Jump to content

Recommended Posts

you just choose to close your eyes when it's convenient to you.
Why don't you go crunch some numbers and see if India's so called targets actually require any effort. I think you will find they are simply promising what the would likely meet anyways since CO2 intensity per unit of GDP normally goes down as GDP increases.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well finally... the Harper Conservatives have formally announced the foolishness of their previous alignment to intensity based targets. Welcome to the New World Order! :lol:

Ottawa to focus on 'absolute' pollution targets: Prentice

The Harper government signalled a change on Thursday in its approach to tackling climate change by focusing on absolute caps on pollution from industry.

Appearing at a parliamentary committee, Environment Minister Jim Prentice said the government's strategy would call for a national cap-and-trade system with "absolute caps" to put a price on carbon, under a harmonized structure with the United States.

"We are talking about a cap-and-trade system, a continental cap-and-trade system that involves absolute emission reductions, not intensity targets," said Prentice in response to a question from Bloc Quebecois MP Bernard Bigras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you go crunch some numbers and see if India's so called targets actually require any effort. I think you will find they are simply promising what the would likely meet anyways since CO2 intensity per unit of GDP normally goes down as GDP increases.

nah I'm not going to worry myself over the details of a conference that have no control over and blame India for it's shortcomings while we have denier PM who'll do anything to sabotage it because AGW is "socialist plot"...

I'm still gloating that your scientific mind didn't know something about green technology that's been around for at least 30 yrs and yet claim to be an expert on CC...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... EU objectives/goals:

The Copenhagen climate conference: key EU objectives

International negotiations were launched at the end of 2007 to draw up a United Nations agreement on tackling climate change for the period after 2012, when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires. The EU wants these negotiations to result in a comprehensive, ambitious, fair, science-based and legally binding global treaty.

The new treaty should aim to ensure global warming is kept below 2°C above the pre-industrial temperature. It should cover all elements of the 2007 Bali Action Plan, which set the agenda and scope of the international negotiations.

Given the slow progress made in the negotiations to date, and a lack of consensus about the shape of the eventual agreement, it is now unlikely that the treaty can be finalised at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen on 7-18 December as originally planned.

The EU's goal is therefore to make as much progress as possible in Copenhagen towards a full treaty and to reach an ambitious and comprehensive political agreement covering all its key elements.

This agreement would shape the full contours of the final outcome of the negotiating process, provide the guidance needed to elaborate it into a legal text, and specify both a process for doing so and, if possible, the shape of the legal agreement to be reached.

From the EU's viewpoint, the Copenhagen agreement will need to cover four elements:

1. Pledges on emissions and finance

The two central pledges that developed and developing countries alike will be expected to make in Copenhagen are their contributions in terms of mitigating their greenhouse gas emissions and of providing financial assistance, particularly to the poorest and most vulnerable developing countries.

On mitigation, developed countries should make ambitious, binding and quantified emission limitation or reduction commitments. To keep the 2°C target within reach, these commitments need to amount to a cut in collective emissions from developed countries in the order of 30% below 1990 levels by 2020.

Action is also needed by developing countries. In particular the more economically advanced developing countries should pledge ambitious, quantified mitigation actions. Overall developing country pledges should amount to a substantial deviation - in the order of 15-30% - below the currently predicted growth rate in their collective emissions by 2020.

The EU has committed unconditionally to cut its emissions to at least 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and is implementing this goal through the climate and energy package ( IP/09/628 ). It has also committed to scale up its emission cut to 30% provided other industrialised countries agree to make comparable reductions and developing countries contribute adequately to the global effort according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities.

Regarding finance , a deal is needed on both 'fast start' financing to help developing countries strengthen their capacities to tackle climate change in the short term (2010-2012) and a significant scaling up of public and private financial flows to developing countries from 2013. The EU is ready to contribute its fair share of both.

Total international public finance required by developing countries to combat climate change is estimated by the European Commission in the range of €22-50 billion per year by 2020 under a global agreement that is in line with the EU’s level of ambition. The EU wants contributions to be shared fairly on the basis of a comprehensive global key reflecting contributing countries' emission levels and ability to pay (GDP). All countries except the least developed should contribute, but developing countries would be net beneficiaries.

It is vital that both mitigation and financial commitments are captured in the Copenhagen agreement in the strongest possible manner. The best way to do this is to include them in a Decision by the Confererence of Parties (COP) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

2. Key architectural components of the future treaty

The key architectural components of the future treaty need to be agreed because they can significantly affect how ambitious the mitigation pledges are in practice. They are also needed to ensure the pledges are implemented.

