Canada blocks Commonwealth climate-change deal

[Riverwind]

I see you believe in Darwin when it suits the purpose.

When I have I said I did not believe Darwin? There are many less brutal ways to deal with the problem but no one is willing to talk about them.

Want to solve the problem of overpopulation? Promote education. It is a lifestyle choice but quite effective at reducing the amount of children born.

I would be satisfied if people would talk about over population as part of the problem instead trying to pretend it is not an issue. Groups that try to interfere with family planning education and services for 'religious reasons' should be heavily penalized. Edited November 29, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

When I have I said I did not believe Darwin? There are many less brutal ways to deal with the problem but no one is willing to talk about them.

I would be satisfied if people would talk about over population as part of the problem instead trying to pretend it is not an issue. Groups that try to interfere with family planning education and services for 'religious reasons' should be heavily penalized.

I can't find a link online but I saw a facinating graph that plotted CO2 levels vs. human population over 20,000 years and demonstrated a strong correlation. Epidemics that cause large scale deaths resulted in a drop in CO2 levels (black death, small pox in the Americas, even WW2). CO2 levels have skyrocketed in the 20th century but so has human population.

Here is a graph of temperatures for the last 150 years:

Notice the drops around WW1 and WW2? I am not convinced the events are unrelated.

Haven't seen you criticize Darwin but I have seen others. Afterall, like all science, it is a theory... It is part of an overall approach to undermine science.

It is increased industrialization which increases emissions. Industrialization helps bring populations down because there is less need for large families to support agrarian life.

[noahbody]

Just heard on the news that Quebec is sending its own delegation to the upcoming meeting in Bali, to show that they disagree with the Harper government on climate change.

Is there anything stopping Quebec from voluntarily buying credits for being over targets on a provincial basis? I think they should.

"BQ Leader Gilles Duceppe reportedly wrote a letter to Indonesia's president, appealing to him not to listen to what the Tory government has to say."

He likely wrote the letter in French.

[noahbody]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...71126/20071126/

"Instead of leading by example, this prime minister engaged in sabotage of the Commonwealth conference," Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said during question period. "When you're Canada, you lead."

I think he means "when you're Canada, you lead by following."

[White Doors]

Frankly, I have little patience for people who seem to think changing our 'lifestyle' will solve the problem. Overpopulation is the real problem but we are stuck in this horrible moral quandry because controlling population means telling some people that they can't have kids and that would restrict something that we consider to be a basic human right. So we sit paralyzed and simply wait for mother nature to clean up the mess we created

Ironically, the best way to combat over population is through higher living standards.

In the end, it will be the western life style that saves us from ourselves - again.

Edited November 29, 2007 by White Doors

[Wild Bill]

Any deaths that result will be mothers nature's way of making humans do what humans should have be smart enough to do on their own: i.e. control their own population.

Frankly, I have little patience for people who seem to think changing our 'lifestyle' will solve the problem. Overpopulation is the real problem but we are stuck in this horrible moral quandry because controlling population means telling some people that they can't have kids and that would restrict something that we consider to be a basic human right. So we sit paralyzed and simply wait for mother nature to clean up the mess we created.

Actually, I think YOU'RE showing your age!

There is no population explosion and hasn't been for some time. We actually are having a huge DROP in population, at least in western countries. The demographics are pretty clear. You're right that the more people are educated the more they tend to restrict the size of their families.

Even China is riding a surge in population that has already passed its peak. "One Child" laws means a reproduction rate of only .5. Pretty simple math! Russia might look like a ghost town in 20-40 years. France and Greece are running more than 50% immigrants in their population mix.

Take a look around your own neighbourhood. Canada has had negative population growth for a few decades, despite trying to compensate with increased immigration. Just talk to your elementary school principal about closings of schools due to lack of kids. We're seeing it now in the kindergarden and early grades. There's the odd exception due to new housing developments but they are more than offset by closings in other geographical areas around cities.

Some more primitive countries are still having big families but as they develop that too will change. The only difference between them and us is a few decades.

No, this is just another fear from the 70's that never came to pass. We were supposed to run out of oil and gas by 1972 or so and a few years later be buried in an Ice Age.

Fortunately, we're SO much smarter today!

[trex]

I would be satisfied if people would talk about over population as part of the problem instead trying to pretend it is not an issue. Groups that try to interfere with family planning education and services for 'religious reasons' should be heavily penalized.

There is no over-population problem in Canada. Actually the opposite. So no need to jump up and down about the need to limit families, although in China they do have such policies, only one child per family is allowed. I have no idea what the penalty is if you have more than one. But I read somewhere that since they know they can have only one, everybody wants boys (presumably to continue the family name or some such nonsense) and the result is that baby girls are often aborted or sold off. Human meat-market. Is that what you really want??

