Axis of evil

[Topaz]

This AM, CTV, showed a full paper in the newspaper from Bali , the 3 leaders of Japan, US and Canada as the axis of evil in the environment. Well, if Harper wanted to be famous he has reached international fame! Canada is getting a bad name or should I say HAS a bad name and I for one, am very disappointed in Harper and Baird but knowing Harper views on the oil industry and not letting anything hurt it, should, we, here in Canada be surprised? Most of the world is for Kyoto and now even China, the largest polluter, is saying they are willing to do something soon, were the other 3 won't even try. The Cons have been in for almost 2 years, how much of the greenhouse gases have they reduced??? Canadians have showed in the polls that this is something important to them and if the Harper government falls, it'll be on the environment.

[Wild Bill]

This AM, CTV, showed a full paper in the newspaper from Bali , the 3 leaders of Japan, US and Canada as the axis of evil in the environment. Well, if Harper wanted to be famous he has reached international fame! Canada is getting a bad name or should I say HAS a bad name and I for one, am very disappointed in Harper and Baird but knowing Harper views on the oil industry and not letting anything hurt it, should, we, here in Canada be surprised? Most of the world is for Kyoto and now even China, the largest polluter, is saying they are willing to do something soon, were the other 3 won't even try. The Cons have been in for almost 2 years, how much of the greenhouse gases have they reduced??? Canadians have showed in the polls that this is something important to them and if the Harper government falls, it'll be on the environment.

OF COURSE they're upset with Canada! It's all about the money! Most of these countries see Canada as a huge source of foreign aid in the form of emission credits. Suddenly they see a Canadian leader who isn't such an easy mark.

There is no one so reviled as he who always paid the bar tab for everyone but now has closed his wallet.

You should remember that a Canadian prime minister depends on votes at home and not in Bali to keep his job. While you may be personally disappointed neither you or I speak for all the voters of Canada. Rest assured that sooner or later we will have an election and we will see who's views are the most popular.

[Pliny]

The thing I like about the lib-left is that they are always in the majority. The polls show that. And it is easier to not have to do any actual thinking about issues. If you are in the majority you must be right - the debate is over.

In the meantime, since the signing of the Kyoto Accord, Australia instead of decreasing it's GHG's to less than 1990 levels it has increased them by 25%.

"The first of the new reports, by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the body organising the Bali conference, shows that total emissions of greenhouse gases n mainly carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide n by the world's 40 industrialised nations have risen to "to an all-time high", although they are supposed to be diminishing under the Kyoto Protocol." Why? Canada of course...

"Under the 1997 Kyoto treaty, rich nations undertook to cut emissions of the gases by a modest total of about 5 per cent of 1990 levels by 2012.

But, 10 years later, the report shows that the Westernised economies that signed up to it have instead increased them by 11 per cent.

The United States has swelled them by 16 per cent, and Australia by 25 per cent, over 1990 levels. But some countries that have undertaken to observe Kyoto, such as Ireland, Canada, Greece, Spain and Portugal, have performed even worse.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story....jectid=10479613

According to the above Bali is our last chance to do something about Global warming. Somehow I don't think it will be the last we hear of it and we will not be able to go on humbly living our lives until the great cataclysm that will destroy us all. Boo Hoo!

Really, Kyoto is a political solution, meaning governments can only make legislation to collect taxes and fines and move money around from one pocket to another and enforce doing so. Politicians are not experts except in the above. They can be led around by the nose as long as they look good in the public eye and are re-electable. The major concern.

I look out my window and see garbage on the street and cars going by with their exhausts turned on and smokestacks - well - I can't see any of those from my window but I see them on tv a lot and I really worry about all the pollution. There must be only a few guys making this pollution because the majority are against it, right?

Odd that the US has a better record of reducing GHGs than countries that have signed onto the Accord? Gotta love that GWB, such an effective leader. We could all get back to putting food on our family if there were more politicians like him.

[Fortunata]

On CBC this morning it was said that Baird wouldn't even hold meetings with other countries delegations.

[Borg]

On CBC this morning it was said that Baird wouldn't even hold meetings with other countries delegations.

CBC?

The same impartial journalistic crowd that wrote the questions for the fiberals to ask Mulroney?

Ah, now I understand.

But, is there any truth to this?

After all the communist broadcasting corporation has been lying for years.

And most canuckleheads have believed them.

Hard to decide which is worse.

