Why aren't we building more pipelines right NOW?

[bush_cheney2004]

says the guy who could care less about Kyoto,

Correct...Kyoto was a farce from the 'git go, yet the United States of America achieved more progress than Canada (which actually ratified the treaty). Kyoto FAIL

I've asked you twice now... once more: if, as you say, there was no intention to ratify the agreement your country signed, why did the U.S. sign the agreement in the first place... what, no courage of your convictions, hey?[/size]

Because international rubes thought it actually had a chance for U.S. Senate ratification. Ooops....they voted 95 - 0 to deep six Kyoto.

you've been most slippery in your evasion. Why not step-up and state what you attribute the supposed (your claimed) "slow growth in emissions" to... quantify it - sure you can. You keep avoiding this - is there a problem?

No problem at all because the bottom line is that the U.S. achieved more "progress" than Canada without ratifying the stupid treaty to begin with. Canada went on to become the laughing stock of the climate change obsessed faithful around the world. Kyoto FAIL.

Critics rip Canada's Kyoto failure

Inactivity on climate change turning Canada into international laughing stock

http://cnews.canoe.c...rssnewspolitics

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/nov/26/kyoto-protocol-carbon-emissions

Edited February 17, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Correct...Kyoto was a farce from the 'git go, yet the United States of America achieved more progress than Canada (which actually ratified the treaty).

progress? Attribute it... qualify/quantify your claimed progress - is there a problem?

Because international rubes thought it actually had a chance for U.S. Senate ratification. Ooops....they voted 95 - 0 to deep six Kyoto.

excellent - you finally acknowledge your country's leaders did not have the courage of their conviction. But again, why are you so fixated on Kyoto... your country didn't ratify it... you could care less about it, yet you're fixated on it. You know for a fact that Harper shuttered Kyoto in 2006 - the moment he took over... you know this, yet you continue your fixation with Kyoto. Why would that be, oh petulant one?

you've been most slippery in your evasion. Why not step-up and state what you attribute the supposed (your claimed) "slow growth in emissions" to... quantify it - sure you can. You keep avoiding this - is there a problem?

No problem at all because the bottom line is that the U.S. achieved more "progress" than Canada without ratifying the stupid treaty to begin with.

you say, 'no problem'... yet... there appears to be a problem! What are you waiting for?

whaaa!!! just saw your edit with the guardian link concerning continued emissions growth... how typical of your hypocrisy! The U.S., the world's principal overall contributor to accelerated emissions seems to be missing from the mix!

Edited February 17, 2013 by waldo

[bush_cheney2004]

progress? Attribute it... qualify/quantify your claimed progress - is there a problem?

The progress was internal to the U.S. and driven by market/economic dynamics, not some stupid ass treaty.

excellent - you finally acknowledge your country's leaders did not have the courage of their conviction. But again, why are you so fixated on Kyoto... your country didn't ratify it... you could care less about it, yet you're fixated on it. You know for a fact that Harper shuttered Kyoto in 2006 - the moment he took over... you know this, yet you continue your fixation with Kyoto. Why would that be, oh petulant one?

Because it is a perfect instrument with which to bludgeon climate change alarmists who wish to influence policies for energy production, distribution, and consumption in other nations while becoming laughing stocks at home. Canada ratified Kyoto and was the first nation to abrogate the treaty in TOTAL FAILURE.

It pains you to admit that the United States of America has made more 'progress' in reducing emissions growth than Kyoto "challenged" Canada.

Edited February 17, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

The progress was internal to the U.S. and driven by market/economic dynamics, not some stupid ass treaty.

"market/economic dynamics"!!! Are you having difficulty in flushing that out? Could you be any less forthcoming? Is there a problem?

Because it is a perfect instrument with which to bludgeon climate change alarmists who wish to influence policies for energy production, distribution, and consumption in other nations while becoming laughing stocks at home.

oh... you're 'bludgeoning', are you? Perhaps you should actually have a look at the guardian link graphic you put up. It seems quite a few countries have shown success in meeting Kyoto commitments... does that basic fact... dull your "bludgeoning", hey?

