The Environment

[Topaz]

One of the Xmas interviews, Harper said his government is going to get tough with the environment and Canadians may find it a hardship but it has to be done to reduced emissions in Canada. Since he fired Rona and brought in Baird I've been waiting for him to say to Canadians YOU asked for it and YOU are going to get it! I wonder if he will be able to give back the 15% to city dwellers who take public transportation?? Does anyone know how much Harper has brought down emissions in the two years they have been in power?? They love to point out what the former gov't did or didn't do exactly have they done??

[charter.rights]

One of the Xmas interviews, Harper said his government is going to get tough with the environment and Canadians may find it a hardship but it has to be done to reduced emissions in Canada. Since he fired Rona and brought in Baird I've been waiting for him to say to Canadians YOU asked for it and YOU are going to get it! I wonder if he will be able to give back the 15% to city dwellers who take public transportation?? Does anyone know how much Harper has brought down emissions in the two years they have been in power?? They love to point out what the former gov't did or didn't do exactly have they done??

I'm already well on the road.

4 years ago I built a new energy efficient, construction efficient and labour efficient house. We are in the process of replacing all our of legacy appliances with new energy star ones. We are prepared to be off the grid for long periods of time (but still connect because it is a much less expensive form of energy. Maybe it is small potatoes but in the end at least I have been responsible.

[Keepitsimple]

Does anyone know how much Harper has brought down emissions in the two years they have been in power?? They love to point out what the former gov't did or didn't do exactly have they done??

Here's a link to Environment Canada that pretty well answers your question. It indicates a drop of about 2% in overall emissions from 2004 to 2006. Our emissions have actually been levelling off for some time now - and some European countries are actually going up. I would say that there is a better general awareness on behalf of business and the general population that has helped. I wouldn't really credeit Harper with much yet - his policies have not yet had a chance to really take hold and his regulations have not yet come into effect. This all should be good news to objective people - it means that if we can hold our own without regulation, then we should be able to make significant progress with the regulations and targets that Harper is proposing. Here's a link and an excerpt:

Link: http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/onlinedata/downloadDB_e.cfm#s2

When looking at all facilities, the reported emissions data show an overall decrease of approximately 2% (6.8 Mt) from 2004 to 2006. On the basis of comparable facilities, the reported emissions data show a minor increase (0.5%) from 2004 to 2005 followed by a larger decrease (2.6%) from 2005 to 2006. There was an overall decrease of about 2% (5.8 Mt) in emissions for comparable facilities over the 2004-2006 period. This reveals that the emission decreases demonstrated by the comparable facilities account for the majority of the overall decrease in emissions from all facilities over the 2004-2006 period.

Edited December 28, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

Here's a link to Environment Canada that pretty well answers your question. It indicates a drop of about 2% in overall emissions from 2004 to 2006. Our emissions have actually been levelling off for some time now - and some European countries are actually going up. I would say that there is a better general awareness on behalf of business and the general population that has helped. I wouldn't really credeit Harper with much yet - his policies have not yet had a chance to really take hold and his regulations have not yet come into effect. This all should be good news to objective people - it means that if we can hold our own without regulation, then we should be able to make significant progress with the regulations and targets that Harper is proposing. Here's a link and an excerpt:

That was during the Dion period for the most part. You say it was all done without regulations or assistance from the federal government?

[margrace]

WEll of course we have to pay for it, if we charge the makers of a lot of it we would be out of jobs. That 's what we get for letting big business back us into a corner where we need them. Toy, toys and more toys,we all are addicted.

[Keepitsimple]

That was during the Dion period for the most part. You say it was all done without regulations or assistance from the federal government?

Pretty well. It seems that everyone agrees that the Liberals did nothing and the Conservatives have done nothing. In reality, I think both parties did a few things around the edges but we haven't seen anything with any teeth. I'm just saying that in spite of that, our emissions have shown a slight decline over the past several years - so if we actually start to work at it as it appears we are doing, we should be able to make significant progress - call me an optimist.