A tax funded lying crown corp or a tax paying canucklehead believing that disreputable organization.

Knowing the outfit reporting I await confirmation from an independent source.

Borg

[fellowtraveller]

I don't know why Harper doesn't follow the same path that Dion/Chretien took: sign whatever agreement gets the best press, then do nothing at all.

[Fortunata]

CBC?

Borg

Sorry, Borg, I should have said CBC interviewed a Canadian delegate (not a government delegate) at the Conference who said that. The interview wasn't just about Baird.

[Michael Bluth]

Sorry, Borg, I should have said CBC interviewed a Canadian delegate (not a government delegate) at the Conference who said that. The interview wasn't just about Baird.

Which delegations did Borg not want to meet with?

Were they delegations of other countries?

Before your prior post can be labelled a fair criticism it needs a little explanation.

[Topaz]

OF COURSE they're upset with Canada! It's all about the money! Most of these countries see Canada as a huge source of foreign aid in the form of emission credits. Suddenly they see a Canadian leader who isn't such an easy mark.

There is no one so reviled as he who always paid the bar tab for everyone but now has closed his wallet.

You should remember that a Canadian prime minister depends on votes at home and not in Bali to keep his job. While you may be personally disappointed neither you or I speak for all the voters of Canada. Rest assured that sooner or later we will have an election and we will see who's views are the most popular.

IT maybe about money to the other countries BUT at home its about CLEAN AIR! BTW, US rep Bolton, came out and said that Canda and Japan were going along with the US. Asked why only US was being pointed out among the other countries involved, Bolton said they are hiding behind the US and staying hummed!! In other words, Baird is leaving it up to the US to defend them. I don't care who the PM is Lib. NDP or Con, I would still feel the same way.

[fellowtraveller]

IT maybe about money to the other countries BUT at home its about CLEAN AIR! BTW, US rep Bolton, came out and said that Canda and Japan were going along with the US. Asked why only US was being pointed out among the other countries involved, Bolton said they are hiding behind the US and staying hummed!! In other words, Baird is leaving it up to the US to defend them. I don't care who the PM is Lib. NDP or Con, I would still feel the same way.

I guess you didn't realize that the Bali conference has nothing to do with CLEAN AIR!

It is looking at greenhouse gases, which is an entirely different subject than air pollution.

[Leafless]

IT maybe about money to the other countries BUT at home its about CLEAN AIR!

It makes no sense to sign on to anything unless the U.S. signs on.

U.S. pollution is blown into Canada.

[Shakeyhands]

Thats kind of like being in a leaky boat with 6 people, if one person decides not to bail the water out, does it make sense for the other 5 to thorow their hands up in the air and give up?

[bush_cheney2004]

It makes no sense to sign on to anything unless the U.S. signs on.

U.S. pollution is blown into Canada.

Nanticoke is not in the US...but the pollution sure is. No deal.

[Topaz]

I guess you didn't realize that the Bali conference has nothing to do with CLEAN AIR!

It is looking at greenhouse gases, which is an entirely different subject than air pollution.

I did realize that but the end results is bad air cause by gases of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide just to name of few of the greenhouse gases. The air we breath is still affect by what we put out in the atmosphere.

[Topaz]

I guess you didn't realize that the Bali conference has nothing to do with CLEAN AIR!

It is looking at greenhouse gases, which is an entirely different subject than air pollution.

I did realize that but the end results is bad air cause by gases of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide just to name of few of the greenhouse gases. The air we breath is still affect by what we put out in the atmosphere.

[Riverwind]

I did realize that but the end results is bad air cause by gases of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide just to name of few of the greenhouse gases. The air we breath is still affect by what we put out in the atmosphere.

CO2 is *not* a pollutant - it is an essential part of the ecosystem. Why don't you take the time to get your facts straight? Edited December 15, 2007 by Riverwind

[jefferiah]

"IT maybe about money to the other countries"............ BUT at home its about CLEAN AIR!

Exactly. And that's why it is a bad idea.

Well you don't need to sign an international agreement which says that only certain countries must pay large amounts of money in penalty for carbon emissions in order to clean the air. Whether you want to clean the air, Kyoto (and no doubt its succesor treaty) is a foolish thing for us to partake in. Baird is doing the right thing by not signing us to a bum deal where we have to transfer cash to countries who do not get penalized if they fail to meet emissions targets. And if doing the right thing and the smart thing makes Canada unpopular I have no problem with that. Let's not let the fact that people over the globe are painting us as bad guys shake us from what is right. You know when you are a teenager and you want something from your parents and they won't budge on it, you sometimes might try guilting them and painting them as horrible oppressive bad guys to try to sway them. But a good parent does not give in to such tactics. If they do they will have no control over their children. And an add calling Harper evil is not a reason to sign an agreement.

