Axis of evil

[Argus]

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.

It appears he has more integrity than Dion and Chretien. No surprise there. And no surprise Canadians on the left don't appreciate that sort of thing.

[Argus]

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

Not actually true. In fact, many of the complaints about Harper's environmental policy when it came out was that it focused on clean air as opposed to emissions reductions.

BTW, US rep Bolton, came out and said that Canda and Japan were going along with the US.

Didn't the US do a far better job at restraining emissions than Canada did over the years since Chretien signed Kyoto? Why do you suppose that would be?

[Argus]

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.

Yes, there was a story the other day about the save the planet types desperately trying to stop the British government from giving the OK on building a much needed coal generating plant. The usual excuses were trotted out about emissions and how the world was going to be destroyed. The fact the Chinese are building the equivalent of 2 new coal powered plants EVERY WEEK was not considered to matter. The Brits ought to be setting an example they cried.

[Argus]

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.

The axis of sanity, you mean.

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 third world is certainly for Kyoto as it means big money to them in the form of selling emissions credits. Why wouldn't they be enthusiastic about that? They have no responsibilities, and they suddenly have a new product to sell for big money, a magic, invisible product called "emissions credits".

European governments are for Kyoto because it lets them off the hook. Kyoto was designed to make it easy for them and hard for us. The starting point from when emissions were to be reduced was just before the east collapsed - along with all their filthy industry - when Europe was in a boom while North America was in a recession. If you look deep into the statistics you'll find almost all the "improvement" Europe has made under Kyoto has been in the first couple of years, an improvement which had nothing to do with signing the treaty and everything to do with closing down all those dirty industries in the former Soviet bloc. This is why Harper wants to set targets with today as a base date while the Europeans want to cling to the original base date - whatever the date was for the Europeans (it varied depending on what year each chose).

Naturally they all chose the year which had their largest emissions so they didn't actually have to do much to reduce from it.

Germany's free ride on Kyoto

Base date games

All of which goes on top of the scientific fact that no one even knows how much man-made greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming. No one even knows for sure they're contributing to it at all. The best the scientific reports can tell us is that "in all likelihood" they are by some unknown amount.

[Shakeyhands]

HEY!!! I though my leaking boat analogy was quite good!!!

buggers....

[jefferiah]

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!

Add to that analogy the fact that the fellow with the bucket is continually threatening those with the thimbles that they will have to pay if they don't thimble the water out of there fast enough for his liking.

[Topaz]

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?

I'm so very very sorry, I guess its the Environment minister ways of ministering the environmnet is starting to rub off, I guess I don't know what I'm talking about EITHER!!!!!!!! Maybe you know explain to both of us how to combat the greenhouses gas.

[Canuck E Stan]

I'm so very very sorry, I guess its the Environment minister ways of ministering the environmnet is starting to rub off, I guess I don't know what I'm talking about EITHER!!!!!!!! Maybe you know explain to both of us how to combat the greenhouses gas.

It's easy.

Send me a cheque once a month and I'll forgive you for any greenhouse gases that are caused by you.

[gc1765]

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.

What we really need is some sort of Global carbon tax. If industries move to other countries, they will still have to pay the same amount of tax.

The money generated from this tax could then be used to provide relief for people suffering from the effects of global warming.

[Riverwind]

What we really need is some sort of Global carbon tax. If industries move to other countries, they will still have to pay the same amount of tax.

What are the chances of that happening? Canada tried to stand up for the principal that developing countries shoudl pay their share too and was roundly castigated in the media and by activists around the world. A global carbon tax would be rejected for the same reasons.

The choices post-Kyoto are

1) Accept a regime which punishes rich countries for their success and does nothing for GHGs

2) Do nothing

I pick 2) because I really do feel the science behind the CO2 hypothesis is incredibly weak and not supported by the evidence.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

What are the chances of that happening? Canada tried to stand up for the principal that developing countries shoudl pay their share too and was roundly castigated in the media and by activists around the world. A global carbon tax would be rejected for the same reasons.

Considering that it is developed countries who are emitting much more CO2 than developing countries, and that developing countries will be affected much more by global warming, I think it is the developed countries who would be much more opposed to such an idea. Especially if we allowed a certain amount of CO2 as an "exemption", similar to how income tax has a basic personal exemption.

[noahbody]

Considering that it is developed countries who are emitting much more CO2 than developing countries, and that developing countries will be affected much more by global warming, I think it is the developed countries who would be much more opposed to such an idea.

China will overtake the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases this year, says the International Energy Agency, according to a news report.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/04/24/c...-emissions.html

[capricorn]

What we really need is some sort of Global carbon tax.

