Cap and Trade and Yes and No

[TimG]

It quite clearly states he is doing it due to concern over global warming and plus it will very likely boost economic grow

IOW - he actually says exactly the opposite of what you claimed he said. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said that China and India would never sacrifice economic growth to reduce CO2 emissions but they do care about real pollution. There is nothing in that article that refutes that claim. Edited May 26, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

IOW - he actually says exactly the opposite of what you claimed he said. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said that China and India would never sacrifice economic growth to reduce CO2 emissions but they do care about real pollution. There is nothing in that article that refutes that claim.

“For me, uranium is not just a mineral. For me, it is an article of faith [and] trust,” Mr. Modi said. “This is to save the world, in effect, to save the world from global warming and climate change.”

Cant be much clearer than that. Sorry if you have a reading comprehension problem.

[TimG]

Cant be much clearer than that. Sorry if you have a reading comprehension problem.

What is clear? He says he wants to "save the world". Saying such things is easy. Where is the statement that he is willing to make *sacrifices* to save the world? I don't see any and you won't find any serious politician who would ever make such a statement because no one wants to make sacrifices. CO2 is not important enough to require actual sacrifices.

The person with the reading comprehension problem is you.

Edited May 26, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

What is clear? He says he wants to "save the world". Saying such things is easy. Where is the statement that he is willing to make *sacrifices* to save the world? I don't see any and you won't find any serious politician who would ever make such a statement because no one wants to make sacrifices. CO2 is not important enough to require actual sacrifices.

The person with the reading comprehension problem is you.

Well for starters he is apparently willing to sacrifice 350 million bucks, and, make a fairly clear statement as to why. If you can understand it.

[TimG]

Well for starters he is apparently willing to sacrifice 350 million bucks

He is willing to *invest* 350 million into infrastructure that will provide electricity to impoverished Indians. If you think that is a sacrifice you have a twisted mind.

[On Guard for Thee]

He is willing to *invest* 350 million into infrastructure that will provide electricity to impoverished Indians. If you think that is a sacrifice you have a twisted mind.

Umm...you are the one who suggested the word sacrifice. That's why I italicized it in my reply I quite agree, spending that money is sensible in may ways aside from saving the world from GW as he says.

[TimG]

Umm...you are the one who suggested the word sacrifice.

Yes. I was the one who claimed that India and China would never sacrifice economic growth to reduce CO2 emissions. You tried to refute that by pointing to article where the India PM talks about the need for economic growth and saving the world. If you want to refute my statement you actually have to provide something that refutes it. You have not done that. Edited May 26, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes. I was the one who claimed that India and China would never sacrifice economic growth to reduce CO2 emissions. You tried to refute that by pointing to article where the India PM talks about the need for economic growth and saving the world. If you want to refute my statement you actually have to provide something that refutes it. You have not done that.

The PMs statement on his position on GW is quite clear. China has also made official statements that they too have solid plans to reduce CO2 emissions. They seem to have been convinced there is indeed a problem which you seem to wish to ignore, which is of course your prerogative.

[TimG]

The PMs statement on his position on GW is quite clear. China has also made official statements that they too have solid plans to reduce CO2 emissions.

Lots of politicians make statements but none of them will reduce emissions if reducing emissions harms economic growth. That is why Germany has basically abandoned any pretense of meeting its CO2 targets once the engineers explained that if they shut down the nukes they need to burn lots and lots of coal if they want to keep the lights on. Edited May 26, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

In just 4 months China has reduced it's CO2 emissions by the equivalent of all CO2 emissions produced by the entire UK.

And it's not like a murderous and thoroughly corrupt dictatorship would lie about a thing like that...

[Argus]

As it turns out even India is proceeding with plans to reduce emissions faster than Canada. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6278

Aside recently agreeing to quantify the reduction of emissions and participate in global efforts, India will also add 20 GW of solar power over the next 5 years and 200 GW by 2050. The most ambitious solar plan in the world at present. India also plans to reforest 800,000 hectares per year and invest in efficiency efforts and standards.

Funny how that story didn't mention the 600 coal fired power plants India is building.

India is still a place where they rap on the sidewalk, where garbage piles up in huge mountains in every city, where raw sewage is pumped into rivers. I find it difficult to believe they give a damn about C02 emissions, or that the corrupt nature of their society would allow them to do anything substantive about it even if they did.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Argus

[Mighty AC]

And it's not like a murderous and thoroughly corrupt dictatorship would lie about a thing like that...

It was a Greenpeace analysis, China's numbers have been legit in the past, massive amounts of green generating capacity have actually been built and they really have been closing coal mines. So it seems legit.

I find it difficult to believe they give a damn about C02 emissions, or that the corrupt nature of their society would allow them to do anything substantive about it even if they did.

India has gone from refusing to participate, to actually quantifying commitments. They have started to build solar capacity and have planned a massive reforestation project. While China is actively attempting to meet targets it is possible that India may simply pay lip service to their own goals. I happen to live in a nation whose leadership continues to do just that. It's embarrassing to have fallen behind nations like China, Mexico and India on this front.

