Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[Riverwind]

Why is emissions growth more important than the actual emissions size, Mr Scientist?

Places with the highest emissions growth will become the biggest source of the problem as we move forward. Also, any attempt to reduce emissions without cooperation from developing countries will simply result in the export of industries to developing countries and no net reduction in emissions. In fact, total emissions would likely go up because of the transportation costs. The earth does not care about political boundaries. Trying to justify different standards for different politicial juristitions is hypocracy.

And sure I care about CO2 and I'm not going to try to teach them to start cutting their emissions while we, with orders of magnitude higher income, should be allowed to burn to our hearts desire.

Who says we would do nothing if they cut their own emissions? I said reducing emissions in Canada is a waste of time as long as the developing world refuses to do its share. More importantly, if the developing world thinks that the problem is not bad enough to justify action on their part then that is evidence that the problem is not as bad as you claim.

They benefitted in the equal degree? Just like everyone else, in the developed world? Even when developed world sent oil guzzling warboats to shove opium down their throats?

Even then China had a choice. It could have traded with Britain but refused and got gun boats instead. More recently, China could have benefited more than it did but choose to waste decades clinging to a bankrupt economic and political system. If developing countries are behind today then it is because of choices they made. If CO2 is a problem then they should be expected to do their part. Giving them a free ride is equivalent to punishing retirees that saved for retirement while letting the penniless spendthrifts off free. Edited July 9, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

Who says we would do nothing if they cut their own emissions? I said reducing emissions in Canada is a waste of time as long as the developing world refuses to do its share.

OK, so we can be on the same page. The question remaining is, who should show the lead? Canada to China and India, or vice versa??

[Riverwind]

OK, so we can be on the same page. The question remaining is, who should show the lead? Canada to China and India, or vice versa??

If all nations are not willing to share the pain then none will. Talk of "showing the lead" while others do nothing is simply excuse making. The US position is that it will join a global agreement provided the developing countries are included. In that sense, the US has already "shown the lead" and it is now up to the developing countries to demonstrate that they are willing to be part of the solution (hence my earlier comment).

[myata]

If "showing the lead" meant good talking, this world would be swimming in great leaders. Here's one, in the most recent cermon on what others should be doing to address the problem we created: Harper on developed world (CBC).

Great inspirational talk. Not a dime to show for it.

[stevoh]

If all nations are not willing to share the pain then none will. Talk of "showing the lead" while others do nothing is simply excuse making. The US position is that it will join a global agreement provided the developing countries are included. In that sense, the US has already "shown the lead" and it is now up to the developing countries to demonstrate that they are willing to be part of the solution (hence my earlier comment).

Showing the lead is an excuse? That makes no sense at all. Those showing the lead are the only ones who aren't making excuses.

I do think the elementary school jibe of "well, they do it too" is complete nonsense, because if china and india suddenly agreed to various control measures, the US (if under the power of republicans) would harumph and hah and talk and find yet another excuse. I don't for a moment believe George Bush would actually suddenly become concerned with the environment if India and China changed their ways.

And notice the countries that are used, China and India. These are the two countries that are apparently the reason the republicans aren't going to do anything. And yet, while behind china, the european union is ahead of india when it comes to emissions. Why didn't they say they won't do anything until the EU does anything? Because the EU is already doing something. And they want countries that aren't to make action impossible. If they really were interested in making change but frustrated with world participation, then they would join the EU (the one area that has actually HAS taken the lead), rather than pointing to polluters they know are least likely to change as the reason for doing nothing.

I wish I could have applied your logic to my homework years ago. "I am not going to do it until Joey Johnson does it". My mother would have shut that down in a second, and told me "no excuses, get to work". And she would be right.

[Riverwind]

--

Edited July 9, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

By 2050, the developed world will probably represent no more than 20 per cent of emissions,” he told reporters at a news conference on Wednesday. “So, when we say we need participation by developing countries, this is not a philosophical position. This is a mathematical certainty.

The five main developing nations – China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa (now dubbing themselves the G5) – rejected the notion that all share in the 50-per-cent reduction goal.

