US and Canadian Obstruction at Bali Dooms All Humans

[jbg]

There are two big pieces of news tonight:

1. The big snow they predicted for the New York City area is instead going to be a rainstorm (link); and
   
2. The US and Canada successfully sabotaged the setting of numerical Greenhouse Gas targets at Bali (link)
   

I'm thus concerned that Canada's and the US's obstructionist tactics at Bali are dooming us all to a certain demise. Specifically, because of the US and Canadian policies, every one of us now on the earth is going to die. Do you realize that? Our politicians twiddle their thumbs, capitulate to the oil industry and the forces of global capitalism while every one of us marches inexorably to eventual death.

Gore is not even setting us straight. It's implement Kyoto, now, or we all face eventual certainty of winding up 2 meters under.

Edited December 16, 2007 by jbg

[Borg]

There are two big pieces of news tonight:

1. The big snow they predicted for the New York City area is instead going to be a rainstorm (link); and
   
2. The US and Canada successfully sabotaged the setting of numerical Greenhouse Gas targets at Bali (link)
   

I'm thus concerned that Canada's and the US's obstructionist tactics at Bali are dooming us all to a certain demise. Specifically, because of the US and Canadian policies, every one of us now on the earth is going to die. Do you realize that? Our politicians twiddle their thumbs, capitulate to the oil industry and the forces of global capitalism while every one of us marches inexorably to eventual death.

Gore is not even setting us straight. It's implement Kyoto, now, or we all face eventual certainty of winding up 2 meters under.

So canada is to blame?

Nope - lots of others in the mix.

We are miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

Try China, Russia, India and their ilk if you want reductions go there and get them on board.

As for Kyoto - let's keep the cash at home.

As for 2 metres under - we all go there in the end.

The sky is not falling.

Borg

[bush_cheney2004]

There are two big pieces of news tonight:

[*]The big snow they predicted for the New York City area is instead going to be a rainstorm (link); and

[*]The US and Canada successfully sabotaged the setting of numerical Greenhouse Gas targets at Bali (link)

Excellent execution.....the "we'll never agree" set up....then a last minute compromise...will do nothing but keep these doomsayers tied up in red tape for two more years. Then just do it all over again.

And they cheered......suckers!

[Guest American Woman]

So canada is to blame? [...]

Methinks jbg's post reeks of sarcasm.

[Borg]

Methinks jbg's post reeks of sarcasm.

With him one can never tell.

Borg

[Guest American Woman]

With him one can never tell.

Borg

This is true.

[jbg]

Methinks jbg's post reeks of sarcasm.

Me? Sarcastic?

Perish the thought. That's M.Dancer's department.

[capricorn]

Here is an interesting view of the impact of the US on the outcome of the Bali talks.

"The basic purpose of Bali, as we were tirelessly reminded by the BBC, Al Gore, old Uncle Ban Ki-moon and pretty well everyone else, was that this vast assemblage of people should gather together to vilify George Bush.

It was he alone who stood in the way of saving the planet, by refusing even to sign Kyoto into law, let alone participate in the new historic agreement which is to follow, and to discuss which Bali was all about.

(It is conveniently forgotten that it was the US Senate which unanimously voted not to ratify Kyoto in 1998, when the vice-president of the USA was Al Gore).

In the end, as in all good comedies, the "baddies" came round to the side of light, the US representative made her "climbdown" by saying that her country was now ready to join the "consensus", and everyone could go home happy.

The reality of Bali, however, was that all this vilification of America as the "world's worst polluter" was only displacement activity - to disguise the fact that, when it comes to the crunch, no one is really prepared to step off the bandwagon of economic growth, by making the unthinkable sacrifices which would be required if any of them actually meant what they said.

They are all happy to work themselves into an intense state of excitement by chanting their quasi-religious mantra: that there is now "absolute scientific consensus" that Planet Earth is doomed unless we cut our carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.

But no one is prepared to take any serious step towards that inconceivable goal unless everyone else jumps too.

----

Thus Bali ends in a wonderfully meaningless compromise, whereby everyone, including America, agrees that they want their carbon-free pie-in-the-sky, so long as they don't yet have to sign up to actual figures and mandatory targets.