[jdobbin]

Pretty well. It seems that everyone agrees that the Liberals did nothing and the Conservatives have done nothing. In reality, I think both parties did a few things around the edges but we haven't seen anything with any teeth. I'm just saying that in spite of that, our emissions have shown a slight decline over the past several years - so if we actually start to work at it as it appears we are doing, we should be able to make significant progress - call me an optimist.

While I agree that there inadequate regulation on greenhouse gases during the Liberals period, it was not devoid of it and the decreases we saw in that two year period were not entirely voluntary. The Tories cancelled than re-instated many of the previous Liberal policies on emissions because they were having an impact and because builders and energy producers were already complying or looking to the Feds for leadership and investment on emissions.

It would be a mistake for Harper to suddenly say that he was going to voluntary reductions and leave it at that.

[geoffrey]

...because builders and energy producers were already complying or looking to the Feds for leadership and investment on emissions.

Investment in builders... it's great really.

The tax paying family of 4 renting out a small two bedroom in Calgary is about to fund all these great green inititives in this new development I'm thinking of picking up an investment property in. It's certified green. I wonder how much money I'm taking from them by buying there?

You've got to love the rob from the poor style of Green government investment!

[Leafless]

One of the Xmas interviews, Harper said his government is going to get tough with the environment and Canadians may find it a hardship but it has to be done to reduced emissions in Canada. Since he fired Rona and brought in Baird I've been waiting for him to say to Canadians YOU asked for it and YOU are going to get it! I wonder if he will be able to give back the 15% to city dwellers who take public transportation?? Does anyone know how much Harper has brought down emissions in the two years they have been in power?? They love to point out what the former gov't did or didn't do exactly have they done??

Is this not a foolish question when you know very well the Conservatives are operating as a minority government and are against Kyoto and have an agenda to improve the quality of air in cities, but opposition demands are contrary and pro-Kyoto.

I think in a cold country like Canada Kyoto is not a viable alternative due to our already strained domestic economic situation, high taxes and the incredible amount owing on plastic is proof Canadians are broke.

I doubt most Canadians can afford any more in new taxes along with further dire ramifications to the economy as a result of implementing Kyoto.

[socred]

One of the Xmas interviews, Harper said his government is going to get tough with the environment and Canadians may find it a hardship but it has to be done to reduced emissions in Canada. Since he fired Rona and brought in Baird I've been waiting for him to say to Canadians YOU asked for it and YOU are going to get it! I wonder if he will be able to give back the 15% to city dwellers who take public transportation?? Does anyone know how much Harper has brought down emissions in the two years they have been in power?? They love to point out what the former gov't did or didn't do exactly have they done??

The environmental problem will never be resolved until the monetary problem is resolved. Under the current accounting methods which cause prices to grow faster than incomes, economies must grow or become bankrupt. The economic necessity for growth imposed by the current monetary system forces governments to pay lip service to the environment, but never actually do anything because to do so would be economic suicide under the current financial system.

Until finance is changed, the environment will continue to play "second fiddle" to the economy.

An excellent essay on the environment and the economy can be found at the following link:

FINANCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT - by Robert Klinck

[jdobbin]

Investment in builders... it's great really.

The tax paying family of 4 renting out a small two bedroom in Calgary is about to fund all these great green inititives in this new development I'm thinking of picking up an investment property in. It's certified green. I wonder how much money I'm taking from them by buying there?

You've got to love the rob from the poor style of Green government investment!

What sort of tax money are you thinking about when you are talking about taking money out of their pockets?

[geoffrey]

What sort of tax money are you thinking about when you are talking about taking money out of their pockets?

The government takes money from low income people renting mediocre apartments to give me fancy appliances and lower power bills.

It's really unjust.

[jdobbin]

The government takes money from low income people renting mediocre apartments to give me fancy appliances and lower power bills.

It's really unjust.

I don't see it that way. Do you have the numbers to back up that statement?

It seems that the Tories restoring the half percentage tax cut the Liberals put in does a world of good for low income families. Mortgage deductibility helps as well for those that rent. Apartment owners are able to upgrade using federal and provincial incentives to make apartments energy efficient.

