interesting that we seem to have quite different perspectives.

However, it's nice to know I'm not the only one. You're the first I've ever found on a discussion board, including and especially "Babble".

[bush_cheney2004]

Your enthusiasm for Arnold, who became governor on November 2003, has little to do with California and automobile emissions,history will show that California has always since 1945 been in the auto emission control business and has since 1945 made emissions a priority.Dion's dog could have been governor, and these changes would have been made because of California's history with smog.

Excellent observation, as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been a world leader since being created in 1967 by Governor Reagan and the legislature. Didn't need no 'steenkin' Kyoto Treaty...no suh! Low/Ultra-low emission vehicles were mandated for the huge California market, and those of us who are old enough were very much aware of a California emissions vehicle's higher cost as far back as 1970.

Edited November 26, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jdobbin]

Your enthusiasm for Arnold, who became governor on November 2003, has little to do with California and automobile emissions,history will show that California has always since 1945 been in the auto emission control business and has since 1945 made emissions a priority.Dion's dog could have been governor, and these changes would have been made because of California's history with smog.

I have no idea what you just said or what you mean.

[jdobbin]

Yes!

Interesting that we seem to have quite different perspectives.

However, it's nice to know I'm not the only one. You're the first I've ever found on a discussion board, including and especially "Babble".

I'm not convinced the Harper government is interested in the least in the environment. Their one line policy in the last election makes me think that it is not a priority and never will be.

[Wild Bill]

I'm not convinced the Harper government is interested in the least in the environment. Their one line policy in the last election makes me think that it is not a priority and never will be.

You may be right but not necessarily in the manner you think! I'm sure Harper's crew understands perfectly that environmental issues are important in terms of getting elected. That being said, they may not believe folks on your side of these issues are correct about what's happening and the reasons for it. I do agree with their intent to actually clean up our emissions and not just buy emission credits, unlike Dion's method of catching up on all his lost years of no action.

People can disagree without being evil, you know. Please don't pull a "jennie". They simply may not feel you've given them a good enough argument! The problem with many "greens" these days is they seem to accept it as a given that they are absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees with them must simply be following an "evil" agenda 'cuz they WANT all our children to fry!

Politicians must balance popular viewpoints to garner support. They may cater to your views and then lose my vote, or vice versa. And as any Liberal knows full well, power is everything because without it you are powerless to do anything.

[jdobbin]

You may be right but not necessarily in the manner you think! I'm sure Harper's crew understands perfectly that environmental issues are important in terms of getting elected. That being said, they may not believe folks on your side of these issues are correct about what's happening and the reasons for it. I do agree with their intent to actually clean up our emissions and not just buy emission credits, unlike Dion's method of catching up on all his lost years of no action.

People can disagree without being evil, you know. Please don't pull a "jennie". They simply may not feel you've given them a good enough argument! The problem with many "greens" these days is they seem to accept it as a given that they are absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees with them must simply be following an "evil" agenda 'cuz they WANT all our children to fry!

Politicians must balance popular viewpoints to garner support. They may cater to your views and then lose my vote, or vice versa. And as any Liberal knows full well, power is everything because without it you are powerless to do anything.

I don't think I've ever used the word evil with the Tories. I've just expressed doubt on their priorities. I think with a majority they will go back to a one line policy on environmental issues. Given the long lead time into the last election, you would think they would have done better than one line as an election policy when it came to the environment.

And now Harper is basically killing Kyoto because he says it has to include the whole world before he does anything about emissions.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/commonwealth_climate_cda

Harper said the key error of Kyoto was slapping binding targets on three-dozen countries but not the rest, including some of the world's biggest polluters like the United States, China and India.

So Canada will enter key negotiations on a post-Kyoto deal next month with a relatively simple position: all major polluters must be included, or there's no deal.

Harper came under fire from some quarters for promoting that view at the Commonwealth summit but was adamant that the everyone-in approach is the only solution.

Harper's stance places the bar for success extremely high at upcoming United Nations talks in Bali, Indonesia, but he said it's better than the incrementalist approach of the past.

"This was the Kyoto mistake," Harper told a news conference at the summit's conclusion.

"We already did the 'One-third of the countries will take binding targets and let's hope the rest fall into line."'

"We're already there. That hasn't worked."

Harper's remarks on Kyoto offer the latest in a series of public stances he has taken on the treaty, which demands six per cent emissions cuts below 1990 levels by 2012.

Five years ago he described it as a money-sucking socialist scheme and ridiculed the science of global warming when the previous Liberal government ratified the treaty.

More recently, he's simply described its targets as unattainable because of the Liberals' well-documented failure to cut emissions, a view that was reflected in his government's policy-setting throne speech.

On Sunday, he suggested Kyoto was flawed all along.

While I don't disagree that other countries need to be brought in, Harper's ultimate strategy is do nothing unless everyone is involved.

[ScottSA]

I don't think I've ever used the word evil with the Tories. I've just expressed doubt on their priorities. I think with a majority they will go back to a one line policy on environmental issues. Given the long lead time into the last election, you would think they would have done better than one line as an election policy when it came to the environment.

