Kyoto was a farce

[Moonbox]

Title says it all. I know there are tons of people who've got their panties twisted about this one, but let's just look at some simple logic regarding the stupid thing.

Manufacturing jobs have been disappearing in the West for decades in favor of cheap labour in Asia and Mexico. We barely make anything here anymore. The Kyoto protocol, and other equally impotent ideas like Copenhagen, will inarguably make manufacturing more expensive for participants. If the countries that we're exporting our manufacturing jobs to (ie China, India etc) are excluded from Kyoto, all that will end up happening is that Kyoto participant countries will export even more jobs to countries with no environmental regulations. In effect, all we'd be doing is outsourcing our pollution.

The whole argument for excluding countries like China and India is beyond stupid as well. They say that the Western world is responsible for most of the accumulated effects of pollution thus far, and thus they should be the ones to pay for it. That WOULD make sense if not for the fact that the excluded countries in the third world etc are accelerating their industrial pollution exponentially themselves and will just be replacing our pollution with their own, and often dirtier, pollution. It's not like these countries were less pollutant in the 50's-70's out of any altruistic motives or anything. It's largely because they were crapholes and piss broke.

What sort of environmental model is it to say, "Hey, you guys have polluted a whole lot and you should have to reduce your emissions. We'll maybe reduce our emissions eventually as well, , but only after we've caught up and done as much polluting as you have over the years."

What a joke.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Moonbox

[bud]

Title says it all. I know there are tons of people who've got their panties twisted about this one, but let's just look at some simple logic regarding the stupid thing.

Manufacturing jobs have been disappearing in the West for decades in favor of cheap labour in Asia and Mexico. We barely make anything here anymore.

What a joke.

manufacturing jobs are disappearing due to environmental laws or due to low wages in the developing world? you think it's the environmental laws that have us making $9 minimum wage, as compared to 30 cents a day in the developing world?

what a joke.

[bud]

one day, hopefully not when it's too late, you will understand that the economy and the environment have a link. once we've killed the environment, the economy will go down with it. more and more economist are coming out with a new formula where they include environmental consequences into the equation concerning the economy.

warren buffett recently purchased a sonar energy company where 160,000 homes can be powered by a sonar farm. guess what this company can do? create jobs and create clean energy.

don't be afraid of evolving your way of thinking and your view on how things can be. those who are unable to evolve and adapt usually get left behind.

Edited December 13, 2011 by bud

[jacee]

Kyoto itself was not a farce.

Canada's 'committment' to Kyoto was the farce, an embarassment on an international stage.

It's quite disturbing how much contempt Harper and his ministers display for the rest of the world. Obviously the only human beings who matter to them are the Alberta oil barons.

What a pathetic excuse for human beings they all are.

Edited December 13, 2011 by jacee

[dre]

It all depends on what you consider a success. Most countries failed to meet kyoto targets, because of course the economy is always going to be the top priority for any government, and the biggest thing they have to answer to voters for. But usefull stuff was done. The ammount of money going into energy research skyrocketed, huge advances were made in a number of technologies fuel efficiency of vehicles improved. Without kyoto and the publicity around AGW for the last 15 years we probably would have done literally nothing like we did in the 15 years before that.

[olp1fan]

Kyoto itself was not a farce.

Canada's 'committment' to Kyoto was the farce, an embarassment on an international stage.

It's quite disturbing how much contempt Harper and his ministers display for the rest of the world. Obviously the only human beings who matter to them are the Alberta oil barons.

What a pathetic excuse for human beings they all are.

You seem to forget the Liberals did nothing to reduce emissions for 9 years ..the whole time they were in power since they ratified the Accord

self righteous left wingers are more annoying to me than ideological right wingers and this issue brings them out

[bud]

You seem to forget the Liberals did nothing to reduce emissions for 9 years ..the whole time they were in power since they ratified the Accord

self righteous left wingers are more annoying to me than ideological right wingers and this issue brings them out

the liberal governments in the past 2 decades can hardly be called left wingers. they have been a typical right leaning party who try to pass themselves off as the voice for the majority. most environmental policies are usually shot down by corporate lobbying and pressure.

furthermore, targets were not met when the liberals were in power, but at least there was some attempt at changing and bettering the system.