Show me some numbers about how it is unfair. The only thing I think is unfair and stupid is ethanol supports and legislation that forces everyone to use it and car buying incentives which I think are a waste of money. They don't help low income families at all.

[BornAlbertan]

http://www.colo-earthfriends.org/kyoto.htm

Kyoto was/is a sham.

Anyone remember the ol' "Persuasion is better than force" cartoon with the wind and the sun trying to get the guys coat off? The wind couldn't blow it off...but the sun persuaded the guy to do it himself by getting hot. Same thing. Once the tree-huggers and the bureaucrats get their heads out of their collective asses and sand (and in that order too) and decide what the best method of going about it is, we will be all better for it.

I am not going to ride a bike because some tree hugger in BC wants me to or because some dolt in Toronto who has never ventured outside of the GTA figures if they can live in the confines of an urban center and never need anything more than a bike or public transportation nobody else should either.

And for the record, my wife and I both drive gas guzzling SUVs. Why? Cause so long as there are trucks driving around that look they could could eat a Ford and sh*t a Smartcar...I won't be driving one of those "smart cars".

I am here. I am now. I am not concerned about the people 100 years from now as I am right now about me and my family. Don't force me. Give a reason to want to do it...not have to do it. So...like I said, persuade me.

[blueblood]

Well to honor the Kyoto Treaty without tanking our economy, the original topic is a good question. Another way of wording it would be, are you willing to send your tax dollars to India and China to buy carbon credits to honor Kyoto?

[jdobbin]

Well to honor the Kyoto Treaty without tanking our economy, the original topic is a good question. Another way of wording it would be, are you willing to send your tax dollars to India and China to buy carbon credits to honor Kyoto?

We seem willing to send to Canadian farmers to support ethanol. And it doesn't even do a thing for green house gases.

[blueblood]

We seem willing to send to Canadian farmers to support ethanol. And it doesn't even do a thing for green house gases.

link

There are enough links on both sides whether or not it does a thing for greenhouse gases.

As a farmer I don't get a direct dime from ethanol. What the investment in ethanol does is this, it resulted in higher grain prices, which means come income tax time there is more dollars in the feds purse and provinces purse.

Better to invest our money here than hand out welfare cheques to corrupt countries.

[jdobbin]

There are enough links on both sides whether or not it does a thing for greenhouse gases.

As a farmer I don't get a direct dime from ethanol. What the investment in ethanol does is this, it resulted in higher grain prices, which means come income tax time there is more dollars in the feds purse and provinces purse.

Better to invest our money here than hand out welfare cheques to corrupt countries.

Sorry, your post comes from the year 2000. There has bee a lot of information that I have pointed you to in recent months that says it is not helping with greenhouse gases.

It requires more energy to produce ethanol than it produces and this results in higher demand for energy which means higher fertilizer and transportation costs for farmers. It is a vicious circle and it gets worse with subsidizing and regulating ethanol and thinking that it helps.

[blueblood]

Sorry, your post comes from the year 2000. There has bee a lot of information that I have pointed you to in recent months that says it is not helping with greenhouse gases.

It requires more energy to produce ethanol than it produces and this results in higher demand for energy which means higher fertilizer and transportation costs for farmers. It is a vicious circle and it gets worse with subsidizing and regulating ethanol and thinking that it helps.

Hit Google "environmental benefits of ethanol" and put on a pot of coffee then.

I've already stated that profitable farmers have maxed out their production for years. They've used the same amount of fertilizer and diesel fuel for years, (less diesel nowadays due to more efficient farming practices)

I used X amt. of fertilizer for crops used for food, and will always use X amt. of fertilizer because I have maxed out.

So the input energy of growing the crops for food, ethanol, sitting in a pile is all the same.

So the next year, if I'm going to be burning B5 in my diesel fuel from Canola that I sold, that means I'm burning 5% less diesel than I normally would have.

As for transportation costs, that is getting offset by the large gains made in high grain prices. As for fertilizer prices, the higher grain prices mean it's now economical for lots of farmers to truck cheap fertilizer in from the states, and we're starting to ship fertilizer from Russia. Also Agrium I think was taken to the competition bureau.

