Ex-Nasa Scientist calls Canadian Conservatives 'Neanderthals.'

[bush_cheney2004]

....There is no reason to beat one's chest over that small accomplishment due to the slowing economy - but at least the upward trend has been arrested.....

But this observation only confirmed what Kyoto critics had said all along with respect to impacts on economic growth. And it turned out that more fossil fuel in the way of natural gas actually displaced "dirtier" coal and oil to reduce emissions.

[Keepitsimple]

But this observation only confirmed what Kyoto critics had said all along with respect to impacts on economic growth. And it turned out that more fossil fuel in the way of natural gas actually displaced "dirtier" coal and oil to reduce emissions.

I'm with you on that one Bushy......and that should really be part of the pragmatic, incremental plan - especially as it relates to the US, China and India. Replace that darn dirty coal with oil or natural gas.....and where possible, start moving from oil to natural gas. That's why it makes no sense to stamp up and down about the XL pipeline to the US. Increasing the oil capacity of the US will make it easier to displace dirty coal. I realize however that with job scarcity in the US, it's politically tough to rampantly close coal mines.....but that politically tough decision will have to be made if there is going to be truly significant movement with regards to CO2.....if that's what people want to accomplish.

[waldo]

The last time I checked, PM Harper and the Conservative Party were still considered to be Canadian. Trying to pin Canada's entire Kyoto FAIL on the Conservatives...

beauty... says the guy who tried to repeatedly slam the Liberal Party - until you were shown significant actions that were taken. Your (claimed) country's own Kyoto FAIL shines brightly with yet another signatory walk-away.

[waldo]

As with Climate Change itself, actual observation paints a less "alarmist" situation than spin-doctors would have us believe. From 1990 to 2005 - under the Liberals and their "commitment" to Kyoto, Canada's emissions rose from 592 MT to 731 MT!

well done Simple... considering the Kyoto Protocol came into effect in 2005, what relevance is there to you pointing out 1990-2005 emissions? Why, I think someone else has also been trying that here as well! More pointedly, what revisionism are you using to presume any country had the 'presence of mind' to unilaterally consider the need for reducing emissions in the early 90s? And... apparently, Conservative Mulroney was governing for 4 years of your selective recall!

Since the Conservatives have come to power, they have opted out of Kyoto - but at the same time, total emissions have dropped slightly to 710 MT (2010). There is no reason to beat one's chest over that small accomplishment due to the slowing economy - but at least the upward trend has been arrested...

Link: http://www.ec.gc.ca/doc/publications/cc/COM1374/ec-com1374-en-s3.htm#fig-4

yes, an downturn economic based reduction as you rightly acknowledge, following the world pattern of reduced emissions associated with the 2008/2009 recession.

upward trend arrested??? Chest beating... indeed! Let's really highlight what's going on here and what Harper Conservatives aren't doing... and have been outright "embellishing". Notwithstanding Harper Conservatives have been easing the baseline since Kyoto, twice now; firstly, when they punted Kyoto and brought in their "Made in Canada" target/commitment and secondly, when Harper Conservatives agreed to the 17% by 2020 reduction relative to a 2005 emissions baseline.

that Harper Conservative commitment presumes upon reaching 607 (Mtonnes CO2eq) by 2020. But really Simple, let me give you a hand... your linked 2020 785 (Mtonnes CO2eq) projection has been summarily dispatched with an update from Harper Conservatives, with much hype and 'chest-beating', bringing that down to a projection of 720... reduced by 65. Which is really quite hilarious... telling as well, as 15 of that 65 is simple replacing a previous projection estimate with actual data... a legitimate need for accurate data, but nothing was done to realize the 15 reduction gain. Additionally, some "unknown/undeclared" part of that 65 is attributed to provincial actions... that have nothing to do with the federal level. The more critical point is another 25 of that 65 was realized through a most questionable move: Harper Conservatives are claiming that 25 associates with LULUCF Contributions” (“Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry”)... except there has been no accompanying Harper Conservative plan or policy to reduce or limit logging in Canada’s forests. Hey, but it looks good on paper!