It pains you to admit that the United States of America has made more 'progress' in reducing emissions growth than Kyoto "challenged" Canada.

I expect each and every time you keep repeating this, your chest-thumping pride must give you a warm-fuzzy... since you're so puffed up over (claimed emission reductions) why not put that in perspective. What difference is it making - I mean, you do seem to really, really care about (claimed) emission reductions. As the world's number 1 historical contributor to emissions growth, as the world's current number 2 contributor to emission growth, what overall difference is the U.S. making?

[bush_cheney2004]

oh... you're 'bludgeoning', are you? Perhaps you should actually have a look at the guardian link graphic you put up. It seems quite a few countries have shown success in meeting Kyoto commitments...

But it seems that one did not, instead experiencing a colossal Kyoto FAIL to the point of just abrogating the stupid treaty altogether. I wonder which nation that was.....hmmmmmm?

.... As the world's number 1 historical contributor to emissions growth, as the world's current number 2 contributor to emission growth, what overall difference is the U.S. making?

It's making more of a difference than Canada. I thought that was important to you ? Are reductions at the climate change alter not acceptable from the wicked 'ol United States? Won't the alarmist priests and those who worship them give the poor USA any kind of break for reductions in emissions ?

Uh oh...looks like Canada is "red hot" when it comes to emissions per capita...tsk...tsk :

Edited February 17, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[shortlived]

Canada's emissions come from products exported to the US, not for domestic use. Meanwhile the US is the second largest polluter in the world with 10x the gross emissions of Canada. Canada also has far more carbon sinks, and absorbs far more emissions than the US, so in that respect Canada puts far less per capita emissions into the air. The US's emissions are largely cleaned up by Canada ontop of that. The companies that pollute in Canada are mostly US owned also. I'm not sure about agrarium, but Canada's polluting economy is mostly owned by American megacorps.

Additionally china has like 10 times the number of people of the US per captia china is a much smaller emissions than the US, and most of its pollution products go to the US Clearly the US economy is a large part of the problem it is based on non sustainable toxic creation.

The US needs to get back to its roots. The only problem is it is trying to maintain a war economy because its foreign policy has made the world its enemy. It is reduced to buying friends, and that ain't sustainable for a failing economy like the US's. It is unfortunate the Harper Government has emulated its foreign policy on that of the US, as well as so closely tied the canadian economy into US oil, and its brother in arms the Chinese economy. Canada is in the orbit of the two countries that create the vast majority of world destroying emissions and pollution. In reality though it is the consumers fault. Consumerism is to blame not government, aside from government taxation and it as a consumer (of 30% of the economy) so it is only 1/3rd to blame. Much like the us is only 1/3rd to blame and china is only 1/3rd to blame. I do think however as long as the companies owning all the world saving technologies like Chevron and BASF, 3M etc.. actually try to do it. The sad part is, there just isn't enough consumer support for world saving technologies. So it is the consumers fault atleast a portion for sure.

More pipelines will be built, but they arn't needed, they are just useful. They bring down the cost of transport.

We need to move people not goods.

Edited February 17, 2013 by shortlived

[Guest American Woman]

I knew somehow Canada's emissions had to be the fault of the U.S.; thanks for explaining how.

[jacee]

Obama Faces Risks in Pipeline Decision

President Obama faces a knotty decision in whether to approve the much-delayed Keystone oil pipeline: a choice between alienating environmental advocates who overwhelmingly supported his candidacy or causing a deep and perhaps lasting rift with Canada.

...

"It's rare that a president has such a singular voice on such a major policy decision," Mr. Brune said. "Whatever damage approving the pipeline would do to the environmental movement pales in comparison to the damage it could do to his own legacy."

The shortage of pipeline capacity has produced localized supply gluts, forcing the price of Canadian crude well below American and international benchmarks. If the Keystone pipeline is not completed, energy experts say,weak prices will make the economics of future oil sands projects questionable.

Now there's a comment that puts fear in the hearts of some, and joy in others.

Obama's got himself quite a dilemma.

