Expert report questions

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...801?hub=SciTech

The Harper government might be overestimating how much its climate-change plan will lower greenhouse gases, says a federal advisory panel.

Flaws in government calculations could skew projections around the Tories' green policies, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy says in a report to be released Saturday.

"Some problems persist with how individual policy measures are calculated and with their projected emission reductions," the report says.

The expert panel that the government is relying on to assess their plan has serious question about the lack of a hard cap and how much emissions will be reduced.

Interesting that the report was released Saturday on a long weekend. Probably another measure of transparency from the Harper government.

And this comes on the heels of another report the government was accused of trying to buyr.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...02?hub=Politics

e Harper government is dismissing suggestions that it tried to play down the release of a major report warning about serious health effects from climate change.

Health Minister Tony Clement's communications director conceded Friday that the release could have gone "way differently and way better." But Rita Smith denied any attempt to bury the 500-page report by releasing it late Thursday with no fanfare.

The Conservative government's hand was forced when parts of the report were leaked to the media last week, Smith said.

"This is not my preferred way to roll out anything," she said.

This was the report that was released.

http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth...2e-f956952b4308

Canadian decision-makers, governments and stakeholders must step up their efforts to prevent global warming from threatening the nation's air quality, increasing the spread of diseases and causing premature deaths, warns a new federal report released yesterday.

The report, Human Health in a Changing Climate, warns that many of the risks could overwhelm health care networks if their managers and governments do not plan and prepare for the potential risks.

For example, the report, which assesses the latest research on climate change impacts, warns that rising temperatures would affect the air Canadians breath by increasing the formation of ground-level ozone, the production of pollens and other aeroallergens, as well as the number of wildfires.

Of course, if the government doesn't actually believe in global warming, then these reports probably mean nothing to them.

Edited August 3, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

As opposed to the Liberal plan which has no cap and no targets, only at tax.

They're all shysters IMO.

[fellowtraveller]

What this country needs is a man with a firm hand on the environmental tiller, a man that given any sort of chance would guide us to glory.

That man is Stephane Dion.

[Riverwind]

The expert panel that the government is relying on to assess their plan has serious question about the lack of a hard cap and how much emissions will be reduced.

Plans with hard caps are nothing but useless rhetoric that pass the buck to future generations of politicians. If the technology does not exist to allow reductions in emissions without shutting down an industry then any hard caps will be ignored no matter what we say today. The conservative plan makes sense because it focuses on setting targets that can be actually achieved as opposed to fantasies dreamed up by people who have no understanding of the energy system.

Of course, if the government doesn't actually believe in global warming, then these reports probably mean nothing to them.

For every negative health effect of a warmer climate there is also a positive effect. For example, fewer people die from cold if the climate warms. Objective scientists and reporters would make this point front and center. Reports that talk about nothing but a long list of "negatives" can and should be dismissed as propoganda by a scientific industry that has become addicted to catastrophe funding.

BTW - if there was actually scientific merit to the claim that warmer climates lead to worse health outcomes then there should be a lot of evidence that the southern US states have more health problems that the northern US states. I have never heard of any such study.

Edited August 3, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

As opposed to the Liberal plan which has no cap and no targets, only at tax.

They're all shysters IMO.

Let's let the expert panel look at the Liberal proposal and see what they have to say.

[jdobbin]

What this country needs is a man with a firm hand on the environmental tiller, a man that given any sort of chance would guide us to glory.

That man is Stephane Dion.

You've seen the light. Your membership is the mail.

[Keepitsimple]

The environmental report says "might" and "could"....but overall, it gives credence to the fact that the plan is a valid attempt to reduce GHG 20% by 2020.

[jdobbin]

Plans with hard caps are nothing but useless rhetoric that pass the buck to future generations of politicians. If the technology does not exist to allow reductions in emissions without shutting down an industry then any hard caps will be ignored no matter what we say today. The conservative plan makes sense because it focuses on setting targets that can be actually achieved as opposed to fantasies dreamed up by people who have no understanding of the energy system.

The expert panel seems to disagree with you. Of course you might dispute that they are experts but why would the Tories pick them otherwise?

For every negative health effect of a warmer climate there is also a positive effect. For example, fewer people die from cold if the climate warms. Objective scientists and reporters would make this point front and center. Reports that talk about nothing but a long list of "negatives" can and should be dismissed as propoganda by a scientific industry that has become addicted to catastrophe funding.

How many people died from the cold in Canada last year? A handful?