These key architectural components include the following:

* A procedure for codifying emission mitigation contributions by developed and developing countries and for reviewing and updating them;

* Targets for reducing global emissions from the international aviation and maritime transport sectors, an international arrangement to address emissions of hydrofluorocarbon gases (HFCs) and a work programme for the agriculture sector;

* A framework for action on adaptation to climate change;

* A framework for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and promoting conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) in developing countries;

* Accounting rules for emission changes due to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) in developed countries;

* The role of low carbon growth plans and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs);

* The role and use of carbon markets, including reform of the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation mechanism and the establishment of sectoral carbon market mechanisms;

* Institutional arrangements for the management and matching up of international financial resources with developing countries' financing needs;

* A framework for stepping up international cooperation on technology;

* The length of the treaty's commitment period; starting levels for measuring emission reductions; treatment of the surplus of national emission rights (assigned amount units) from the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period; and a framework of rules on compliance;

* Strengthened rules on monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of action on mitigation and adaptation and of related support.

The conference should anchor political agreements on each of these elements in the text of an overarching COP Decision.

3. A 'fast start' deal

The implementation of key elements of the Copenhagen agreement should start immediately after the conference, facilitated by the provision of targeted 'fast start' financial support to developing countries.

Possible elements of the 'fast start' deal are:

* Preparation of low carbon growth plans and NAMAs, including financing to support these activities;

* Readiness for REDD, including financing for capacity building and elaboration of national forest inventories;

* Implementation of the adaptation action framework, including the set-up of any institutions and provision of financing to developing countries for further adaptation plans and their implementation;

* Preparations for implementing sectoral carbon market mechanisms, including capacity building for the monitoring and reporting of emissions from key sectors in advanced developing countries;

* Preparations for the implementation of a strengthened system of monitoring, reporting and review (MRV).

Each of these elements could be elaborated through separate Decisions taken by the COP.

4. The follow-up process

The international negotiations have been organised on two parallel 'tracks' under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol respectively. The Copenhagen agreement needs to decide on a single trackfor the follow-up process.

The EU has made clear it wants to see a single, new, legally binding treaty as the outcome of the current two-track process. The treaty should contain all the essential elements of the Kyoto Protocol plus further emission commitments by all developed countries, including the US, and emission actions by developing countries. It should be capable of universal ratification.

The EU has several reasons for this preference:

* Universal participation: a single instrument favours universal participation because only one ratification process would be required. By contrast, an agreement involving two or more instruments would run the risk of them not achieving an identical number of ratifications and of not entering into force at the same time.

* Consistency: A single instrument enables consistency because it avoids separate parallel international regimes.

* Institutions: a single instrument would offer better opportunities to streamline the international institutional framework for addressing climate change, avoiding duplication and waste of resources.

* Carbon market: a single instrument would promote greater certainty for the international carbon market, given the risk of a fragmented international climate regime if two or more instruments require ratification.

* Differentiation: a single instrument does not preclude the differentiation of obligations between different countries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the environment will be taken out of the hands of the Feds and ignored and the provinces, except maybe Alberta,Saskatchewan and maybe NFLD., will take on the environment themselves and reach the goals of reducing carbons.
I agree with you for once. Such a move would expose the hypocrites in places like Quebec who think that anti-CO2 measures are a good way to transfer even more money from Alberta to Quebec.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the entire world has gone crazy over the climate change issue. Adapt or die. We have about as much chance of changing the climate as we do of controlling weather and that amounts or equates to almost the same damn thing. We need to gain a dose of reality.

because you don't know something it can't be possible? is that what you're saying?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueMetis

I think the entire world has gone crazy over the climate change issue. Adapt or die. We have about as much chance of changing the climate as we do of controlling weather and that amounts or equates to almost the same damn thing. We need to gain a dose of reality.

:lol: The funny thing is many scientists believe we will be able to do those things in a few hundred years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because you don't know something it can't be possible? is that what you're saying?

Well if you do, then educate us. Let's take for granted that every nation signs on to Cophenhagen and every nation meets its goals. What will that do for us? Will that end Global Warming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you do, then educate us. Let's take for granted that every nation signs on to Cophenhagen and every nation meets its goals. What will that do for us? Will that end Global Warming?

nope, it will only reduce the environmental damage that is coming...doing nothing will ensure the end of civilization as we know it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Layton said he is going to Copenhagen in to inform the delegates from the 192 countries attending the summit that "majority of the members of the House of Commons have a different view" than the ruling Conservatives on the dangers of climate change and the urgency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/climate-change/un-climate-chief-optimistic-about-copenhagen-deal/article1390430/

Apparently, David McGuinty, the Liberal environment critic, will also travel to Copenhagen to join the hoopla. McGuinty should be at his frowning best.