The only people really rejoicing in Bali were all those beady-eyed businessmen who have sussed out that the "carbon trading schemes" set up under Kyoto are turning into the most colossal commercial racket of our day."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...aclimate316.xml

[jbg]

The cynical manipulations of Maurice Strong, Paul Desmairis, and Al Gore aside, much of the support for Kyoto and Bali reminds me of a Middle School mentality of "we have to do something" and "we have to start somewhere" even if the contemplated activity is totally futile. In a different context, the Wall Street Journal, in a recent editorial (link) wrote: "In the movie "Animal House," the fraternity brother known as Otter reacts to the Delta House's closure with the classic line, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part."" Bali and Kyoto are just such stupid, futile gestures.

Edited December 17, 2007 by jbg

[leonardcohen]

With him one can never tell.

Borg

I've talked with the man,

has a very well developed sense of sarcasm

If you've read any of his posts it's not hard to see it

[jbg]

I've talked with the man,

has a very well developed sense of sarcasm

If you've read any of his posts it's not hard to see it

It is true that he and I have talked. We had a Canadian to American interpreter on the line to assist.

[Moxie]

Bali wasn't a failure for those of use who believe in Democracy, it was a defeat for those that use Global Warming as a means for Global Governance. Hail another failure of the far left to control us with propaganda and stupid idiology.

Will these idiots ever learn, we don't believe a word that comes out their leftard mouths anymore.

[CandianWatcher]

Bali wasn't a failure for those of use who believe in Democracy, it was a defeat for those that use Global Warming as a means for Global Governance. Hail another failure of the far left to control us with propaganda and stupid idiology.

Will these idiots ever learn, we don't believe a word that comes out their leftard mouths anymore.

Why all the sour comments about the leftard propaganda and stupid ideology. When people use the terms left as you have used them I already know they have no argument worthwhile to support their views except as a leftist ideology.

The far right ideology scares me more, On climate change leading by example is something Canadian leaders, Prime Minister Harper and his environmental Minister do not know how to do. John Baird, Canada's Environmental Minister did not show any leadership in anyway, he did not put forth any workable solutions, or acceptable proposals onto the table. Both Harper and Baird decided to fuse themselves to the USA . (the reason this was done as to keep the policies of the USA and Canada the same on environmental policies to help ease the way with deep integration of North America) It was only by the leadership of the Environmental Minister from Indonesia that the conference was able to move forward after he proposed dropping the explicit mention of targets and numbers.

I do not believe in the theory of man made global warming, what I do believe is what I see, more and more people being affected by disease of the lung. Just for that reason alone we need to lower emissions.

I live in a region that in the summer now has a white cloud hanging in the valley, it is formed from the back tailpipes of all those cars running up and down this highly populated valley.

Our far right wing government in BC and the transportation crown corporation is in the midst of buying 20 hydrogen-powered buses and is planning fueling stations in Langford outside Victoria and in Whistler, where the fleet will be used during the 2010 Winter Olympics. The plan calls for BC to purchase hydrogen from Air Liquid Canada Inc. for the next six years to the tune of $20 million. These buses are planned to be used in the 2010 Olympic transportation plan.

The province and B.C. Transit will spend $89 million for the 20 hydrogen buses. That works out to nearly $4.5 million per bus. Trans-link recently bought diesel-electric hybrids for $750,000.

Now to put that into context, for the same amount of money spent on 20 hydrogen buses, the province could have in invested the money and got close to 120 regular buses added to the transit fleet in the lower mainland. This would allowed a lot of commuters to have gotten out of their cars and onto the buses. They could have set up a regular service running down the entire Fraser Valley for the money they have invested in these twenty hydrogen buses. Imagine what a hundred and twenty buses running a regular schedule down the Fraser Valley between Abbotsford and Vancouver would have done to alleviate the amount of grid lock and emissions coming from all those single occupant cars.

On top of this right wing stupidity thinking comes the information that the hydrogen fuel will have to be transported across Canada to Vancouver and BC signed a six year deal to have that done.