Edited November 29, 2007 by trex

[Riverwind]

There is no over-population problem in Canada. Actually the opposite.

Canada has a limited arable land base. We will be hitting our limits much sooner than you think. The niave arguments arguments based on the amount of useless land that Canada has will lead to disaster. We need to limit our population growth too.

But I read somewhere that since they know they can have only one, everybody wants boys (presumably to continue the family name or some such nonsense) and the result is that baby girls are often aborted or sold off. Human meat-market. Is that what you really want??

As I said, either humans do it themselves or mother nature will. Which do you prefer?

BTW - the world population is expected to peak around 9 billion - a 50% increase from where we are now. We have zero chance of cutting GHGs fast enough to keep up that increase in population.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Some more primitive countries are still having big families but as they develop that too will change. The only difference between them and us is a few decades.

Development emits GHGs. There is no chance of that development happening and GHG emissions going down. So if the GHG alarmists are right and the GW is caused by humans then we are in big trouble.

[trex]

What some in the world are thinking of Canada's latest position on climate change:

"Last week, the UN Development Program severely criticized Canada for its failure to address climate change. It described Canada as an “extreme case” of ‘all talk’ and ‘no action’ and noted that Canadians leave the second largest ‘carbon footprint’ per capita in the world after the United States. According to the UN report, it would require nine planets if everyone on Earth had the same footprint.

A few days earlier at a Commonwealth meeting in Uganda, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was widely blamed in the British and African media for blocking a draft agreement that called for developed countries to meet greenhouse-gas targets.

According to Environment Minister John Baird, Canada has gone to Bali to push for a “constructive” agreement involving all countries, but it is hard to fathom what credibility Canada has left to achieve this. On this issue — and not only this issue — Canada seems more and more isolated on the world stage.

In Bali, as this Australian action was widely hailed by delegates, much attention was given to the fact that the United States is the only developed nation that has not recognized the accord. But Canada, although a signatory, has also done little to achieve the Kyoto targets.

-------------------

And on some other recent issues:

There have been other positions taken recently on international issues by Canada’s Conservative government that have alarmed some of this country’s allies. In addition to the Commonwealth controversy over climate change, Canada was one of only four countries to vote against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It refused to co-sponsor a resolution on a moratorium on the death penalty. There is also still anger throughout the Arab world about Canada’s unqualified support of Israel during its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Even though the U.S. Bush Administration is in its final year and has largely been discredited in many parts of the world because of Iraq, there are increasing signs that Canada is becoming closer to the United States on many key issues. This has caused considerable surprise in many international circles and spirited debate here at home.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_burman...issue_of_c.html

[jbg]

What some in the world are thinking of Canada's latest position on climate change:

"Last week, the UN Development Program severely criticized Canada....

I regard a UN condemnation as a sign that a country is doing its job in protecting its own people, and world freedom.

[no queenslave]

how about putting a big reflector between the sun and earth to reflect the suns rays to some other place. How big a reflector would be required? If that fails , shut down parliament with all it's hot air.

[jdobbin]

Canada ranked fourth worst in climate change list.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071207/...e_conference_16

China, a booming economy known for its air pollution and rising greenhouse gas emissions, is winning praise at an international climate conference for its efforts to clean up and support anti-global warming moves.

Some experts believe China has surpassed the United States as the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases, yet it has made strides in enhancing energy efficiency and promoting renewable energy, environmentalists and officials said Friday.

"I think China is taking climate change seriously and that's a good sign that there will be a good outcome here in Bali," said Artur Runge-Metzger, head of the European Commission delegation at the conference on the Indonesian island.

Even hard-to-please environmental groups who relish lambasting industrialized countries for pollution are praising Beijing, though it's clear China - which relies heavily on dirty, outdated coal burning techniques - has a lot more to do.

China's ranking on Germanwatch's 40th annual index, which ranks 56 industrialized and emerging countries, was an improvement of four places over last year, the group said Friday.

The United States and Saudi Arabia were the worst on the list, at 55th and 56th places, respectively.

Canada placed 53rd on the list, down two spots from last year's survey. It has prompted concern that the country lacks credibility on the international stage.

[jdobbin]

Baird is increasingly taking the position that Canada will not do anything unless the U.S. is on board.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Canada's environment minister has dismissed the notion of signing a climate-change treaty without the United States, saying it would handicap the Canadian economy without reversing greenhouse gases.

As the world gathers in Bali to work toward a successor treaty to the Kyoto accord, the Americans have already made it clear they will not submit to binding emission targets.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, John Baird said Canada hopes to reach a deal by 2009 -- but only if it applies targets for the first time to all major polluters.