[olp1fan]

the liberal governments in the past 2 decades can hardly be called left wingers. they have been a typical right leaning party who try to pass themselves off as the voice for the majority. most environmental policies are usually shot down by corporate lobbying and pressure.

furthermore, targets were not met when the liberals were in power, but at least there was some attempt at changing and bettering the system.

LOL, so Liberals don't do things you like so they're no longer liberals eh?

That is what the Republicans did when Bush turned out to be a disaster "uh well, he wasn't really a Republican, he's a RINO"

yeah whatever man, spin it whichever way you want but the Liberal government failed 9 years in a row to do a damn thing and you don't hear them being criticized

As much as I dislike Harper this was always a lose lose for him

Edited December 13, 2011 by olp1fan

[waldo]

The whole argument for excluding countries like China and India is beyond stupid as well. They say that the Western world is responsible for most of the accumulated effects of pollution thus far, and thus they should be the ones to pay for it. That WOULD make sense if not for the fact that the excluded countries in the third world etc are accelerating their industrial pollution exponentially themselves and will just be replacing our pollution with their own, and often dirtier, pollution. It's not like these countries were less pollutant in the 50's-70's out of any altruistic motives or anything. It's largely because they were crapholes and piss broke.

What sort of environmental model is it to say, "Hey, you guys have polluted a whole lot and you should have to reduce your emissions. We'll maybe reduce our emissions eventually as well, , but only after we've caught up and done as much polluting as you have over the years."

What a joke.

nonsense! Kyoto exclusions most certainly made sense in terms of legitimately assigning ownership of past emissions... even at current accelerating rates, a recent forecast indicates China's emission accumulations wouldn't match the cumulative total of all industrialized Tier-1 nations until 2035... assuming China did absolutely nothing towards reducing its emission levels. Of course, China most certainly is acting on many levels... voluntarily.

Canada's record has been abysmal... from the original Kyoto pledge to cut emissions by 6% by 2012 on 1990 levels (when, in fact, emissions have actually increased 30%)... to the revised (and weakened) Copenhagen pledge to reduce emissions by 17% relative to 2005 emission levels by 2020 (which also has no chance of being met). Whether it ultimately reaches a true legal binding level, Canada has committed to working towards a 2015 replacement 'protocol/treaty'... Harper Conservatives own this one, in its entirety.

It all depends on what you consider a success. Most countries failed to meet kyoto targets, because of course the economy is always going to be the top priority for any government, and the biggest thing they have to answer to voters for. But usefull stuff was done. The ammount of money going into energy research skyrocketed, huge advances were made in a number of technologies fuel efficiency of vehicles improved. Without kyoto and the publicity around AGW for the last 15 years we probably would have done literally nothing like we did in the 15 years before that.

absolutely. Each and every successive COP climate conference has resulted in progressive steps towards dealing with AGW/CC... whether or not binding agreements have yet to be realized.

[Topaz]

Well one can only hope that the Western Provinces have very good health care system to take care of all those people who will get very sick from all that pollution coming from the oil sands. If the astronauts could see it from outer space, then we know its bad.

[Evening Star]

LOL, so Liberals don't do things you like so they're no longer liberals eh?

That is what the Republicans did when Bush turned out to be a disaster "uh well, he wasn't really a Republican, he's a RINO"

yeah whatever man, spin it whichever way you want but the Liberal government failed 9 years in a row to do a damn thing and you don't hear them being criticized

As much as I dislike Harper this was always a lose lose for him

He was criticizing the Liberals. And, yes, they were Liberals but they were not very left-wing. There's no contradiction there.

Anyway, I have trouble getting really worked up over Canada quitting Kyoto because it was probably not very realistic that we would have met those targets anyway, especially since the Liberals hadn't done much at all to make it possible. If we can actually meet the Copenhagen targets that the government is apparently committing to, we'd be doing OK. I'll give the Conservatives credit for that if it happens.

Gary Doer sounded very supportive of the feds' current plan. I realize that, as ambassador, he probably can't oppose the government line but this still did sway me a bit, since I don't doubt his sincerity on environmental issues.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

I would be interested in hearing more practical discussion of what exactly meeting Kyoto or Copenhagen or any other targets would actually mean: i.e. What would we have to do in order to achieve x% reductions in y time? Would we need to close some factories? Switch z number of coal generators to wind or solar? Increase the federal tax on gasoline by 2%? Put w more dollars into public transit? Can we do these things? What would be the economic costs and benefits? Does anyone even know? What if the whole country adopted Ontario's or Nova Scotia's green energy plans? It seems a bit hollow to commit to a certain percentage of emissions reduction if we can't really know how or if we can.