America has done a better job without Kyoto than we did. Better that we try to reduce emissions on our own than commit ourselves to a program which seems to fail and costs us big bucks.

Edited December 15, 2007 by jefferiah

[Leafless]

Thats kind of like being in a leaky boat with 6 people, if one person decides not to bail the water out, does it make sense for the other 5 to thorow their hands up in the air and give up?

You make no sense and don't have a link to prove what you saying, but I can prove what I am saying.

Canada cannot win the fight against acid rain on its own. Only reducing acidic emissions in both Canada and the U.S. will stop acid rain. More than half of the acid deposition in eastern Canada originates from emissions in the United States. Areas such as southeastern Ontario (Longwoods) and Sutton, Quebec receive about three-quarters of their acid deposition from the United States. In 1995, the estimated transboundary flow of sulphur dioxide from the United States to Canada was between 3.5 and 4.2 millions of tonnes per year.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/acidfact.html

[Leafless]

Nanticoke is not in the US...but the pollution sure is. No deal.

What about the many U.S. particle spewing coal generating plants?

Power plants are the nation's leading contributor to harmful particulate pollution, discharging more than 60% of all soot-forming sulfur dioxide released from all pollution sources nationwide. There are some 1,200 electric generating units nationally (at over 500 power plants) and less than one-quarter have installed scrubbers for sulfur dioxide, even though scrubber technology has been available for 30 years.

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressr...?ContentID=3836

[Pliny]

I don't know why Harper doesn't follow the same path that Dion/Chretien took: sign whatever agreement gets the best press, then do nothing at all.

Hear! Hear!

Talk a good game and then do nothing!

Let's do it!

[Pliny]

Thats kind of like being in a leaky boat with 6 people, if one person decides not to bail the water out, does it make sense for the other 5 to thorow their hands up in the air and give up?

Ummm...yes? You didn't mention if they were politicians though!

[Pliny]

CO2 is *not* a pollutant - it is an essential part of the ecosystem. Why don't you take the time to get your facts straight?

Is that why my presentation to educate people to breath half as much never went anywhere?

I had the whole CO2 problem solved. Breathe half as often as we do and fine anyone for heavy breathing. Now you tell me it isn't a problem! Dang!

[Wild Bill]

Thats kind of like being in a leaky boat with 6 people, if one person decides not to bail the water out, does it make sense for the other 5 to thorow their hands up in the air and give up?

Seems to me your analogy is flawed. A better example might be: You're in a leaky boat with 6 people. Only one has an actual bailing bucket. The other 5 have only thimbles. If the one with the bucket decides not to bail, who cares what the other 5 do!

I'm constantly struck by how many people take math and quantative concepts for granted in this debate, as if somehow equal participation and "togetherness" makes any difference to the planet.

[Riverwind]

Seems to me your analogy is flawed. A better example might be: You're in a leaky boat with 6 people. Only one has an actual bailing bucket. The other 5 have only thimbles. If the one with the bucket decides not to bail, who cares what the other 5 do!

If you want to have an accurate silly analogy you would need to assume that the 6th is actually using the bucket to dump water into the boat while the others bail.

Analogies aside - any emissions pact that does not have binding targets for developing countries is doomed to fail because it will be always cheaper to move production that produces emissions to countries that don't have any targets than to pay to reduce the emissions in the countries with targets.

This is what has happened in europe which has moved a lot of its emissions producing industries to eastern europe and/or china. The net result is the european emissions have gone down but the emissions required to support the european lifestyle have gone up. That is why europeans are the big hypocrites when it comes to emission reductions.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Riverwind

[margrace]

On the news this morning evidently Baird is appologetice and sorry about Bali. There was a petition sent out by an evironmental organization. They wanted people to tell Harper to sign the accord. They wanted 25,000 signatures, in 18 hours they got 76,000. I understand it was to be published in all the major newspapers yesterday. I wonder if this is making Baird have second thoughts.

The arguments on here are just debates, perhaps some are devils advocates, I don't know but I hope they are not playing with my grandchildren's lives.