Environment

[Billy Boy]

As far as the developing economies such as China and India are concerned - they can copy everything from computer chips to DVDs - so why can't they copy and apply pollution control systems that already exist for cars and industry in the "developed" world? It's not as if they are expected to come up with some brand new technology.

So we should expect them to commit to using the technologies that exist at the same time as we make further commitments for Canada.

It seems to me that this would be a fair expectation.

[noahbody]

Basically you've got 50 mice and 3 elephants on an elevator. Together they have to shed 1200lbs. The mice can run around a wheel all they want, shed their ounces and squeak to each other about how much they're doing. But if the elephants don't partake, the elevator isn't moving. And there's nothing the mice can do about it. Let's all get drunk and play ping pong.

[White Doors]

Let's all get drunk and play ping pong

Rally for serve?

[myata]

Certainly no worse than the Liberals, but PM Harper is deserving of more vitriol? Smells like politics to me, not a longstanding concern about the environment.

What do you mean "not worse"? If you took the time to examine things for yourself, rather than repeating after Harper, you'd realize that for the large part of their mandate Liberals were cleaning up the mess in the economy and finances they inherited from the previous conservative government. Imposing serious restrictions on the economy back then would have been suicidal. True, things could (and should) have been going faster once the economy rebounded, but that "13 years of inaction" is a total crap - like pretty much everything that's coming these days from Harper's bunch.

And then, isn't it time to examine their own record? They've inherited economy flying at record high; set environment as one of their priorities; two years down the road - and what's the result? Shuffled up and down around Kyoto; cancelled and then reestablished old Liberal prorams; confused everybody with totally new and original reference time (2006) that nobody else on this planet understands; continued to confuse everybody with "pollution", "efficiency targets", "voluntary technologies" and God knows what else. One thing that is not happening and in my estimate isn't going to happen, while Harper cons are in the government that is, is a serious and responsible federal program for actual reduction of greehouse emissions. For very simple reason, that actual, true priortities of this crowd lie somewhere else. Hint: tough on crime; death penalty; less active and independent international role for Canada; more sucking to the US; and so on.

[noahbody]

What do you mean "not worse"? If you took the time to examine things for yourself, rather than repeating after Harper, you'd realize that for the large part of their mandate Liberals were cleaning up the mess in the economy and finances they inherited from the previous conservative government.

Possibly you should take the time to see what free trade has done for the economy and GST has done for finances.

Imposing serious restrictions on the economy back then would have been suicidal.

Signing ontokyoto when you have no intention following through on your commitments is idiotic.

True, things could (and should) have been going faster once the economy rebounded,

Holy spin batman!

but that "13 years of inaction" is a total crap

I believe Dion was just about to act before the election call. That would be 13 years of inaction. How you can call that statement "total crap" or infer it isn't accurate is beyond me and Ignatieff. "We didn't get it done."

And then, isn't it time to examine their own record? They've inherited economy flying at record high; set environment as one of their priorities; two years down the road - and what's the result?

So far they've saved between ten and twenty billion in estimated credits that would go to countries for little or no work on the environment. I guess they could invest that here at home on the environment and actually get some results.

One thing that is not happening and in my estimate isn't going to happen, while Harper cons are in the government that is, is a serious and responsible federal program for actual reduction of greehouse emissions.

Signing onto a plan that will not solve the problem and giveaway money that could be used in a domestic plan is in no way responsible.

[myata]

So far they've saved between ten and twenty billion in estimated credits that would go to countries for little or no work on the environment. I guess they could invest that here at home on the environment and actually get some results.

Could, maybe, - but wouldn't. What we have for now, is the "intensity" targets. Those that will let emissions grow, even faster than ever, as long as production grows faster. Something must be holding them back. Something very important. Not lack of will of Canadians - great majority consider cutting emissions as a priority. Must be something else. Let me guess ... thinking ... wait, could it be their ideology?

Signing onto a plan that will not solve the problem and giveaway money that could be used in a domestic plan is in no way responsible.

I won't whitewash Liberals on that. Chretien was bathing in self importance bordering on arrogance in his last years. That energy was much better spent on the environment agenda. Still Liberals had if not excuse then some points in having to recover the economy first. And some programs were actually set up and working. Harper has all the cards in - economy at record high, consensus in the public that something needs to be done, lots of studies and research done in the previous years - and still has nothing to show but recycled Liberal programs, stalling and tons of hot air talk.

[capricorn]

Bali has warned attendees that parking for private planes is at a premium on the island. They'll have to park aircraft at other airports.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/800

I wonder how much GHG those planes will leave behind. :angry:

Asian pollution directly affects our west coast.