BTW - if there was actually scientific merit to the claim that warmer climates lead to worse health outcomes then there should be a lot of evidence that the southern US states have more health problems that the northern US states. I have never heard of any such study.

The U.S. southern states do have more health problems than the north.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-1...te-health_x.htm

The healthiest states and their percentage above the national norm: Minnesota, 25%; New Hampshire, 23.9%; Vermont, 22.8%; Hawaii, 17.7%; and Utah, 17.6%.

The least healthy and their percentage below the national norm: Arkansas, -12.1%; South Carolina, -12.9%; Tennessee, -13.1%; Mississippi, -20.2%; and Louisiana, -21.3%.

Still, I'm sure you will argue that there are various reasons for that.

At any rate, the expert panel was doing a study of what the effects of a warming climate would be on Canada, not the U.S.

[Wilber]

Let's let the expert panel look at the Liberal proposal and see what they have to say.

There is no plan other than to impose a tax.

[jdobbin]

The environmental report says "might" and "could"....but overall, it gives credence to the fact that the plan is a valid attempt to reduce GHG 20% by 2020.

Then why are all these reports held back or quietly released if they support the government's position. There were 140 experts who contributed to this report, experts appointed by the government. They have been wondering for months why the report was held back. The last expert report was released to a website late on a Friday weekend. This has become a common occurrence with the government and something they criticized the past Liberal governments for.

[jdobbin]

There is no plan other than to impose a tax.

According to you. Let some experts look at it. Then you can rail against them.

[Riverwind]

The expert panel seems to disagree with you. Of course you might dispute that they are experts but why would the Tories pick them otherwise?

Experts in what? Climate alarmism? That hardly makes them qualified to comment on whether setting hard caps is an achievable goal.

Still, I'm sure you will argue that there are various reasons for that.

The fact that Hawaii is included in the list of above average health norms pretty much destroys your claims that climate and health are linked. If you look at the complete list you will see the lack of correlation is pretty obvious. For example, California and Arizona do better than Montana and Ohio. If you want to find a correlation in that list you will find that economic development correlates well with health outcomes which tells me that ensuring economic growth is the best strategy even if there was a significant relationship between health outcomes and climate.

[jdobbin]

Experts in what? Climate alarmism? That hardly makes them qualified to comment on whether setting hard caps is an achievable goal.

I think that was the whole point behind the government appointing them.

The fact that Hawaii is included in the list of above average health norms pretty much destroys your claims that climate and health are linked. If you look at the complete list you will see the lack of correlation is pretty obvious. For example, California and Arizona do better than Montana and Ohio. If you want to find a correlation in that list you will find that economic development correlates well with health outcomes which tells me that ensuring economic growth is the best strategy even if there was a significant relationship between health outcomes and climate.

As I said, I'm sure you will argue that there are various reasons who southern states have lower health results than northmen states.

[Riverwind]

As I said, I'm sure you will argue that there are various reasons who southern states have lower health results than northmen states.

Your list does not support the claims that you wished to make. In fact, your list actually supports my claim that there is no evidence that warmer climates lead to worse health outcomes. Edited August 3, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

According to you. Let some experts look at it. Then you can rail against them.

I'd rather rail against you.

I did look at Mr Dion's calculator and did a little figuring on a personal level.. According to you the carbon tax on diesel would add about 10 cents a liter which will not be added to gasoline. This will increase the cost of running my diesel vehicles by over $200 a year, one of which gets over 50 MPG. On top of that the equivalent gasoline versions emit 1/3 more CO2 according to Environment Canada. Way to fight C02 emissions boys and girls, I might well be ahead to buy a less expensive gasoline powered car that emits more. Also, Terasen has informed me that my cost for natural gas is going to be $252 more next year even though my previous years consumption was less than the year before that. Add the two together and it comes to more than the tax cut I get according to your calculator. All other increases in the cost of goods and services I use, or my personal energy use due to this tax, will be a direct hit on my income (85% of which is fixed) and standard of living. With all due respect, you can stick your carbon tax in your ear.

[jdobbin]

I'd rather rail against you.

Yes, I'm sure you would. I'm not the one setting the policy nor giving the expert opinion but if it makes you happy...