They argue, even with the transportation of the fuel they will have lower emissions from these buses. I argue, if we took this money and invested it into regular buses we could get a lot of people out of single occupancy vehicles, cut down on congestion, pollution and the need to keep building roads and bridges and the total carbon imprint would be a lot less than operating 20 hydrogen buses.

Politicians will spend a lot of money on projects that give them photo ops but really when scrutinized do not make sense in the long run. Left, right or down the middle, the environmental issue is on the front burner and we need politicians to take concrete actions to solve it. Throwing money into 20 buses as the Campbell government did is a waste and does nothing to solve the problem that we have in this area.

[Wilber]

I live in a region that in the summer now has a white cloud hanging in the valley, it is formed from the back tailpipes of all those cars running up and down this highly populated valley.

I believe we live in the same area.

Sources of air pollution in the Fraser Valley from the Metro Vancouver website.

Mobile sources - include light-duty vehicles such as passenger cars and trucks, heavy-duty vehicles, buses, trains, airplanes, ships, agricultural and construction equipment and other sources such as off-road vehicles. This category accounts for about 53% of "smog-forming pollutant" and 39% of greenhouse gas emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley.

Area sources - are generally small emission sources that, when their combined effects are added up, become significant. Burning natural gas in home furnaces in the Lower Mainland, refueling vehicles with gasoline at a service station, farming operations and solvent use are just some activities that are included in this category. These sources account for 35% of "smog-forming pollutant" and 27% of greenhouse gas emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley.

Point sources - are large industrial and commercial sources that individually emit a significant amount of air pollutants. Oil refineries, sawmills and cement plants are examples of point sources, most of which are regulated under the Metro Vancouver air discharge permit or emission regulation. These sources produce about 12% of "smog-forming pollutant" and 34% of greenhouse gas emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley.

As you can see 53% of air pollution comes from transportation of all types but 61% of greenhouse gasses come from sources other than transportation. There's a dilemma, which do you make a priority? I'm with you, go after the polution first.

I think you are right about the natural gas busses, it's a ton of money spent to accomplish next to nothing which could have had a real effect somewhere else. The worst kind of environmentalism. I do take issue over this being "far right" thinking. It is neither left nor right but the thinking of those newly converted to the Church of Global Warming.

The photo op is part of the genetic makeup of all politicians (and probably necessary to get elected in this age) so it is neither here nor there.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Wilber

[Topaz]

Former US UN rep Bolton said that the US was getting the bad press from this because Canada and Japan hid behind the US and didn't stand up for themselves. The US could change their thoughts on this if a Dem is elected president and that would leave Canada and Japan to hid behind each other!

[White Doors]

Now to put that into context, for the same amount of money spent on 20 hydrogen buses, the province could have in invested the money and got close to 120 regular buses added to the transit fleet in the lower mainland. This would allowed a lot of commuters to have gotten out of their cars and onto the buses.

If you are truly concerned about smog, this is the last thing you would want. Diesel puts much more particulate matter into the air than does gasoline cars. It is much more messy.

[jbg]

Former US UN rep Bolton said that the US was getting the bad press from this because Canada and Japan hid behind the US and didn't stand up for themselves. The US could change their thoughts on this if a Dem is elected president and that would leave Canada and Japan to hid behind each other!

The fact is, whether a Dem or Repub is elected, the US is not going to restrain its economic growth and/or put people out of work for this mirage of a treaty.

[Wilber]

If you are truly concerned about smog, this is the last thing you would want. Diesel puts much more particulate matter into the air than does gasoline cars. It is much more messy.

You need to update your knowledge of diesels a bit. The latest diesel technology is now producing auto and light truck engines that are 50 state legal when it somes to emissions and they will only get better. Diesels also produce over 20% less CO2 than the equivalent gasoline engine as well as being far more fuel efficient. I think his point was that 120 busses will do much more to remove cars from the road than will 20 busses, thereby reducing emissions to a greater degree than 20 zero emission busses ever could. Right now there is a shortage of busses in Vancouver. People often can't take one even if they want to.