"One problem not often discussed is pollution traveling from Asia over the Pacific. Those pollutants contaminate the US and Canadian west coast. If China and India continue along their present path and are not brought into an agreement on climate change, any measures we take to reduce our global environmental footprint may never bring us within targets.

As our understanding of global pollutant transport has grown, long-range transport of pollutants from Asia to North America has become the subject of significant research. In addition, there has been and likely will continue to be increases in coal and other industrial emissions from China and other developing Asian economies.

Air from Asia can be transported to the west coast of the U.S. in as little as five days (Jaffe et al. 1999). The "arrival" region is along approximately 130 degrees longitude (primarily northern California to British Columbia). Pollutant "storms" are easily identifiable because the large dust particles are transported to the U.S. only during discrete meteorological events. The large particle pollutants must be entrained in high air currents in order for them to reach the coast of North America.

Researchers have been able to identify "pollution" events from Asia, but there are also background emissions from Asia that reach the U.S. These are harder to identify. Long-range transport from Asia can be isolated as a pollution source by:

• screening atmospheric data by local wind direction;

• confirming that local winds are representative of standard conditions;

• using short lived tracers found in local sources to identify what portion of the load is not local;

• using back trajectory analysis to identify long-range transport and possible source regions; and

• where possible, taking into account consistent patterns between source emissions and receptors."

The above can be found about halfway in the following:

http://www.esa.org/science_resources/publi...osition2000.php

More on this subject:

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Asian_Po...System_999.html

I won't hold my breath that this is given any attention at the Bali conference. China and India will get a pass on all counts.

Edited to fix link. Sorry 'bout that.

Edited December 2, 2007 by capricorn

[Fortunata]

I won't hold my breath that this is given any attention at the Bali conference. China and India will get a pass on all counts.

So you agree with this government's stance that no one should do anything of any significance unless China and India does something? We follow China and India's lead.

I guess that would make us ................... followers.

[Topaz]

Baird says they WILL reduce by 2020. Is that when the Alberta oil sand going to be done polluting the air??? Then, of course, the greenhouse gas will drop. Everything time Baird opens his mouth its all for show, to be the court jester before the cameras. Rick Merger should give him an award for the most bull to come out of a politician's mouth!! Someone from the opposition should stand up and say we won't be asking no more questions of this minister because he doesn't mean what he says and that the provinces will take the environment on and do what has to be done because THE PROVINCES DO GET THE JOB DONE!!! (except for Alberta , of course)

[capricorn]

So you agree with this government's stance that no one should do anything of any significance unless China and India does something? We follow China and India's lead.

I guess that would make us ................... followers.

On an international level with international initiatives...yes I agree with the Government's position.

On the domestic front we must do something yet, I'm not knowledgeable enough to propose specific measures. But I do know that banning fluorescent lightbulbs won't get us there.

[capricorn]

the provinces will take the environment on and do what has to be done because THE PROVINCES DO GET THE JOB DONE!!! (except for Alberta , of course)

Yeah, like McGuinty in Ontario who has been promising to close the coal fired plants for 8 years. The provinces do what is good for them.

[trex]

Yeah, like McGuinty in Ontario who has been promising to close the coal fired plants for 8 years. The provinces do what is good for them.

The Lakeview Thermal Generating station located in Mississauga Ontario was shut down in 2005. Its eight boilers were the largest ever installed in Canada; the 300,000 kilowatt generators the largest ever purchased by a Canadian utility; and its power transformers were the largest ever built in Canada.The closing is said to have the same impact as removing 30,000 cars off the road every day.

Everyone in the region is so glad that it's gone! Thanks, Dalton...

[capricorn]

The Lakeview Thermal Generating station located in Mississauga Ontario was shut down in 2005.

-------

Everyone in the region is so glad that it's gone! Thanks, Dalton...

One out five in 8 years ain't bad, heh?

Way to go Dalton.

[trex]

"In the vicious circle that surrounds the new talks, China,India and others might continue to hold out without a positive signal from the U.S. - still the world's biggest polluter and biggest industrialized nation.

Critics say Canada's tough bottom line could ultimately scare away key developing countries who still feel the rich, Western world is asking them to do too much while they're just kicking their economies into gear. China's main climate-change official complained that industrialized countries have not lived up to their previous promises to help others introduce new, cleaner technologies.

"Only when I know what technology I have can I calculate how much I can reduce emissions," Gao Guangsheng said last Thursday.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071202/.../cda_bali_talks

[trex]

One out five in 8 years ain't bad, heh?

Technically it was the second largest in Canada, making it a 40% reduction in emmission from all coal fired generators.

[myata]

"In the vicious circle that surrounds the new talks, China,India and others might continue to hold out without a positive signal from the U.S. - still the world's biggest polluter and biggest industrialized nation.