But hey, lets not invest in strengthening our economy and helping out the environment (a little bit), lets instead tax the crap out of Canadians (we'll always be taxed the crap out of no matter who's in charge), write welfare cheques to china and india letting them spend our money how they wish. That's how Canada will honor the kyoto protocol without tanking the economy. If that is what the Liberals and NDP are campaigning on, have fun come election time.

[jdobbin]

Hit Google "environmental benefits of ethanol" and put on a pot of coffee then.

I've already stated that profitable farmers have maxed out their production for years. They've used the same amount of fertilizer and diesel fuel for years, (less diesel nowadays due to more efficient farming practices)

I used X amt. of fertilizer for crops used for food, and will always use X amt. of fertilizer because I have maxed out.

So the input energy of growing the crops for food, ethanol, sitting in a pile is all the same.

So the next year, if I'm going to be burning B5 in my diesel fuel from Canola that I sold, that means I'm burning 5% less diesel than I normally would have.

As for transportation costs, that is getting offset by the large gains made in high grain prices. As for fertilizer prices, the higher grain prices mean it's now economical for lots of farmers to truck cheap fertilizer in from the states, and we're starting to ship fertilizer from Russia. Also Agrium I think was taken to the competition bureau.

But hey, lets not invest in strengthening our economy and helping out the environment (a little bit), lets instead tax the crap out of Canadians (we'll always be taxed the crap out of no matter who's in charge), write welfare cheques to china and india letting them spend our money how they wish. That's how Canada will honor the kyoto protocol without tanking the economy. If that is what the Liberals and NDP are campaigning on, have fun come election time.

And I say hit Google and wait for the results on poor benefits for the environment.

Fertilizer costs keep going up because energy costs of producing things like ethanol use more than that produce in terms of energy. Kind of crazy to be turning food into fuel.

Ethanol should not be subsidized because it doesn't do anything for the environment. I'd rather pay to have farmers take land out of production to raise crop prices and still put income in their pockets.

[Borg]

Hell no!

I have enough carbon credits I can simply continue polluting at my pace and my price.

After all credits are where it is at. Even that creature worshipped by the environmental clowns - suzuki - claims carbon credits are where it is at.

Maybe I will even sell a few and let somone else fund my polluting ways. I might even build a new house and get a vacation with whatever is left over. Or buy even more land.

Gotta' love kyoto and what it will do to my bank account. It is a scam, but I figure I might as well let some fool part with their cash and give it to me.

Glad I followed Mr. Twain's advice and own land.

Bring on the carbon traders - I cannot wait.

Borg

Edited January 3, 2008 by Borg

[blueblood]

And I say hit Google and wait for the results on poor benefits for the environment.

Fertilizer costs keep going up because energy costs of producing things like ethanol use more than that produce in terms of energy. Kind of crazy to be turning food into fuel.

Ethanol should not be subsidized because it doesn't do anything for the environment. I'd rather pay to have farmers take land out of production to raise crop prices and still put income in their pockets.

But if most of the energy used in producing ethanol is being used in the farming aspect of it, that argument is useless as the same amount of diesel is used for growing crops before ethanol as now. Farmers have been using a pile of fertilizer for years and the cost of fertilizer has been sky rocketing even before ethanol. I couldn't find any petroleum used in the fermentation process other than electricity, which Canada has an abundance of. I myself haven't burned anymore diesel and neither have the other farmers. The only difference is that we don't have mountains of unused grain anymore.

So you would rather pay to have someone on welfare than working at an ethanol plant being paid by a private company???

You would rather have your tax dollars go to china and india than boosting our economy and helping out the environment the little bit it does???

[jdobbin]

But if most of the energy used in producing ethanol is being used in the farming aspect of it, that argument is useless as the same amount of diesel is used for growing crops before ethanol as now. Farmers have been using a pile of fertilizer for years and the cost of fertilizer has been sky rocketing even before ethanol. I couldn't find any petroleum used in the fermentation process other than electricity, which Canada has an abundance of. I myself haven't burned anymore diesel and neither have the other farmers. The only difference is that we don't have mountains of unused grain anymore.