[waldo]

The progress was internal to the U.S. and driven by market/economic dynamics, not some stupid ass treaty.

"market/economic dynamics"!!! Are you having difficulty in flushing that out? Could you be any less forthcoming? Is there a problem?

you seem to be having difficulty with my repeated request... why so 'self-selective' in what you choose to answer, hey? Is there a problem? You're so 'puffed up' over your claimed emission reductions... yet you won't attribute them. Is there a problem?

[waldo]

But it seems that one did not, instead experiencing a colossal Kyoto FAIL to the point of just abrogating the stupid treaty altogether. I wonder which nation that was.....hmmmmmm?

you have no standing to criticize any country's target Kyoto commitments, realized or not. Your country abrogated it's signed agreement. You can keep flapping this same theme all you want... at the end of the day, you could care less about emission reductions - you've made that pointedly clear throughout your history of MLW AGW/CC denial postings.

It's making more of a difference than Canada. I thought that was important to you ? Are reductions at the climate change alter not acceptable from the wicked 'ol United States? Won't the alarmist priests and those who worship them give the poor USA any kind of break for reductions in emissions ?

except you haven't reduced your emissions, outright, let alone through any formal policy/plan... remember, the thingee you keep avoiding, the attribution of said reductions. Just step up and state what you attribute the emissions to - qualify & quantify them... is there a problem?

Uh oh...looks like Canada is "red hot" when it comes to emissions per capita...tsk...tsk :

those that wield the per-capita weight, typically, apply it most selectively... for instance, they don't like to hear/read how low the China per-capita emission rate is relative to the U.S. rate.

it truly is a shame Wikipedia has bit you, big time! Your first clue should have been the "citation needed" reference - clearly you ignored that Wiki alert and thought you had a real "zinger", hey? Even as your linked wiki graphic stands, one wonders why you would attempt to leverage such a dated 1950-2000 data reference! You really should rise above wiki, particularly when you feel emboldened enough to throw in a couple of your... tsk... tsk!

here, try this one from the joint PBL/EC JRC: ... why, it looks like the U.S. is still up there in per capita... tsk... tsk!

[bush_cheney2004]

you seem to be having difficulty with my repeated request... why so 'self-selective' in what you choose to answer, hey? Is there a problem? You're so 'puffed up' over your claimed emission reductions... yet you won't attribute them. Is there a problem?[/size]

Go back and read it again...I posted that the growth in emissions was reduced. Is that a problem for you ? I "attribute" that to economic recession, natural gas, and more efficient automobiles.

[WWWTT]

I knew somehow Canada's emissions had to be the fault of the U.S.; thanks for explaining how.

Ya that's pretty funny you wrote this comment.

Bush_Cheney is always going on about how Canada is always watching American TV and idolizes the US or needs the US.And follows in the same steps as the US.

But when it comes to emissions,oh no it's a totaly different story now isn't it!

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

you have no standing to criticize any country's target Kyoto commitments, realized or not. Your country abrogated it's signed agreement. You can keep flapping this same theme all you want... at the end of the day, you could care less about emission reductions - you've made that pointedly clear throughout your history of MLW AGW/CC denial postings.

Wrong...I am not a warming "denier", and in fact I welcome it, being a man of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy. Heat this mutha up !

except you haven't reduced your emissions, outright, let alone through any formal policy/plan... remember, the thingee you keep avoiding, the attribution of said reductions. Just step up and state what you attribute the emissions to - qualify & quantify them... is there a problem?

There was no formal policy or plan, save for deep sixing Kyoto outright. That's the fun part....the U.S. had lower emissions growth than Canada, which actually ratified the treaty only to fail miserably and increase emissions more per capita and as a percentage of previous baselines. It was a Kyoto FAIL on an international scale with Chretien blaming Martin just to make it even funnier.

those that wield the per-capita weight, typically, apply it most selectively... for instance, they don't like to hear/read how low the China per-capita emission rate is relative to the U.S. rate.