This was proposed at Bali but went nowhere.

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth. (LINK)

Calls for global regulations and taxes are not new at the UN. Former Vice President Al Gore, who arrived Thursday at the Bali conference, reiterated this week his call to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions.

===

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations earlier this year. “Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life,” Lindzen said in March 2007. (LINK)

In addition, many critics have often charged that proposed tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/965

That is one of my concerns on global carbon taxes. All the money would be gobbled up by a system set up to administer it. Worse case scenario the UN would be given the job.

[Riverwind]

Considering that it is developed countries who are emitting much more CO2 than developing countries, and that developing countries will be affected much more by global warming, I think it is the developed countries who would be much more opposed to such an idea. Especially if we allowed a certain amount of CO2 as an "exemption", similar to how income tax has a basic personal exemption.

Make up your mind.

If CO2 emissions are really a threat to the planet then we must do whatever we can to reduce them. Half measures intended to give some players a 'break' cannot be justified in the face of a planetary emergency.

If emissions problem is not serious enough to require limiting emissions from developing countries then the problem is not serious enough to justify radical reductions that hurt the economy of developed countries.

The GW alarmist view is full of logical trap doors like this. That is one of the reasons why their arguments are not that credible.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

China will overtake the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gases this year, says the International Energy Agency, according to a news report.

Considering that China has about four times the population of the United States, that means China only emits 1/4th of the amount of CO2 per capita than the United States. And considering that a lot of that CO2 is probably produced manufacturing goods for the United States, that means even if China did have to pay a carbon tax, Americans would pay the price through higher prices.

[gc1765]

Make up your mind.

If CO2 emissions are really a threat to the planet then we must do whatever we can to reduce them. Half measures intended to give some players a 'break' cannot be justified in the face of a planetary emergency.

If emissions problem is not serious enough to require limiting emissions from developing countries then the problem is not serious enough to justify radical reductions that hurt the economy of developed countries.

The GW alarmist view is full of logical trap doors like this. That is one of the reasons why their arguments are not that credible.

My argument is very simple. It is based on the premise that those who do harm to others should pay for the harm that they do. I don't believe I have ever once called global warming a "planetary emergency". Right now, people can emit CO2 without consequence, even though it does harm to other people. I also realize that eliminating CO2 emissions altogether is not realistic. Everyone needs to emit at least a small amount of CO2. That is why I believe there should be a small exemption (don't ask me for exact numbers, that's another debate). Those who emit more CO2 than necessary should have to pay for it. If we assume that global warming is due in part to CO2 (I realize you probably disagree with this, but that is really another debate), and that is has negative consequences - if someone's actions (i.e. emitting CO2) cause someone's home to be underwater (for example), isn't the least that person can do is help pay for that person to buy a new home?

[gc1765]

By the way, if there was a global food shortage and we somehow had to reduce the amount of food that we consume, would you tell someone who weighs 300 pounds and eats 6 meals a day to cut back on food? Or would you tell them that they only have to cut back on food if everyone else, including people starving in Africa, also cut back on the amount of food that they eat?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Those who emit more CO2 than necessary should have to pay for it. If we assume that global warming is due in part to CO2 (I realize you probably disagree with this, but that is really another debate), and that is has negative consequences - if someone's actions (i.e. emitting CO2) cause someone's home to be underwater (for example), isn't the least that person can do is help pay for that person to buy a new home?

No, the CO2 liability would not extend to such compensation, even if you could prove a direct relationship between CO2 emissions and water levels. "More than necessary" would be arbitrary levels at best. There are many negative (and positive) consequences from actions around the world, and an existing economic system to allocate costs.

Canada was reported to have a relatively high CO2/GDP ratio among OECD nations in 2003. What is Canada's liability?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...70110/20070115/

[bush_cheney2004]

By the way, if there was a global food shortage and we somehow had to reduce the amount of food that we consume, would you tell someone who weighs 300 pounds and eats 6 meals a day to cut back on food?

No....any person may consume as much food as they can purchase or grow themselves. Even the commies had fat people.

Or would you tell them that they only have to cut back on food if everyone else, including people starving in Africa, also cut back on the amount of food that they eat?

Unworkable example......famine is more about food distribution than production. But this example works to illustrate that a carbon (or food) tax wouldn't solve the underlying problem anyway.

[Riverwind]

By the way, if there was a global food shortage and we somehow had to reduce the amount of food that we consume, would you tell someone who weighs 300 pounds and eats 6 meals a day to cut back on food? Or would you tell them that they only have to cut back on food if everyone else, including people starving in Africa, also cut back on the amount of food that they eat?

