Jump to content

Copenhagen


Recommended Posts

As a G8/G20 member, as an energy player, the total Harper absence was a snub that truly reflected the antagonistic antics of the Canadian delegation both in the lead-up to Copenhagen and directly at Copenhagen. If you're unaware of those antics, Google/Bing are your friends.

Far less than the demonstrated Kyoto inaction by previous Canadian governments (i.e. Liberals). Canada is not a "player" as measured by total emissions. It cannot lead anything in this regard....sorry.

The after-the-fact sayers of nay... the one's that always come out of the woodwork (like a capricorn, an Argus...), ignore (or are selectively unaware) that no binding agreement was expected at Copenhagen. What was anticipated was a working framework that would forge the next years efforts to an eventual agreement in Mexico City. But that's what sayers of nay do!

Excellent spin control....live to fight another day!

What Obama accomplished works in our favour? In our favour? Really, how so? More astute analysis sees the structural decoupling of developed versus developing nations... in favour of emitters versus non-emitters, as "working in everyone's favour"... perhaps you could elaborate on your vagueness.

What did you naively think was going to happen....a complete American, Chinese, or Indian capitulation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe, but not in Canada.

so it's ok to carry on with our destructive behaviour as long as no Canadians suffer?...I don't think a subsistence rice farmer on a river delta in Bangladesh would agree...

and it's naive to believe hardships elsewhere will not be felt here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pretty much the rabid audience that follows any of the heavily biased CORUS network offerings (Adler, Rutherford and bunch)... talk about playing to a captive audience. Even if a counter/dissenting caller manages to make it past the front-end screening, they invariably get pushed off the air very quickly.

just as who would watch Bill O'Reilly on FAUX News but nutters who think just as he does...then they make a leap of logic that everyone thinks as they do...

the demographics of CBC talk radio participants is mostly that of the living dead and those soon to join them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so it's ok to carry on with our destructive behaviour as long as no Canadians suffer?...I don't think a subsistence rice farmer on a river delta in Bangladesh would agree...
The problems of a 'subsistence rice farmer' are caused primarily by the society he lives in - not by climate change. The rediculousiness of your position was illustrated by when Mugagbe took a break from raping his country so he go to Copehagen and lecture the developed countries on climate change. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be nice if the one's pushing for action on climate change would cut to the chase and tell us just how much it's going to cost the average Canadian taxpayer at the end of the day?The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is warning us that Canadians will be sending billions of dollars to foreign countries.The CTF says this will cost Canadians about 3000$ each per year if this goes ahead.To me,this whole thing certainly appears to be more about wealth redistribution than anything else.How much will gasoline go up?Should it be 5 times the current price?Is anyone concerned that perhaps billions of dollars have been stolen in the European carbon trading business?When you take substancial amounts of money from people in the form of excessive taxes,they have a lot less to spend,so our economy suffers.This last fact is undeniable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far less than the demonstrated Kyoto inaction by previous Canadian governments (i.e. Liberals). Canada is not a "player" as measured by total emissions. It cannot lead anything in this regard....sorry.

Excellent spin control....live to fight another day!

What did you naively think was going to happen....a complete American, Chinese, or Indian capitulation?

in context, Canada is a player... in total emissions, of course not (there are only 5 players in that "game"). However, we're rallying for number 6!!! Of course, as a supplier we're significantly implicated. In any case, Canada's per capita emissions are greater than the U.S.... call that symbolic, if nothing else. The Harper Conservative position was to take no position; rather, take the position of defaulting to whatever the U.S. does. How SPP and NAU of them!

by the way BC, since the Harper Conservatives have completely deferred to your country's lead/action (or not), just who is our new Environment Minister here in Canada... just who within the Obama admin positions as the new Canadian Environment Minister?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in context, Canada is a player... in total emissions, of course not (there are only 5 players in that "game"). However, we're rallying for number 6!!! Of course, as a supplier we're significantly implicated. In any case, Canada's per capita emissions are greater than the U.S.... call that symbolic, if nothing else. The Harper Conservative position was to take no position; rather, take the position of defaulting to whatever the U.S. does. How SPP and NAU of them!

Either way, Harper is doing more than Chretien/Martin ever did. The Americans actually slowed their emissions growth rate without ratifying Kyoto at all, while Canada's Liberal party dithered. Having one of the highest energy consumptions per capita is oftened blamed on your "climate"...how ironic.

by the way BC, since the Harper Conservatives have completely deferred to your country's lead/action (or not), just who is our new Environment Minister here in Canada... just who within the Obama admin positions as the new Canadian Environment Minister?