I did look at Mr Dion's calculator and did a little figuring on a personal level.. According to you the carbon tax on diesel would add about 10 cents a liter which will not be added to gasoline. This will increase the cost of running my diesel vehicles by over $200 a year, one of which gets over 50 MPG. On top of that the equivalent gasoline versions emit 1/3 more CO2 according to Environment Canada. Way to fight C02 emissions boys and girls, I might well be ahead to buy a less expensive gasoline powered car that emits more. Also, Terasen has informed me that my cost for natural gas is going to be $252 more next year even though my previous years consumption was less than the year before that. Add the two together and it comes to more than the tax cut I get according to your calculator. All other increases in the cost of goods and services I use, or my personal energy use due to this tax, will be a direct hit on my income (85% of which is fixed) and standard of living. With all due respect, you can stick your carbon tax in your ear.

Hey, but at least you'll have your health when emissions come down with the Liberal plan.

Can't help the natural gas increase. It obviously has nothing to do with Dion nor Harper for that matter.

As far as the $200 goes for the Liberal green plan, I have mentioned it is a sticking point with some people who have quoted the same number as an annual expense. I have passed on what I have heard on boards such as these and said Dion should announce more tax cuts. I'm not a member of the party but it will be interesting to see what the response is.

Edited August 3, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Your list does not support the claims that you wished to make. In fact, your list actually supports my claim that there is no evidence that warmer climates lead to worse health outcomes.

I didn't make any claims. You said you had never seen a study that showed southern states had poorer health than northmen states.

Now you have.

[Wilber]

Can't help the natural gas increase. It obviously has nothing to do with Dion nor Harper for that matter.

Except increase it more. Part of that increase is Mr. Campbell's carbon tax. Need I say more.

[Riverwind]

The expert panel that the government is relying on to assess their plan has serious question about the lack of a hard cap and how much emissions will be reduced.

As far as I can tell the panel said nothing about the need for hard caps and the article was only quoting the opinion of a single panel member who happens to be one of the most fanatical alarmists in the country.

[jdobbin]

Except increase it more. Part of that increase is Mr. Campbell's carbon tax. Need I say more.

That will happen with any of the major political parties in Canada, I'm afraid. The question is whether there can be more tax cuts elsewhere.

I will argue time and time again that the answer is yes. I think we need more tax cuts in general.

[jdobbin]

As far as I can tell the panel said nothing about the need for hard caps and the article was only quoting the opinion of a single panel member who happens to be one of the most fanatical alarmists in the country.

That was the conclusion written in the summary. I expect if the experts put their name on it, they probably support that summary.

[Riverwind]

That was the conclusion written in the summary. I expect if the experts put their name on it, they probably support that summary.

I don't see it: http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/publications...ontent-eng.html

What I do see is the panel asking the government to provide specific goals for emission reductions so they can better evaulate progress in the future. However, that is a lot different from saying the government needs to impose hard emission caps on specific industries.

[jdobbin]

I don't see it: http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/eng/publications...ontent-eng.html

What I do see is the panel asking the government to provide specific goals for emission reductions so they can better evaulate progress in the future. However, that is a lot different from saying the government needs to impose hard emission caps on specific industries.

Actually, they ask for more transparency in the emissions reductions because it is highly speculative with the intensity levels.

This is what they said.

Policy-level evaluations should be conducted so as to attribute only the incremental emissions reductions that the policies can reliably be expected to generate.

It means that the emissions reductions are optimistic because of the free riders on intensity.

Edited August 3, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

That will happen with any of the major political parties in Canada, I'm afraid. The question is whether there can be more tax cuts elsewhere.

I will argue time and time again that the answer is yes. I think we need more tax cuts in general.

You are not talking about "tax cuts", you are proposing to impose a tax that doesn't exist now. It is supposed to be "revenue neutral" remember, which I don't believe but even if it is, where is the "tax cut"? That is why I believe that this has a lot more to do with the transfer of wealth from one segment of society to another than it does with reducing emissions and there is no way I am going to support something that makes me poorer in order to support your ideology.

Edited August 3, 2008 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

You are not talking about "tax cuts", you are proposing to impose a tax that doesn't exist now. It is supposed to be "revenue neutral" remember, which I don't believe but even if it is, where is the "tax cut"? That is why I believe that this has a lot more to do with the transfer of wealth from one segment of society to another than it does with reducing emissions and there is no way I am going to support something that makes me poorer in order to support your ideology.

Revenue neutral means that the money from the carbon tax is offset from money from tax cuts. It doesn't mean that individual taxes will remain the same. Some will go up, some will go down. The ability to bring the tax down is subject to limiting carbon tax exposure.

And I have no problem with you parking your vote with the Tories. Just don't be surprised if you pay more for their plan on diesel or gas.