China is lower than the U.S.....got no problem with that. But Canada is higher.....the shame !!!

it truly is a shame Wikipedia has bit you, big time! Your first clue should have been the "citation needed" reference - clearly you ignored that Wiki alert and thought you had a real "zinger", hey? Even as your linked wiki graphic stands, one wonders why you would attempt to leverage such a dated 1950-2000 data reference! You really should rise above wiki, particularly when you feel emboldened enough to throw in a couple of your... tsk... tsk!

No I don't....I am not anal about these things like some people around here. At least you didn't use the excuse that Canada is a cold climate and has a low population density. (But maybe you will later.)

No matter how to try to wriggle out of it, Canada is/was a Kyoto FAIL and this failure was recognized domestically and internationally. PM Harper finally had the sense to just put a bullet in it.

[bush_cheney2004]

But when it comes to emissions,oh no it's a totaly different story now isn't it!

Nope....Canada pretty much follows the U.S. markets in that regard too. Canada eventually copied clean air standards and auto emissions reduction technology pioneered in California by Governor Ronald Reagan (CARB). I hear a Canadian pipeline company based in Calgary wants to build another pipeline into the U.S. and some people are upset about it. Their big oil spill in Kalamazoo still isn't cleaned up !

[WWWTT]

Nope....Canada pretty much follows the U.S. markets in that regard too. Canada eventually copied clean air standards and auto emissions reduction technology pioneered in California by Governor Ronald Reagan (CARB). I hear a Canadian pipeline company based in Calgary wants to build another pipeline into the U.S. and some people are upset about it. Their big oil spill in Kalamazoo still isn't cleaned up !

Thanks for proving me right again!

Your consolotion prize awaits!

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks for proving me right again!

'Twasn't me...PM Harper killed Kyoto just like George Bush. Most of Canada's pipeline capacity goes south, not to the east or west...ever wonder why ?

[Argus]

9 years??? Try 4 years of concerted effort working with the provinces and business to ratify the treaty (that brings us to 2003 and the last year of Chretien... which for intents and purposes became overtaken with sponsorship/Gomery). Now add in the couple of years of Martin working within a minority... perhaps you could provide your insightful comment on the degree of support Harper gave to Kyoto during that period).

Interesting effort at historical revisionism there. My memory of the Chretien government was that it had an absolute majority and a fractured opposition. Chreitien could easily have begun moves to cut back on emissions within a year or two. Instead, nine years later, nothing was done. Blaming the minority opposition is just making excuses. And no, Harper didn't support Kyoto. It was a dumb treaty we never should have signed. It never had a chance of doing much to lower CO2 emissions. Nothing we do is going to have much of an effect on global warming so we'd be far better off putting the trillions into mitigating the damage instead.

[Argus]

ratifying the agreement was a significant undertaking. While you're berating any/all efforts put forward by Liberals, don't hesitate to offer comment on Harper's position/support for Kyoto. I mean, after all, you appear to be quite taken aback concerning the lack of meeting Kyoto commitments... don't be too hard on Harper, hey?

I never agreed with Kyoto so you shouldn't expect me to be.

Your apologetic approach to Chretien, however, seems odd.

Chretien did one of two things. Either he commited Canada to a treaty which called for reductions without any idea how we might bring about those reductions, which would insanely stupid, or he knew, signed the treaty, then did nothing once the favorable publicity had died down.

[Canuckistani]

He knew that actually following the treaty would be economic suicide for Canada. He had no intention of following thru, just did it for the publicity.

[waldo]

Go back and read it again...I posted that the growth in emissions was reduced. Is that a problem for you ? I "attribute" that to economic recession, natural gas, and more efficient automobiles.

excellent... so now we actually have something to attach to your vague "market/economic dynamics" reference. Let's have a closer look:

- economic recession??? To see you thumping your chest over reduced consumption relative to an economic downturn is quite remarkable... have you no shame sir! So... your favoured solution to emission reductions is a, uhhh... economic downturn???