What does it matter....you have no choice in the matter. Even your data sources and analysis largely come from others.

Carry on.....we'll leave a dirty coal fired light on for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problems of a 'subsistence rice farmer' are caused primarily by the society he lives in - not by climate change. The rediculousiness of your position was illustrated by when Mugagbe took a break from raping his country so he go to Copehagen and lecture the developed countries on climate change.

a rice farmer who is happily living of the land feeding his family adds nothing to the environmental problem of rising sea levels which will destroy his farm...and how does that relate to Mugabe?...do you have any concept and scope of all the implications that CC will bring??? apparently not...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you have any concept and scope of all the implications that CC will bring???
No. And neither do you. The climate models can barely hindcast a few global metrics like temperature. Regionally their projections are as useful as newspaper horoscope and there is no reason to believe the effects of climate change will be distingusiable from the effects of deforestation, overpopulation or any other bad thing that can happen when people are poor and governed by crooks. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, you accept that Harper's single contribution was that he showed up for lunch.

You really don't have a clue when someone is toying with you, do you Waldo. Maybe if you lightened up once in a while you wouldn't sound so strung out and you'd catch on to these subtleties.
What Obama accomplished works in our favour?... perhaps you could elaborate on your vagueness.

In a nutshell, Obama didn't sell out his country's economy to please enviro nuts, tinpot dictators and communists. I would say that works in our favour as I'm sure that was also one of Canada's main objectives. It' reflected right there in the Copenhagen accord which is nothing but a feel good statement that doesn't compel any country to do anything and a pledge to do more in the future...maybe.

Somewhere in there, the 'crafty' Chinese, by their own action, "crashed" the India/Brazil/South Africa meeting... that's the meeting that Obama "crashed" - there became one meeting... the eventual outcome from that meeting of the 5 leaders led to an agreement that Obama presented to the EU for signoff. That EU signoff constituted the Copenhagen accord. You must have missed that part.

Please provide a link where it is stated the Chinese crashed the meeting, any meeting. And even if the Chinese did, this does not negate the fact that Obama intruded in a meeting he wasn't invited to. Excellent and balsy move on his part. But you did put an interesting spin on who crashed what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so it's ok to carry on with our destructive behaviour as long as no Canadians suffer?...I don't think a subsistence rice farmer on a river delta in Bangladesh would agree...

and it's naive to believe hardships elsewhere will not be felt here...

You understand how socialists think bravo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really don't have a clue when someone is toying with you, do you Waldo. Maybe if you lightened up once in a while you wouldn't sound so strung out and you'd catch on to these subtleties.

In a nutshell, Obama didn't sell out his country's economy to please enviro nuts, tinpot dictators and communists. I would say that works in our favour as I'm sure that was also one of Canada's main objectives. It' reflected right there in the Copenhagen accord which is nothing but a feel good statement that doesn't compel any country to do anything and a pledge to do more in the future...maybe.

Please provide a link where it is stated the Chinese crashed the meeting, any meeting. And even if the Chinese did, this does not negate the fact that Obama intruded in a meeting he wasn't invited to. Excellent and balsy move on his part. But you did put an interesting spin on who crashed what.

notwithstanding your after-the-fact naysaying, you seem to be quite out of touch with anything that happened in the lead-up to Copenhagen and at the actual Copenhagen meetings. Again, no agreement was expected, no matter how gleeful skeptics/deniers are in their false after-glow. Obama had no ability to make any real (binding) commitment, despite how you might wish to portray it in your unknowing naivety... his personal challenge is with the U.S. Congress in the next years lead-up to Mexico City meetings. Were you the toyer... or the toyee? :lol:

since you asked for a link, this NYT article (page 2) describes the 'crashed' meetings scenarios done by both Wen and Obama. It also highlights the earlier point I offered in terms of restructuring the process to deal with "emitters versus non-emitters", with speculation towards a smaller group of nations (the 30 countries responsible for 90% of emissions) meeting to move forward and actually work out the details behind an eventual agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nowhere in that article does it say the Chinese crashed a meeting.

you are annoyingly obtuse... but I will indulge you.

- 2 same evening meetings are set up/brokered by the White House.