No seriously. Let's serioulsy and in good faith assume the logic of our PM:

China / or India: yes, we do feel obligated to take the first step and impose on us severe binding emissions targets, so that wise and wealthy countries like the US and Canada, which have been burining and polluting unchecked with no targets for the last 150 years, will follow our lead and maybe will eventually start cutting emissions of their own.

Likely? About as much as seeing pigs fly. No problem, Harper won't be deterred by obstacles.

[noahbody]

Could, maybe, - but wouldn't.

So your position on the issue is we should send $10 - $20 billion to other countries because you don't believe the conservatives want to spend it on the environment? My point is don't throw money at a non-solution. If you're in favour of a carbon credit scheme, why wouldn't you do it on a domestic level?

I won't whitewash Liberals on that. Chretien was bathing in self importance bordering on arrogance in his last years.

We can agree then by the time Chetien signed Kyoto, he was useless. What year was that again?

Still Liberals had if not excuse then some points in having to recover the economy first. And some programs were actually set up and working.

The reality is they signed something without knowing what it would cost. Terribly irresponsible governing. The only way the Liberals could have met the targets was if they'd appointed Joe Volpe as environment minister. He could have offset the per capita based targets by doubling our population with dead people.

Harper has all the cards in - economy at record high, consensus in the public that something needs to be done, lots of studies and research done in the previous years - and still has nothing to show but recycled Liberal programs, stalling and tons of hot air talk.

None of this makes Kyoto a solution. If you care about the environment and you believe the man-made CO2 mantra, you should settle for nothing less than a solution. If you back Kyoto, you're the one hurting the chances for the environment, not Harper.

[myata]

None of this makes Kyoto a solution. If you care about the environment and you believe the man-made CO2 mantra, you should settle for nothing less than a solution. If you back Kyoto, you're the one hurting the chances for the environment, not Harper.

Kyoto was not intended to be the solution. Only a first step toward finding working solutions. Sitting on the couch pointing fingers at somebody else won't do anything, ever. Doing that while legally obligated to implement it is no less that showing contempt for democratic will of people.

[Keepitsimple]

An article by Michael Byers in the Toronto Star called Harper "The Small man of Humanity" for taking the approach that all countries should be bound to emission targets.

Byers quotes the IPCC as saying that the planet faces "abrupt and irreversible damage" unless greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized by 2015, and then reduced dramatically. He goes on to say that "the consequences of inaction could be truly cataclysmic". If one truly believes these statements, then the world has absolutely no choice but to reach an agreement where all emitters have some degree of binding commitments. Facing Mr. Byers' doomsday scenario of "widespread droughts and floods, increased windstorms, rising sea levels, mass extinctions, and hundreds of millions of people dead or displaced", does it make any sense to exclude India, China and the USA from an agreement - countries that account for two-thirds of all emissions? Stephen Harper has already put a plan in place to reduce GHG by 60% by the year 2050. It would be so very easy for him - to the satisfaction of many voters and the chagrin of critics - to blindly sign on to another Kyoto agreement as the Liberals once did. It would be a risk-free proposition - and he wouldn't be around in 2020 or 2050 to be accountable for the results. So why hasn't he? More and more, people are seeing a man of principle - someone who will do the right thing - even if it is not politically popular. On this issue, Harper has it right.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/281902

[myata]

...does it make any sense to exclude India, China and the USA from an agreement - countries that account for two-thirds of all emissions? Stephen Harper has already put a plan in place to reduce GHG by 60% by the year 2050.

Think of this: would Canada signing such agreement help other countries to get onboard (of course with a big view that it'll reduce actual global greenhouse emissions)? Or work against it?

If it would help, why would it be wrong for Harper to sign on to it? Especially, if his stated goals exceed the required levels (if they exceed that is. In the correct (ie used by everybody else) framework of reference). And what would be the alternative? Bush's voluntary non binding program?

On this issue, Harper has it right.

He may be right. Or wrong. But democratic will of people was expressed. And until Harper manages to have majority support for his position, he's obligated as democratic politician, to implement in good faith the current law of the land. That's what he is apparently having issues with. That's what sneaky cons have issues with. They don't need democracy. They already know what they are right. They know what's good for the rest of us, even if we may think otherwise.

[noahbody]

Think of this: would Canada signing such agreement help other countries to get onboard (of course with a big view that it'll reduce actual global greenhouse emissions)?

Canada did sign on to such an agreement. No, it didn't help.

[myata]

Canada did sign on to such an agreement. No, it didn't help.

Signing is only first step. Will, working in faith, and achieving results may help though. Both us, and those who may follow. Until we do, it's pointless to point fingers. Nothing will happen.