It will be so entertaining to see these two kick their own country in the shins on the international stage. This will come on the heels of the opposition backing the Chinese authorities for supposedly chastising the PM for taking five years to bow to them. Just one more episode in raising self loathing and guilt for being Canadian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be so entertaining to see these two kick their own country in the shins on the international stage.
It cuts both ways. Inhofe is travelling there to remind people that Obama does not have the authority to commit the US to any reductions and that the senate it not going to pass the (weak) bill that is currently on the table. I suspect people are going to pay more attention to Inhofe than Layton. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It cuts both ways. Inhofe is travelling there to remind people that Obama does not have the authority to commit the US to any reductions and that the senate it not going to pass the (weak) bill that is currently on the table. I suspect people are going to pay more attention to Inhofe than Layton.

but the EPA can overrule the congress..."The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated...Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act." Inhofe is now irrelevant...

"The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. B):P

Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the EPA can overrule the congress..."The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated...Under a Supreme Court ruling, the so-called endangerment finding is needed before the EPA can regulate carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases released from power plants, factories and automobiles under the federal Clean Air Act." Inhofe is now irrelevant...

"The way was opened for the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut climate-changing emissions by the Supreme Court in 2007, when the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Act. B):P

Better stop breathing then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the entire world has gone crazy over the climate change issue. Adapt or die. We have about as much chance of changing the climate as we do of controlling weather and that amounts or equates to almost the same damn thing. We need to gain a dose of reality.

The point isn't to changing the weather, silly wabbit.....it is about changing ourselves. Just think how black our grandchildren's lungs will become if we don't do something about emissions today? And you thought smoking was bad.....

However, the bottom line IMO is this:

If we do nothing and we are wrong we have everything to lose.

If we do something about it and are wrong, then there really is no major consequence. Sure it might cost us something, but progress often has a cost and creating a whole new "green technology" industry will not only create more wealth and more jobs but we will have the opportunity to leave the planet in far better shape than we inherited it from our fathers and grandfathers. That to me is something worth changing my consumption habits for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point isn't to changing the weather, silly wabbit.....it is about changing ourselves. Just think how black our grandchildren's lungs will become if we don't do something about emissions today? And you thought smoking was bad.....

However, the bottom line IMO is this:

If we do nothing and we are wrong we have everything to lose.

If we do something about it and are wrong, then there really is no major consequence. Sure it might cost us something, but progress often has a cost and creating a whole new "green technology" industry will not only create more wealth and more jobs but we will have the opportunity to leave the planet in far better shape than we inherited it from our fathers and grandfathers. That to me is something worth changing my consumption habits for.

The US didn't even sign on Kyoto, and they changed their consumption habits because of 150 dollar oil.

People weren't supposed to live in places with freezing temperatures, yet we pulled it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US didn't even sign on Kyoto, and they changed their consumption habits because of 150 dollar oil.

People weren't supposed to live in places with freezing temperatures, yet we pulled it off.

I can put on unlimited layers to stay warm I can only take off so many to keep cool, how many millions do suppose expanding deserts will support...there is no adaptation to this for our civilization if it goes wrong...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we do something about it and are wrong, then there really is no major consequence.
Only if you think large scale unemployement and poverty is not a major consequence.

The technology to eliminate CO2 emissions does not exist and it is silly to pretend it does. Any policies designed to force the impossible to happen will either be ignored or cause severe economic damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can put on unlimited layers to stay warm I can only take off so many to keep cool, how many millions do suppose expanding deserts will support...there is no adaptation to this for our civilization if it goes wrong...

And where did those layers come from, that would be adaptation. Run around in the 30 below in your skivvies and see what happens. I think with Stone age technology, to be able to adapt to a cold weather environment with the bodies humans have is quite remarkable.

I equate AGW to what will happen in the book of Revalations - a whole bunch of far fetched malarkey.

In Galileo's time there was systematic "proof" and a "consensus" about astronomy at that time, he was a "denier" that fixed that little problem. The AGW "religion" is as oppressive/corrupt/full of it as the Catholic Church during the Renaissance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope, it will only reduce the environmental damage that is coming...doing nothing will ensure the end of civilization as we know it...

By how much will it reduce the "environmental damage" and how long will it take to reduce it? In other words, will the reduction be significant?

Can you find a citation from anyone sane who says global warming will end civilization?

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
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

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