They issued a separate statement urging the G8 leaders to take more action to reduce emissions.

“It is essential that developed countries take the lead in achieving ambitious and absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions,” the statement read.

"Taking the lead" is nothing but an excuse for inaction on the part of some. We would be stupid to play their game. If the science is really as certain as some claim the developing countries will be forced to join - after all the effects of climate change will fall disproportionately on poorer populations. My undestanding of the science leads me to beleive that the negative effects of climate change have been grossly exagerrated and I suspect the developing countries know this and will continue to refuse to accept any restrictions no matter how much "leadership" is shown by the developed world. Edited July 9, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

"Taking the lead" is nothing but an excuse for inaction on the part of some. We would be stupid to play their game. If the science is really as certain as some claim the developing countries will be forced to join - after all the effects of climate change will fall disproportionately on poorer populations. My undestanding of the science leads me to beleive that the negative effects of climate change have been grossly exagerrated and I suspect the developing countries know this and will continue to refuse to accept any restrictions no matter how much "leadership" is shown by the developed world.

Yes, saying someone else should take the lead is an excuse. Taking it yourself is anything but.

[Riverwind]

Wow! It looks like the Chairmain of IPCC agrees with me (;-) http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...ience_and_.html

The Indian government has put out a climate change action plan (PDF) that places economic development and adaptation ahead of mitigation (sound familiar?). The report was endorsed by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri:

[Pachauri] said that India has realised the climate change threat. India's climate change action plan recently released by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a "good policy document" and needs to be implemented.

Among the report's more surprising comments (p15):

No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.

P.S. I know Pachauri has made contradictory remarks on many other occasions.

Edited July 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

Wow! It looks like the Chairmain of IPCC agrees with me

Great, have you tried to apply for a Nobel prize yet?

[myata]

Among the report's more surprising comments (p15):

You make it sound as if certain Mr. P. "endorsed" this:

"No firm link between the documented [climate] changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established"

while according to your own link, all he said was this:

" [P.] said that India has realised the climate change threat..."

Whatever remarks Mr. P. made on other occasions, there's nothing contradictory (at least from the information provided) about this one.

[Riverwind]

Whatever remarks Mr. P. made on other occasions, there's nothing contradictory (at least from the information provided) about this one.

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek (hence the ;-).

In any case, Pachauri has endorsed a report which clearly indicates that economic growth and adaptation are higher priorities than mitigation - the point I have been making all along.

[myata]

My comment was a bit tongue in cheek (hence the ;-).

I know, misrepresenting information just an innocent trick. That's OK, I don't mind to see you play, there's nothing serious about it (i.e your position in this discussion), after all, right?

In any case, Pachauri has endorsed a report which clearly indicates that economic growth and adaptation are higher priorities than mitigation - the point I have been making all along.

Report does list mitigation as objective #2 (#1 is protecting vulnerable elements of the society). I wonder if the original poster, and yourself, parroting him, even bothered to glanced through it. But anyways, it's quite obvouis that there isn't any credible ground for your position left anymore, if you're reduced to picking up second hand trash as a substitute for a meaningful argument.

[Riverwind]

Report does list mitigation as objective #2 (#1 is protecting vulnerable elements of the society)

The clause starts of with this statements:

"Maintaining a high growth rate is essential for increasing living standards and reducing their vulnerability".

I don't know what language you speak but in English associating the word "essential" with a concept tends to indicate that it has a high priority. The rest of the section outlines "prinicipals" which are clearly considered to worthy objectives but no where does the text elevate them to the level of "essential".

IOW the document supports my earlier claim that "clearly indicates that economic growth and adaptation are higher priorities than mitigation ".

[myata]

I don't know what language you speak but in English associating the word "essential" with a concept tends to indicate that it has a high priority. The rest of the section outlines "prinicipals" which are clearly considered to worthy objectives but no where does the text elevate them to the level of "essential".

It's not the language, it the ability to read (and comprehend) all what is stated. Not selectively according to your understanding (or the need to make a point, counting on that nobody would bother to check).

[White Doors]

nice work riverwind.

[myata]

My, look who's yapping. Cute!