[olp1fan]

. And, yes, they were Liberals but they were not very left-wing. There's no contradiction there.

we'll just leave it as yes, they were liberals there are no buts after it

[Moonlight Graham]

manufacturing jobs are disappearing due to environmental laws or due to low wages in the developing world? you think it's the environmental laws that have us making $9 minimum wage, as compared to 30 cents a day in the developing world?

what a joke.

Moonbox never said that.

[Moonlight Graham]

The failure of Kyoto shows the tragedy of the commons. The atmosphere is very easy to exploit and just about impossible to regulate internationally with all major players on board.

Once again, money and short-term self-interests rule the day. Humanity's tragic flaw, that may one day cause its extinction.

[TimG]

The failure of Kyoto shows the tragedy of the commons. The atmosphere is very easy to exploit and just about impossible to regulate internationally with all major players on board.

Nonsense. Kyoto failed because there are no practical alternatives to emitting CO2. When there are practical alternatives the international community is able to regulate the "commons".

The activists community needs to learn that technical solutions must come before political regulations can be created. Expecting technical solutions to appear as a result of political regulations is like believing in unicorns.

Edited December 14, 2011 by TimG

[olp1fan]

Once again, money and short-term self-interests rule the day. Humanity's tragic flaw, that may one day cause its extinction.

well, what do you expect us to do? go back to the pioneer days?

green energy that costs billions only to power 60,000 people?

what is your solution mister

Edited December 14, 2011 by olp1fan

[Keepitsimple]

warren buffett recently purchased a sonar energy company where 160,000 homes can be powered by a sonar farm. guess what this company can do? create jobs and create clean energy.

You may be on to something. Tell me more about sonar energy and sonar farms.

[Evening Star]

we'll just leave it as yes, they were liberals there are no buts after it

Who's "we"? I'm not leaving it at that. You don't think that a political party can shift its positions on issues or that there can be a range of opinions within a political party? As far as I know, every prominent member of the LPC agrees with me that they are not a left-wing party.

[Evening Star]

Nonsense. Kyoto failed because there are no practical alternatives to emitting CO2. When there are practical alternatives the international community is able to regulate the "commons".

The activists community needs to learn that technical solutions must come before political regulations can be created. Expecting technical solutions to appear as a result of political regulations is like believing in unicorns.

This relates to what I was wondering as well.

[olp1fan]

Who's "we"? I'm not leaving it at that. You don't think that a political party can shift its positions on issues or that there can be a range of opinions within a political party? As far as I know, every prominent member of the LPC agrees with me that they are not a left-wing party.

if their party is called the liberal party then the party members are liberal

[Evening Star]

if their party is called the liberal party then the party members are liberal

No one said they're not Liberals.

[Battletoads]

if their party is called the rhino party then the party members are rhinos

Equivalent logic.

[TimG]

I would be interested in hearing more practical discussion of what exactly meeting Kyoto or Copenhagen or any other targets would actually mean: i.e. What would we have to do in order to achieve x% reductions in y time? Would we need to close some factories?

Some countries had a one time opportunity to switch from coal to natural gas as a power source. For countries that already made extensive use of natural gas the only way to meet the targets is to outsource CO2 intensive industries and/or to buy billions in fake credits via the CDM. Neither of which actually reduced global emissions. In fact, the CO2 outsourcing that has gone on in the last 10 years likely increased emissions over what they would have been otherwise because factories in China are much less efficient.

[Evening Star]

Some countries had a one time opportunity to switch from coal to natural gas as a power source. For countries that already made extensive use of natural gas the only way to meet the targets is to outsource CO2 intensive industries and/or to buy billions in fake credits via the CDM. Neither of which actually reduced global emissions. In fact, the CO2 outsourcing that has gone on in the last 10 years likely increased emissions over what they would have been otherwise because factories in China are much less efficient.

Yeah, I share that concern about the outsourcing and the 'credit' system.