But you see, you're implicitely doing exactly what Bill suggested the Greens do. You may not say it, but your whole critique, given your obvious prejudices, suggests that what the Greens say is the gospel truth. Otherwise why would you use terminology like "done better?" If you didn't hold that view, you would have phrased it far differently, since to my POV, "better" would be to scrap the Kyoto deal and start burning tires in the backyard so as to hasten GW, if indeed it is happening by virtue of himan means. Even the CBC has realized that Canada stands to benefit from GW in a big way.

[jdobbin]

But you see, you're implicitely doing exactly what Bill suggested the Greens do. You may not say it, but your whole critique, given your obvious prejudices, suggests that what the Greens say is the gospel truth. Otherwise why would you use terminology like "done better?" If you didn't hold that view, you would have phrased it far differently, since to my POV, "better" would be to scrap the Kyoto deal and start burning tires in the backyard so as to hasten GW, if indeed it is happening by virtue of himan means. Even the CBC has realized that Canada stands to benefit from GW in a big way.

I don't go by what the Greens say. I do follow what the majority of the scientists say.

I'm sure some places will benefit from global warming. However, I have not seen a full assessment of how it will affect Canada but I tend to think that it be hard for places that are dry now as they are likely to get drier. It will be hard for areas that are connected by ice roads in winter. We've already seen what happens when a winter road is not able to be constructed. It means expensive airlifts.

I know that there are many in the right wing who believe that emissions pose no problem and if they do, it won't be a problem for Canada. I think that is reflected in the current Conservative government's attitude to the whole thing. In fact, given their very light policy book on the environment as a whole in the last election, it seems that the issue is just not one of their priorities.

[Riverwind]

While I don't disagree that other countries need to be brought in, Harper's ultimate strategy is do nothing unless everyone is involved.

If everyone is not involved then we are wasting our time with treaties. It is simple economics because GHG limits that only apply to some countries will simply force industries that produce to GHGs to move to places with no limits. That is what has happened in Europe which has moved most of its industrial production to eastern europe (countries with overly generous limits because of the economic collapse in the 1990s) or china. This allows the europeans to maintain the fiction of lower GHG emissions while their consumption causes the GHGs emitted from other countries to go up.

But the atmosphere does not distinguish between GHGs emitted from China or Europe so we all lose in the long run.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Riverwind

[trex]

Canada and the Kyoto Protocol

On December 17, 2002, Canada ratified the treaty that came into force in February 2005, requiring it to reduce emissions to 6% below 1990 levels during the 2008-2012 commitment period. Having signed and ratified the treaty, the government proved incapable or unwilling to actually reduce emissions. At that time, numerous polls showed support for the Kyoto protocol at around 70%. Despite strong public support, there was still some opposition, particularly by the Canadian Alliance, precursor to the governing Conservative Party, some business groups, and energy concerns, using arguments similar to those being used in the US. In particular, there was a fear that since US companies would not be affected by the Kyoto Protocol that Canadian companies would be at a disadvantage in terms of trade. In 2005, the result was limited to an ongoing "war of words", primarily between the government of Alberta (Canada's primary oil and gas producer) and the federal government. There were even fears that Kyoto could threaten national unity, specifically with regard to Alberta [citation needed]. As of 2003, the federal government claimed to have spent or committed 3.7 billion dollars on climate change programmes. By 2004, CO2 emissions had risen to 27% above 1990 levels (which compares unfavorably to the 16% increase in emissions by the United States during that time).

In January 2006, a Conservative minority government under Stephen Harper was elected, who previously has expressed opposition to Kyoto, and in particular to the plan to participate in international emission trading. Rona Ambrose, who replaced Stéphane Dion as the environment minister, has since endorsed some types of emission trading, and indicated interest in international trading. On April 25, 2006, Ambrose announced that Canada would have no chance of meeting its targets under Kyoto, and would look to participate in U.S. sponsored Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. "We've been looking at the Asia-Pacific Partnership for a number of months now because the key principles around [it] are very much in line with where our government wants to go," Ambrose told reporters. On May 2, 2006, it was reported that environmental funding designed to meet the Kyoto standards had been cut, while the Harper government develops a new plan to take its place. As the co-chair of UN Climate Change Conference in Nairobi in November 2006, Canada and its government received criticism from environmental groups and from other governments for its climate change positions. On January 4, 2007, Rona Ambrose moved from environment to become Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The Environment portfolio went to John Baird, the former President of the Treasury Board.

Canada's federal government has introduced legislation to set mandatory emissions targets for industry, but it will not take effect until an estimated 2050. The government has since begun working with opposition parties to improve the legislation.

A private member's bill was put forth by Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, aiming to force the government to "ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol." With the support of the Liberals, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, and with the current minority situation, the bill passed the House of Commons on 14 February 2007 with a vote of 161-113 and is now being considered by the Senate. If passed, the bill would give the government 60 days to form a detailed plan of action. The government has flatly refused to abide by the bill, which may spark a constitutional crisis, lawsuit, or non-confidence motion once the bill becomes law, as is expected.