- Meeting #1: US (Obama) & China (Wen)

- Meeting #2: India, Brazil, South Africa.

- Meeting #2 initiates with the original 3 invitees.

- China arrives early for Meeting #1; observes Meeting #2 in progress and injects itself into Meeting #2.

- US is alerted to China's action - Obama is ushered forward, enters Meeting #2 (under the premise of Meeting #1) and loudly asks Wen if he's ready to meet. One-upmanship on display!

- Separate Meeting #1 does not occur... a single meeting proceeds with all 5 countries ultimately forging the Copenhagen 'accord' (that Obama takes to the EU for it's approval).

Perhaps you'd like to share a link showing that China was invited to the original Meeting #2 (even though Meeting #1 was coincidentally timed)... If not, stuff your boring obtuseness up your...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by the way BC, since the Harper Conservatives have completely deferred to your country's lead/action (or not), just who is our new Environment Minister here in Canada... just who within the Obama admin positions as the new Canadian Environment Minister?
What does it matter....you have no choice in the matter. Even your data sources and analysis largely come from others.

Carry on.....we'll leave a dirty coal fired light on for you.

of course it matters... need to know the players. Who in the Obama admin should we consider principal in setting Canada's emission targets? What position in the Obama admin is analogous to our "Minister of the Environment"? Just who in the Obama admin is Canada's new Minister of the Environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you read the results of this poll.

Guaranteed, a double dose of cod liver oil would cure your discomfort.

thanks - until you pointed it out, I'd actually missed that thread - much appreciated. I've responded :lol: ... btw, care to indulge in the actual climate related discussions... rather than deal in your typical after the fact, from afar, nay-saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, care to indulge in the actual climate related discussions... rather than deal in your typical after the fact, from afar, nay-saying.

Why would I? I'm way more uninformed on gw/climate change than Riverwind. I'm getting all the info/education I need by following Riverwind's posts who deftly manages to address the issue from all sides. On the other hand, at times you and Wyly provide some entertainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I? I'm way more uninformed on gw/climate change than Riverwind. I'm getting all the info/education I need by following Riverwind's posts who deftly manages to address the issue from all sides. On the other hand, at times you and Wyly provide some entertainment.

:lol: ... "from all sides" - oh ya, he's a completely open-minded, full spectrum, reviewer and presenter of both sides of the two-faced skeptical/denying blog world. Just don't ask for any real science, or real citations... cause they're all a part of the Riverwind conspiracy... dontcha know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is by Lorrie Goldstein from the Dec 22 edition of the Ottawa Sun.

.Congratulations to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister Jim Prentice for receiving both the "Colossal Fossil" award and the most "Fossil of the Day" awards from the enviro nuts at the now-concluded Copenhagen climate summit.

This means Harper and Prentice remembered their duty in Copenhagen was to represent Canadian taxpayers, not radicals who would happily destroy our economy, primarily for ideological reasons.

As Harper and Prentice noted, Canada achieved some success in Copenhagen.

The conference formally recognized that the successor agreement to the Kyoto accord, which expires at the end of 2012, must have the active participation of all 192 countries in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, not just the 37 industrialized nations, including Canada, targeted for emission cuts under Kyoto.

Kyoto, requiring Canada to reduce its emissions by an average of 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, while demanding absolutely no cuts from more than 150 other countries, including the world's two biggest GHG emitters -- China and the U.S. -- is an absurd treaty.

Even more absurd was the propaganda by environmental radicals in Copenhagen, tagging Canada as the great, carbon-spewing ogre of climate change.

Get real

In reality, China, now the world's biggest GHG emitter, doesn't have to lower its emissions by one molecule under Kyoto, because it's classified (bizarrely) as a developing nation in the treaty, in the same league as the poorest countries in Africa, even though China now owns almost $1 trillion of U.S. government debt and its economy is booming.

The U.S., the world's second-biggest GHG emitter, never ratified Kyoto, dating back to the Clinton-Gore administration, which means the treaty doesn't apply to it.

Together, China and the U.S. account for 40% of global GHG emissions.

Canada accounts for 2%. Alberta's oilsands, the favourite scapegoat of the enviro nuts, currently account for less than one-tenth of 1%.

As The Christian Science Monitor reported in a major analysis in December, 2004, emissions from nearly 850 new coal-fired electricity generating stations planned by just China, the U.S. and India -- also exempt from any emission cuts under Kyoto -- will, by 2012, "pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce."