He used a military analogy to suggest that Canada would leave its economy at a disadvantage by adopting environmental restrictions without its closest neighbour and trading partner following suit.

"Our major economic competition is with the United States,'' Baird said in the interview before he arrived in Bali this weekend.

"You can have unilateral disarmament. Some might call it noble -- but it's not necessarily smart.''

The U.S. already does better than Canada on the issue even without signing on. I guess this means that he plans on Canada doing worse than the U.S. as long as they are in power.

[jbg]

Baird is increasingly taking the position that Canada will not do anything unless the U.S. is on board.

Precisely, the US won't get on board without India and China, which at least have an appropriate sense of their self-interest. And Canada getting on board without the US, China and India is worthless.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

The U.S. already does better than Canada on the issue even without signing on. I guess this means that he plans on Canada doing worse than the U.S. as long as they are in power.

Thanks for the compliment.

[Canuck E Stan]

Harper right to oppose Bali proposals

If the UN's post-Kyoto deliberations were simply, or even mostly, about saving the planet, there might be reason to assail the Conservatives. But Bali is mostly about that old lefty refrain "make the rich pay," and very little about effective emission controls.

So the Harper government is right to oppose the proposals there.

The new religion,Global Warming/Climate change.

[jdobbin]

The new religion,Global Warming/Climate change.

Certainly the dynamics for the next election are set up with this: The Conservatives are in opposition to doing anything on global warming, the Opposition is for doing something.

[Wild Bill]

Interesting how the views seem to fall into one of two camps.

One camp thinks mathematically. If the result will be trivial, why bother? The other camp is more emotional, inferring that "making an effort" is in itself worthwhile and making no attempt to calculate if Canada would achieve anything beyond reducing a tiny fraction of the total problem and at what cost.

One camp won't even try and the other would knock itself out but in a futile manner.

Something tells me the planet is in more trouble than the emissions debate would indicate...

[capricorn]

jd, those dynamics may not work very well for the Liberals. Given that we're facing the coldest Canadian winter in 15 years, global warming may not resonate with voters. The optics for a January or February election campaign don't bode well.

The Liberals should perhaps put the focus away from global warming to another issue.

Edited December 10, 2007 by capricorn

[Canuck E Stan]

Certainly the dynamics for the next election are set up with this: The Conservatives are in opposition to doing anything on global warming, the Opposition is for doing something.

More like the opposition is willing to sell their country's soul to pay for problems that others should be involved in taking care of.

Once the price tag is known,the voting Canadian will begin to pay attention to the issue, and question why they have to foot the bill, and not the culprits who need to be involved.

[jdobbin]

One camp thinks mathematically. If the result will be trivial, why bother? The other camp is more emotional, inferring that "making an effort" is in itself worthwhile and making no attempt to calculate if Canada would achieve anything beyond reducing a tiny fraction of the total problem and at what cost.

The idea that the results would be trivial are certainly debateable. The "why bother" camp has an impact far beyond Canada's borders.

[bush_cheney2004]

Certainly the dynamics for the next election are set up with this: The Conservatives are in opposition to doing anything on global warming, the Opposition is for doing something.

No, actually the Opposition did nothing even after ratifying the treaty, without whining about what the Americans are/are not doing.

[jdobbin]

More like the opposition is willing to sell their country's soul to pay for problems that others should be involved in taking care of.

Once the price tag is known,the voting Canadian will begin to pay attention to the issue, and question why they have to foot the bill, and not the culprits who need to be involved.

The last several polls on the costs of protecting the environment have shown there is a majority of Canadians willing to pay to protect the environment.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...orce_login=true

If the Tories want to be on other side of the issue, at least it makes things clear.

[Canuck E Stan]

The last several polls on the costs of protecting the environment have shown there is a majority of Canadians willing to pay to protect the environment.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Pag...orce_login=true

If the Tories want to be on other side of the issue, at least it makes things clear.

And how much did the pollsters say the cost to protect the environment would be?

Cost that includes both financial and in what would have to be given up in lifestyle?

How clear has Dion and the Liberals been on what the cost would be to Canadians?

[jdobbin]

And how much did the pollsters say the cost to protect the environment would be?

Cost that includes both financial and in what would have to be given up in lifestyle?

How clear has Dion and the Liberals been on what the cost would be to Canadians?

The surprising thing the Environic poll said was how much the much Canadians were willing to pay. It was a substantial amount. You can look it up if you like. It was in the poll.

As for how much it would affect lifestyle, that is speculative at best. It doesn't seem to have affected American lifestyles and they have done more on global warming that Canada has even without an agreement.