in any case Simple, the real magic is ahead... considering emissions are again on the rise (after the recession), that there is no comprehensive, all encompassing, 'Canada Energy Plan', and the whole Harper Conservative economic outlook is based on ever increasing resource exploitation...how will that reduction of 17% by 2020 relative to the 2005 baseline (the 607 (Mtonnes CO2eq) target by 2020), be realized? Particularly given Alberta's own projected emissions have no correlation to the current Harper Conservative spin accounting... and even those Alberta projections were presumed to leverage significant reductions through CCS deployments (which have, and are, going nowhere... thanks to BigOil bailing on them.

what actual actions will allow the Harper Conservative 2020 emissions reduction target to be realized, hey Simple?

.

...but to paint the Liberals as some sort of heros for ratifying Kyoto is absolute foolishness. In reality, the US was going to reduce their emissions by 5% so silly Chretien decided to do them one better and go for 6% - not realizing that the US was never going to ratify the treaty. We were hoodwinked.

interesting - I've never heard of the U.S. 5% target figure... I guess by your wild speculation/wording, "the silly U.S decided to do one better and go for 7%"... cause 7% is the pledged target level that the U.S. committed to.

"not realizing the U.S. was never going to ratify the treaty"... say what? You mean where the U.S. went through the long exhaustive meetings/negotiations process and signed the treaty? Are you expecting Canada... any country... the UN... to have a crystal ball to project on the U.S. failing to meet it's pledge and agreement signing? However, your "hood-winked" comment is certainly apropos... yes, Canada, the community of nations, the UN... all "hood-winked" by the U.S. Kyoto FAIL move!

.

[waldo]

I'm with you on that one Bushy......and that should really be part of the pragmatic, incremental plan - especially as it relates to the US, China and India. Replace that darn dirty coal with oil or natural gas.....and where possible, start moving from oil to natural gas. That's why it makes no sense to stamp up and down about the XL pipeline to the US. Increasing the oil capacity of the US will make it easier to displace dirty coal. I realize however that with job scarcity in the US, it's politically tough to rampantly close coal mines.....but that politically tough decision will have to be made if there is going to be truly significant movement with regards to CO2.....if that's what people want to accomplish.

Bushy! Well... Simpy... let's talk about shale gas... your "bridge from coal"! Notwithstanding we've already discussed the ever-diminishing viability of productive shale wells in the U.S.; notwithstanding all the legitimate concerns over fracking itself; notwithstanding the only alternative energy source that gas burns less emissions than... is coal, there are real emissions concerns with shale gas.

of course, in the U.S. only ~33% of energy is actually generated using natural gas. But Simple, but: according to the U.S. EPA, shale production and transport leaked ~6 million metric tonnes (MMT) of methane into the atmosphere in 2011 (the equivalent of 432 MMT of CO2 per year)... and this is just the U.S.. Of course, as we've discussed many times in the past, particularly when speaking to feedback concerns relative to permafrost melting, methane is a most potent GHG as compared to CO₂ - methane has a 20 times greater GWP (Global Warming Potential) rating than does CO₂. And by the by Simple, I've read that leaking methanes 432 MMT of CO2 equivalent is more than that of the yearly combined amounts from U.S. petroleum refining and iron/steel/cement manufacturing. As for your bridge Simple, it appears to be a 'bridge to nowhere': Coal to gas: the influence of methane leakage

Here we consider a scenario where a fraction of coal usage is replaced by natural gas (i.e., methane, CH4) over a given time period, and where a percentage of the gas production is assumed to leak into the atmosphere. The additional CH4 from leakage adds to the radiative forcing of the climate system, offsetting the reduction in CO2 forcing that accompanies the transition from coal to gas. We also consider the effects of: methane leakage from coal mining; changes in radiative forcing due to changes in the emissions of sulfur dioxide and carbonaceous aerosols; and differences in the efficiency of electricity production between coal- and gas-fired power generation. On balance, these factors more than offset the reduction in warming due to reduced CO2 emissions. When gas replaces coal there is additional warming out to 2,050 with an assumed leakage rate of 0%, and out to 2,140 if the leakage rate is as high as 10%. The overall effects on global-mean temperature over the 21st century, however, are small.