In other words, Canada could shut down all of its industry tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference to the planet, not until the U.S., China, India and many other nations exempt from emission cuts under Kyoto, wean themselves off coal as a major power source.

The one valid criticism of Canada is that we ratified Kyoto and then walked away from fulfilling it.

But that's because the decision by former prime minister Jean Chretien and his then Liberal majority government to ratify Kyoto -- which was especially punitive to a big, cold, northern, sparsely-populated, energy-producing and exporting country such as Canada -- was grossly irresponsible.

Sorry mess

The fact Chretien, having ratified the treaty, did nothing to implement it, meant that by the time Harper inherited the whole sorry mess in 2006, Canada was so far above its Kyoto target (by about 30%) that we couldn't have complied even if Harper had wanted to (fortunately, he didn't), without destroying our economy.

Prior to Copenhagen, I wrote Canadians should cheer every time Canada "won" a fossil award in Copenhagen.

Considering how well they did, Harper and Prentice deserve a gold medal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is by Lorrie Goldstein from the Dec 22 edition of the Ottawa Sun.

.Congratulations to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister Jim Prentice for receiving both the "Colossal Fossil" award and the most "Fossil of the Day" awards from the enviro nuts at the now-concluded Copenhagen climate summit.

This means Harper and Prentice remembered their duty in Copenhagen was to represent Canadian taxpayers, not radicals who would happily destroy our economy, primarily for ideological reasons.

As Harper and Prentice noted, Canada achieved some success in Copenhagen.

The conference formally recognized that the successor agreement to the Kyoto accord, which expires at the end of 2012, must have the active participation of all 192 countries in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, not just the 37 industrialized nations, including Canada, targeted for emission cuts under Kyoto.

Kyoto, requiring Canada to reduce its emissions by an average of 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, while demanding absolutely no cuts from more than 150 other countries, including the world's two biggest GHG emitters -- China and the U.S. -- is an absurd treaty.

Even more absurd was the propaganda by environmental radicals in Copenhagen, tagging Canada as the great, carbon-spewing ogre of climate change.

Get real

In reality, China, now the world's biggest GHG emitter, doesn't have to lower its emissions by one molecule under Kyoto, because it's classified (bizarrely) as a developing nation in the treaty, in the same league as the poorest countries in Africa, even though China now owns almost $1 trillion of U.S. government debt and its economy is booming.

The U.S., the world's second-biggest GHG emitter, never ratified Kyoto, dating back to the Clinton-Gore administration, which means the treaty doesn't apply to it.

Together, China and the U.S. account for 40% of global GHG emissions.

Canada accounts for 2%. Alberta's oilsands, the favourite scapegoat of the enviro nuts, currently account for less than one-tenth of 1%.

As The Christian Science Monitor reported in a major analysis in December, 2004, emissions from nearly 850 new coal-fired electricity generating stations planned by just China, the U.S. and India -- also exempt from any emission cuts under Kyoto -- will, by 2012, "pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce."

In other words, Canada could shut down all of its industry tomorrow and it wouldn't make any difference to the planet, not until the U.S., China, India and many other nations exempt from emission cuts under Kyoto, wean themselves off coal as a major power source.

The one valid criticism of Canada is that we ratified Kyoto and then walked away from fulfilling it.

But that's because the decision by former prime minister Jean Chretien and his then Liberal majority government to ratify Kyoto -- which was especially punitive to a big, cold, northern, sparsely-populated, energy-producing and exporting country such as Canada -- was grossly irresponsible.

Sorry mess

The fact Chretien, having ratified the treaty, did nothing to implement it, meant that by the time Harper inherited the whole sorry mess in 2006, Canada was so far above its Kyoto target (by about 30%) that we couldn't have complied even if Harper had wanted to (fortunately, he didn't), without destroying our economy.

Prior to Copenhagen, I wrote Canadians should cheer every time Canada "won" a fossil award in Copenhagen.

Considering how well they did, Harper and Prentice deserve a gold medal.

Posting whole articles is a violation of the MLW rules, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posting whole articles is a violation of the MLW rules, I think.

Who cares? It's a great read, making excellent points. Pointing out a technicality in the forum rules only illustrates your inability to respond intellectually with the ideas presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,744
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Mark Partiwaka
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • exPS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • gatomontes99 went up a rank
      Proficient
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...