You analogies fall apart because you seem to think that per capita emissions mean something -> they don't. The only thing that really matters to the atmosphere is total emissions. That means that China and India are the 300 pound beasts and Canada is the vegan on a diet. Canada could reduce its emissions to zero and China would replace those emissions in 3 years.

If we agree that CO2 is part of the problem then put a price on CO2 and make *everyone* pay the same price. Just like oil, grain or steel. No special deals for certain countries.

Edit: Another thing to consider. China and India have a middle class that consumes as much per capita as any Canadian. The size of this middle class is 100 million and growing. Why should these over consumers be given a license to pollute simply because they share a country with 1 billion or so subsistance farmers? One price for everyone and let the market sort it out.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[Visionseeker]

Harper's "Made in Canada" solution = let the US decide.

Now that what I call defending Canadian sovereignty... Not.

We took our beats at this conference and deserved every bruise we got. When traveling in Europe, I suggest you don’t wear a Canada flag on your pack back. It is no longer a welcoming symbol.

[Riverwind]

We took our beats at this conference and deserved every bruise we got. When traveling in Europe, I suggest you don’t wear a Canada flag on your pack back. It is no longer a welcoming symbol.

It may true but we shouldn't feel guilty because GW religious fanatics are no longer able to seperate fact from fiction. Edited December 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

You analogies fall apart because you seem to think that per capita emissions mean something -> they don't. The only thing that really matters to the atmosphere is total emissions. That means that China and India are the 300 pound beasts and Canada is the vegan on a diet. Canada could reduce its emissions to zero and China would replace those emissions in 3 years.

And in a food shortage, per capita food consumption means nothing - only total food consumption matters. That doesn't mean we should tell starving Africans to reduce their food consumption by the same amount as the 300 pound person.

Edit: Another thing to consider. China and India have a middle class that consumes as much per capita as any Canadian. The size of this middle class is 100 million and growing. Why should these over consumers be given a license to pollute simply because they share a country with 1 billion or so subsistance farmers? One price for everyone and let the market sort it out.

Under my proposed system, countries would (or should) have an incentive to lower emissions because it would mean that the country would be paying lower taxes. Therefore, these countries would likely have their own system of carbon tax, whereby the people who emit more CO2 pay more than those who don't.

I wouldn't have a problem with a flat tax on CO2 without any exemption, except that how can someone living in extreme poverty afford to pay such a tax? And why should they when someone who is in such poverty probably does not emit very much anyways.

[Riverwind]

And in a food shortage, per capita food consumption means nothing - only total food consumption matters. That doesn't mean we should tell starving Africans to reduce their food consumption by the same amount as the 300 pound person.

People do not consume CO2 individually. They consume it collectively. The rationing required by Kyoto is a collective burden - not an individual burden. Therefore the consumers are the countries and the per capita emissions are as meaningless as the amount of food consumed per pound. China and India are the 300 pound gluttons who should be expected to cut back along with the rest of us.

I wouldn't have a problem with a flat tax on CO2 without any exemption, except that how can someone living in extreme poverty afford to pay such a tax? And why should they when someone who is in such poverty probably does not emit very much anyways.

Poor people get no break on the cost of oil. China and India pay the same per barrel. There should be no difference with CO2.

[gc1765]

People do not consume CO2 individually. They consume it collectively.

How so?

The rationing required by Kyoto is a collective burden - not an individual burden. Therefore the consumers are the countries and the per capita emissions are as meaningless as the amount of food consumed per pound. China and India are the 300 pound gluttons who should be expected to cut back along with the rest of us.

Kyoto is a collective (i.e. per country) burden, that is true. However, so long as there is an incentive for countries to reduce emissions, there will be an incentive for people in those countries to reduce their emissions. For example, a country wants to reduce its emissions so that it doesn't have to pay as much tax. Therefore, they put a tax on emisions (for example, a gas tax) and individuals would then have the incentive to reduce their emissions so that they do not have to pay as much tax.

Poor people get no break on the cost of oil. China and India pay the same per barrel. There should be no difference with CO2.

That's because oil is a good which requires resources to produce it. Those with more resources (i.e. money) can afford more oil than those with less resources. Oil is not an inherent right, but rather something that we have to work for. However, the right to emit CO2 is not something that any individual has some inherent right to do more than anyone else. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that everyone has the inherent right to emit a relatively small amount of CO2 anymore than I think it's unreasonable to suggest that everyone has the inherent right to breathe CO2 without paying a tax on it.

That being said, I realize that having such an exemption would be more complicated than not having one, and I'd rather see a global carbon tax without an exemption than nothing at all. And I still think that exemption or no exemption it's a better idea than Kyoto or anything similar to it.