- more efficient automobiles??? I must admit, this one took me by surprise... I've personally not seen that quantified to an overall affect on emissions. Perhaps you could actually step beyond your continued (overall) vagueness and put some numbers to this, hey? As a 'heads up', I suggest you steer away from wiki... you don't want to get bit again, right? Waiting...

now, what's well known, is the traditional reluctance by manufacturers to embrace CAFE standards. Certainly, the Obama admin has put forward some very aggressive plans/intentions toward, 'beyond 2016', and 'by 2025'... but you wouldn't be attempting to make hay over futures... would ya? But really, c'mon, it's your favoured Republican party that is feverishly against improved CAFE standards, EPA attachment to those standards, and the EPA outright. And you're trying to leverage automobile efficiency? Really?

now, I must say, there have been recent improvements by some manufacturers in terms of "adjusted CO2 emissions"; however, overall, the betterment is quite minimal across all manufacturers, particularly when realizing that countering vehicle weights and horsepower are both up in recent years. In any case, I certainly look forward to you providing a quantification as to how "automobile efficiency" has contributed to CO2 emission reductions. Again, waiting...

- natural gas??? Ah, yes... this has become the 'ready reach'... the go-to for those so against any/all formal government/policy directive. The refrain, "see, leave it up to the market", has become the constant drumbeat for the denialist cadre. But it's not reality!

Shale Gas And The Overhyping Of Its CO2 Reductions

Natural gas cannot be credited with the reductions in the US CO2 emissions observed in the last half-decade. Most reductions, nearly 90%, were caused by the decline in petroleum use, displacement of coal by mostly non-price factors, and its replacement by wind, hydro and other renewables. Where low price of natural gas saved some CO2 by displacing coal, it was quickly offset by its increased use in other sectors - highlighting the pitfall of justifying the current market for natural gas as a "bridge"; or an interim phase of transition towards clean energy.

Replacing Coal With Gas Is No Panacea

Although power plants fired by natural gas emit about half the carbon dioxide that conventional coal plants do, shifting from coal to natural gas to generate electricity will do little to slow climate change, according to a new study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

[Argus]

He knew that actually following the treaty would be economic suicide for Canada. He had no intention of following thru, just did it for the publicity.

That has been my assessment for some time. He actually commited us to higher levels than were originally asked, basked in the publicity, then went home and did pretty much nothing.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Argus

[waldo]

I never agreed with Kyoto so you shouldn't expect me to be.

yes, clearly... your own revisionism is so framed. And it is quite illuminating to read, yet another guy, criticize Kyoto compliance efforts, while at the same time being so adamantly against the Kyoto Protocol (while equally commending Harper for blocking it at every step). Considering Harper outright killed Kyoto in 2006, just why is this such a topical point for y'all? I mean, other than a means to showcase your own particular brand of... hippo-crisy!

[waldo]

those that wield the per-capita weight, typically, apply it most selectively... for instance, they don't like to hear/read how low the China per-capita emission rate is relative to the U.S. rate.

it truly is a shame Wikipedia has bit you, big time! Your first clue should have been the "citation needed" reference - clearly you ignored that Wiki alert and thought you had a real "zinger", hey? Even as your linked wiki graphic stands, one wonders why you would attempt to leverage such a dated 1950-2000 data reference! You really should rise above wiki, particularly when you feel emboldened enough to throw in a couple of your... tsk... tsk!

here, try this one from the joint PBL/EC JRC: ... why, it looks like the U.S. is still up there in per capita... tsk... tsk!

China is lower than the U.S.....got no problem with that. But Canada is higher.....the shame !!!

no - Canada's per-capita emissions rate is not higher than the U.S. rate... you've just been shown this not to be the case... and yet you persist. That is the definition of 'trolling', yes?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Considering Harper outright killed Kyoto in 2006, just why is this such a topical point for y'all? I mean, other than a means to showcase your own particular brand of... h[/size]ippo-crisy!

Might have something to do with building more pipelines, increasing bitumen production, and exporting "ethical oil". The title of the thread would be the first clue.

[waldo]

No I don't....I am not anal about these things like some people around here.

this thread shows just how 'anal' you truly are/can be... why deny it? You've trotted out more graphs than anyone - unfortunately for you, they keep coming back to bite you! Whereupon you throw-up the, "I'm not as anal as some around here"!