So you would rather pay to have someone on welfare than working at an ethanol plant being paid by a private company???

You would rather have your tax dollars go to china and india than boosting our economy and helping out the environment the little bit it does???

It isn't being just used in the farming aspect of it. The energy needs to produce the ethanol itself require more energy than it produces. It isn't just the fuel you use to cut your crop. It is what it takes to produce ethanol.

Your argument is false about tax dollars going to China and India.

Edited January 3, 2008 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

It isn't being just used in the farming aspect of it. The energy needs to produce the ethanol itself require more energy than it produces. It isn't just the fuel you use to cut your crop. It is what it takes to produce ethanol.

Your argument is false about tax dollars going to China and India.

Wiki

How much petroleum does fermenting sugar use, it can't be near as much as growing a crop.

To implement Kyoto without tanking the economy, we'd have to buy carbon credits from developing nations. I'm pretty sure my argument stands. Had the Liberals won instead of Harper, this is what would have happened.

Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol is a 1997 international treaty which came into force in 2005, which binds most developed nations to a cap and trade system for the six major greenhouse gasses[18]. (The United States is the only developed nation under Annex I which has not ratified and therefore is not bound by it.) Emission quotas were agreed by each participating country, with the intention of reducing their overall emissions to 1990 levels by the end of 2012. Under the treaty, for the 5-year compliance period from 2008 until 2012[19], nations that emit less than their quota will be able to sell emissions credits to nations that exceed their quota.

It is also possible for developed countries within the trading scheme to sponsor carbon projects that provide a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in other countries, as a way of generating tradeable carbon credits. The Protocol allows this through Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) projects, in order to provide flexible mechanisms to aid regulated entities in meeting their compliance with their caps. The UNFCCC validates all CDM projects to ensure they create genuine additional savings and that there is no leakage.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has projected that the financial effect of compliance through trading within the Kyoto commitment period will be 'limited' at between 0.1-1.1% of GDP among trading countries[20]. This compares with an estimate in the Stern report which placed the costs of doing nothing at five to 20 times higher[21].

All EU member states have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and so the second phase of the EU ETS has been designed to support the Kyoto mechanisms and compliance period. Thus any organisation trading through the ETS should also meet the international trading obligations under Kyoto.

From Wiki (emissions trading)

Kyoto includes "flexible mechanisms" which allow Annex I economies to meet their greenhouse gas emission limitation by purchasing GHG emission reductions from elsewhere. These can be bought either from financial exchanges, from projects which reduce emissions in non-Annex I economies under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), from other Annex 1 countries under the JI, or from Annex I countries with excess allowances. Only CDM Executive Board-accredited Certified Emission Reductions (CER) can be bought and sold in this manner. Under the aegis of the UN, Kyoto established this Bonn-based Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board to assess and approve projects ("CDM Projects") in Non-Annex I economies prior to awarding CERs. (A similar scheme called "Joint Implementation" or "JI" applies in transitional economies mainly covering the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe).

What this means in practice is that Non-Annex I economies have no GHG emission restrictions, but when a greenhouse gas emission reduction project (a "Greenhouse Gas Project") is implemented in these countries, that Greenhouse Gas Project will receive Carbon Credit which can be sold to Annex I buyers.

Also from Wiki (kyoto protocol)

God knows what half assed project China and India would come up with to make the carbon trading thing legit (lets plant two trees as our greenhouse gas project).

[jdobbin]

How much petroleum does fermenting sugar use, it can't be near as much as growing a crop.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50329132436.htm

For two years, Patzek has analyzed the environmental ramifications of ethanol, a renewable fuel that many believe could significantly reduce our dependence on petroleum-based fossil fuels. According to Patzek though, ethanol may do more harm than good.

"In terms of renewable fuels, ethanol is the worst solution," Patzek says. "It has the highest energy cost with the least benefit."

Ethanol is produced by fermenting renewable crops like corn or sugarcane. It may sound green, Patzek says, but that's because many scientists are not looking at the whole picture. According to his research, more fossil energy is used to produce ethanol than the energy contained within it.

These studies are repeated over and over again in the last few years.

Edited January 3, 2008 by jdobbin