In May 2007 Friends of the Earth sued the Canadian federal government for failing to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming. This was based on a clause in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that requires Ottawa to "prevent air pollution that violates an international agreement binding on Canada,". Canada's obligation to the treaty begins in 2008.

[Canuck E Stan]

I have no idea what you just said or what you mean.

Then apparently your babble about Arnie and California has no basis.

I believe Dion's policies were too timid in the end and having seen what Arnold Schwarzenegger has done in such a short time, I believe this is what Dion should have done. California's economy hasn't shattered and it is having a transforming effect on technology and policies in regards to emissions.

Schwartenegger has personally done nothing,and likewise you haven't provided any evidence of what he has done that would have been a wise move for Dion to follow.

Nor have you told us of what these transforming effects on technology and policies are.

In other words you're making this up as you go along. Much like Dion is doing with his policy that doesn't exist.

You should run for leader of the Liberal party.

[jdobbin]

If everyone is not involved then we are wasting our time with treaties. It is simple economics because GHG limits that only apply to some countries will simply force industries that produce to GHGs to move to places with no limits. That is what has happened in Europe which has moved most of its industrial production to eastern europe (countries with overly generous limits because of the economic collapse in the 1990s) or china. This allows the europeans to maintain the fiction of lower GHG emissions while their consumption causes the GHGs emitted from other countries to go up.

But the atmosphere does not distinguish between GHGs emitted from China or Europe so we all lose in the long run.

As I said, I don't disagree the goal should be get all nations involved. However, Harper's strategy in this is to do nothing about emissions in Canada until he achieves this goal.

[trex]

If we can't get agreement at the commonwealth conference, how do they expect to get one at the much bigger UN meeting?

I think Canadians want to feel that we are doing something useful, not making excuses. Other countries like Great Britain are showing strong leadership on this issue. They're taking it much more seriously than we are. And they don't change their minds by the flavour of the month when previous committments are made.

Won't be much longer and the average Canadian will get sick of this government, if not already. We need to drop these people from the CPC. Call an election, you snivelling wimps!

[jdobbin]

Then apparently your babble about Arnie and California has no basis.

Schwartenegger has personally done nothing,and likewise you haven't provided any evidence of what he has done that would have been a wise move for Dion to follow.

Nor have you told us of what these transforming effects on technology and policies are.

In other words you're making this up as you go along. Much like Dion is doing with his policy that doesn't exist.

You should run for leader of the Liberal party.

Actually, it is because I can't figure out what you are attempting to say. Your sentence structure is often undecipherable.

[Canuck E Stan]

Actually, it is because I can't figure out what you are attempting to say. Your sentence structure is often undecipherable.

Figure this out.

You made a statement and now you are unwilling to support it..... because you know you can't.

[jdobbin]

Figure this out.

You made a statement and now you are unwilling to support it..... because you know you can't.

I did but you must have missed it.

[jbg]

Leave it to Harper and his Cons to ruin our reputation as progressive leaders in the world on environment. Oh yes, they did drop the progressive part from their name. It's just one more nail in the coffin, dear.

And can you tell me what temperature Kyoto would lower on what day, and in what location? Clearly, it is a futile treaty, or worse, a redistributive welfare scheme.

CO2 is 3% of the greenhouse gases. That's it. So how would shaving a few tenths of percent off that figure (even were it possible, which goes in the "if bullfrogs had wings, they'd fly category) change anything?

More to the point, what role may sunspots, North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) [similar to Arctic Oscillation (AO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) or the more famous ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) play in climate variation and change? Trex, I'm waiting for your answers.

[jbg]

why is it that harper and his supporters are supposedly always right and every one else are wrong. ask Mr. Howard (harpers buddy) in Australia where his right ideas got him?

Twelve years of majority government, over, I believe, four elections? Not bad.

[jbg]

Actually it reallocates wealth to the wealthy third world leaders who then send it back to Europe to buy sports cars, palaces and investments, though.

Oh, but it makes the leftists feel so good inside.

[jdobbin]

And can you tell me what temperature Kyoto would lower on what day, and in what location? Clearly, it is a futile treaty, or worse, a redistributive welfare scheme.

CO2 is 3% of the greenhouse gases. That's it. So how would shaving a few tenths of percent off that figure (even were it possible, which goes in the "if bullfrogs had wings, they'd fly category) change anything?

More to the point, what role may sunspots, North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) [similar to Arctic Oscillation (AO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) or the more famous ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) play in climate variation and change? Trex, I'm waiting for your answers.

Most scientists have said that the sun and ocean currents do play a role in climate warming. They account for it and still are left with a rising figure which the say is greenhouse gases.

CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gases. In addition to carbon dioxide (CO2) is methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

[jbg]

You're dating yourself Bill,

it isn't Global Warming any longer,get with it.....and the new improved global warming....."Climate Change"

Gee, I didn't know that weather and/or climate changes from day to day, season to season. Who'd have thunk it?