Harper at the G8 summit

[myata]

Wow, made somebody happy today (not by any intent, but it's the result that counts). Brought warmth to a fellow human's heart. What a wonderful day!

[Riverwind]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121573566257544347.html

In other words, the G-8 signed on to what has been the White House approach since 2002. The U.S. has relied on the arc of domestic energy programs now in place, like fuel-economy standards and efficiency regulations, along with billions in subsidies for low-carbon technology. Europe threw in with the central planning of the Kyoto Protocol -- and the contrast is instructive. Between 2000 and 2006, U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions fell 3%. Of the 17 largest world-wide emitters, only France reduced by more.

...

The G-8 also conceded that global-warming masochism is futile and painfully expensive. If every rich country drastically cut CO2, those cuts would be wiped out by emissions from China and India. "Carbon leakage" is a major problem too, where cutbacks in some countries lead to increases in others with less strict policies, as manufacturing and the like are outsourced. This whack-a-mole won't stop without including all 17 major economies, which together produce roughly 80% of global emissions.

...

The irony is that Kyoto has handed them every reason not to participate. Europe knew all along that it couldn't meet its quotas, so it created an out in "offsets." A British factory, say, buys a credit to pay for basic efficiency improvements in a Chinese coal plant, like installing smokestack scrubbers. This is a tax on the Brits to make Chinese industries more competitive. Sweet deal if you can get it.

[Keepitsimple]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121573566257544347.html

Intertesting article. Thanks.

Does anyone know of a website or source that tracks year-to-year CO2 reductions for all major emitters? It's a given - and confirmed in this article - that the large European countries have made little or no progress since they received their initial freebies with the use of the 1990 base year.....but it would be nice to be able to track exactly how these countries are progressing from year to year. Most statistics blend all the years together so it LOOKS like the Europeans are actually accomplishing something when in fact, they are regressing.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[normanchateau]

QUOTE

"Of all the leaders, only Stephen Harper - the talented but curiously neglected Canadian prime minister - is able to point to a popular and successful record in office.

the Canadian Tories are a model of how to behave during a downturn.

They have kept spending in check and reduced taxes.

If the rest of the world had comported itself with similar modesty and prudence, we might not be in this mess."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...7/07/dl0701.xml

Harper is doing a fine job representing Canada internationally. Even those who dislike Harper and the Conservatives immensely should at least give credit where it is due. Anyone who doesn't feel a smidgen of pride that Canada is commanding such positive attention outside our borders has their head stuck in the sand. I would go so far to say that today, pride in our country is on the increase among average Canadians. This is very good indeed.

I see that this excerpt above from the Telegraph was dispatched to Canadian journalists this week by Harper's communications rep Ryan Sparrow:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/t...13-67c86f108f13

Given that Harper is even lower in the polls than when he was elected, the Telegraph excerpt appears to be out of touch with Canadian reality and Harper's dismal and incompetent record to date. Does Harper's communications rep really believe that the Telegraph excerpt, with hilarious inaccuracies like Harper's party has "kept spending in check", will fool Canadians? Under Harper's "fiscally conservative" leadership, the biggest surplus in Canadian history has been squandered:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

[myata]

Congrats on undigging another speculative batch of useless words in the internet dump. You can bring them out dozen apiece and hardly make any point.

The difference between the approaches is very clear. One is designed to control the total level of emissions; the other isn't. At times, such as eg. economy slowdown, resourse price fluctuation etc, the "arch of measures" may even appear to be doing something. That illusion will quickly disappear when the economy picks up again; for the simple reason that there's nothing in this approach that creates any connection between GHG emissions and economic incentive.

And of course US role in the most recent "development" can be called "leadership". The paper and internet will suffer anything, just try. That would be the kind of leadership that'd hold everybody up "my way or no way". Really. Kyoto had precise timed medium term targets. This recent pseudo development has neither. Nada.

Just as the part with 80%. What an argument. Sometime in the future, someone else may be in control. So I'll just sit up and do nothing now. If that's how our old ancestors at the dawn of human history had felt about this whole evolution, we'd probably still wander the dry plains of Africa, in our natural fur skins. Granted, with the right kind of "leadership" we may yet come down to that end.

I agree with the accountability part though. If only that came out of this whole plan, it'd at least worth the paper it was written on. Timely, precise and correct information on each country's progress (or lack thereof) is extremely hard to find.