(note: I'm reading that current methane leakage rates are estimated at between 3-to-8% depending on the field and transport mode)

and, of course, in keeping with the theme of this thread... wholesale shifting to gas... is not a bridge to a sustainable future. Cheap gas does nothing to incentivize moves toward more sustainable technologies.

[bush_cheney2004]

beauty... says the guy who tried to repeatedly slam the Liberal Party - until you were shown significant actions that were taken. Your (claimed) country's own Kyoto FAIL shines brightly with yet another signatory walk-away.

Oh, is that all that has been bothering you...which political party gets the blame for Canada's Kyoto FAIL ? It is clear that the treaty and its objectives were near and dear to some, but frankly I am delighted that provisions of such a stupid treaty have expired with minimum damage inflicted. The USA 'failed' to ratify Kyoto, but actually performed better for GHG reduction rates than did Canada.

I realize now that it was very insensitive of me to mockingly dance on the Kyoto treaty's grave when so many believers were emotionally and religiously devoted to the treaty as the last great hope for man....and mankind. Even though they were/are still wrong, there must be time for grieving the loss for those who were so invested in slaying the hydrocarbon monster.

Look at the bright side....Al Gore made a combustion engine truckload of money !!

[waldo]

The USA 'failed' to ratify Kyoto, but actually performed better for GHG reduction rates than did Canada.

Prove it! Why can't you substantiate your claim? In the context of emissions, Kyoto and applicable milestone dates... just prove your claim. I've already countered it with a graphic you choose to ignore. Just prove your repeated Kyoto Fail trolling claim.

[bush_cheney2004]

Prove it! Why can't you substantiate your claim? In the context of emissions, Kyoto and applicable milestone dates... just prove your claim. I've already countered it with a graphic you choose to ignore. Just prove your repeated Kyoto Fail trolling claim.

So much anger and lashing out....but now I understand why. Kyoto is gone as of 2012, and Canada kicked it to the curb even before that. It was a good run, but now it is over. Think instead of the good times....charts....graphs....hockey sticks...videos....email scandals; we laughed, we cried...together, with American taxpayer financed resources available at your fingertips.

The time for fighting is over...let the healing begin.

[waldo]

The time for fighting is over...let the healing begin.

I accept your unconditional capitulation!

[bush_cheney2004]

I accept your unconditional capitulation!

It's the least I can do in your time of need. The important outcome(s) have already fallen my way....Kyoto is dead. Take as much time as you need to process this and move on. The silver lining in all of this is that the Kyoto FAIL was Canada's all the way...from start to finish, no matter what those silly Americans and their "denier nation" decided to do.

[Moonbox]

and yes, when the tarsands are significantly expanded... opening up new markets, expanding on existing markets, keeping the reliance on fossil-fuels for decades upon decades ahead, de-incentivizing countries from considering new/expanded alternative energy strategies... yes, most certainly, as James Hansen states, "there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 ppm.

Except that Hansen went a lot further than you did in this quotation, and the irrelevant rhetoric he adds to the discussion didn't help explain the incremental effect the tar sands have on world reliance on fossil fuels, but was rather meant to exaggerate the full impact of the tar sands themselves. I'm not arguing that burning the tar sands are going to help. I'm arguing that Hansen grossly exaggerated their overall impact any way you want to spin the numbers.

what I'm saying is what I wrote... if you're going to call something a debacle, if you're going to attribute Ontario's high electricity costs to wind, you should certainly be able to substantiate that claim - yes? These are your words:

Once again, you misquote me! I did indeed indicate that Ontario's GEA is a debacle, but I did not attribute our electricity bill increases exclusively to wind. I know there's more to the picture than that. On the other hand, I DID invite you to go over how much electricity demand is based on wind/solar right now, and how much that is costing us. If you're willing to go over that, I'd be more than happy.