Canada has submitted its intended contribution to the UN's forthcoming climate deal, but its new target has done little to remedy its reputation as a climate laggard.

[jbg]

Canada's real disadvantage is that Ottawa has gambled on putting most of our economic eggs into fossil fuel production.

My guess is that they imagined cynicism would win the day and that no one else would live up to their commitments either.

It's private companies, not Ottawa. The government's interest in Petro-Canada was sold years ago.

[jbg]

The PMs statement on his position on GW is quite clear. China has also made official statements that they too have solid plans to reduce CO2 emissions. They seem to have been convinced there is indeed a problem which you seem to wish to ignore, which is of course your prerogative.

China's plan is to go level on emissions after 2030.

[TimG]

It's embarrassing to have fallen behind nations like China, Mexico and India on this front.

I am not embarrassed to have a government that recognizes the pathetic posturing on CO2 for what it is: a waste of money and energy. None of the options being discussed will significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Pissing away money on windmills and solar panels will do nothing other than give preening politicians a chance to grab some headlines while lining the pockets of well connected rent seekers.

It is rather strange that you place so much importance on meaningless posturing.

Edited May 27, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

And Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

[Mighty AC]

I am not embarrassed to have a government that recognizes the pathetic posturing on CO2 for what it is: a waste of money and energy. None of the options being discussed will significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Pissing away money on windmills and solar panels will do nothing other than give preening politicians a chance to grab some headlines while lining the pockets of well connected rent seekers.

It is rather strange that you place so much importance on meaningless posturing.

The box fossil fuel shills live in is shrinking at an accelerating rate. Coal assets are being devalued as the world moves toward a carbon neutral future. You and the anti-science crowd are being left behind.

[TimG]

Coal assets are being devalued as the world moves toward a carbon neutral future.

ROTFL. If coal prices are decreasing it is because natural gas is cheaper. In places where coal is the only option its use is expanding (look at Germany). People need access to reliable energy. Solar and wind will never provide that.

You and the anti-science crowd are being left behind.

Pathetic name calling. Everything I have said is consistent with the views of the relevant experts. The only difference is I don't listen to climate scientists when I want advice on how to produce energy. It listen to engineers working in the field. If anyone is anti-science it is people like you who seem to think that government has a magic wand that make the need to emit CO2 go away. Your delusions are equivalent to creationists that think the world is 6000 years old and politicians should not be making policy based on such delusions. Edited May 27, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

ROTFL. If coal prices are decreasing it is because natural gas is cheaper. In places where coal is the only option its use is expanding (look at Germany). People need access to reliable energy. Solar and wind will never provide that.

Pathetic name calling. Everything I have said is consistent with the views of the relevant experts. The only difference is I don't listen to climate scientists when I want advice on how to produce energy. It listen to engineers working in the field. If anyone is anti-science it is people like you who seem to think that government has a magic wand that make the need to emit CO2 go away. Your delusions are equivalent to creationists that think the world is 6000 years old and politicians should not be making policy based on such delusions.

Which relevant experts are those I wonder. Perhaps the same ones that have the WTC being blown up by the US government per chance... There have been many links along the way in this thread that show the majority of mainstream science agrees GW is a problem. The only real debate is the rapidity of our approach to the tipping point.

Edited May 27, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Mighty AC]

ROTFL. If coal prices are decreasing it is because natural gas is cheaper.

The financial world is already aware that balance sheets significantly overvalue fossil fuels assets that will never be extracted. This is main impediment to progress.

Pathetic name calling. Everything I have said is consistent with the views of the relevant experts.

Yeah...you go with that.

[TimG]

The financial world is already aware that balance sheets significantly overvalue fossil fuels assets that will never be extracted. This is main impediment to progress.

You spend way too much time in enviro-cult eco-chambers. If coal reserves stay in the ground it will only be because a technology like natural gas or nuclear eliminate the need. But as Germany shows, all it takes is one incident and they will dig up those reserves and start burning them again.

Yeah...you go with that.

Are you really so clueless that you cannot understand the difference between the question of whether CO2 is a risk vs the question of what can be reasonably done about the risk? The relevant experts are completely different and there is nothing more ridiculous than someone who believes we should listen to climate scientists when it comes to questions of what can be done. Edited May 27, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

It's private companies, not Ottawa. The government's interest in Petro-Canada was sold years ago.

Ah....you forgot to say bazinga!

[Mighty AC]

You spend way too much time in enviro-cult eco-chambers. If coal reserves stay in the ground it will only be because a technology like natural gas or nuclear eliminate the need.

Carbon based energy assets, still in the ground, represent significant portions of the net worth of fossil fuel companies. The beginning of the shift away from carbon based energy is already devaluing these assets, which is a serious concern for the fossil fuel sector. Long term future assets that will never be used, can quickly become worthless. HSBC is already warning clients of fossil fuel investment risks.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Argus]

It was a Greenpeace analysis, China's numbers have been legit in the past, massive amounts of green generating capacity have actually been built and they really have been closing coal mines. So it seems legit.

China has been experiencing economic setbacks over the last few years. That may well mean C02 emissions are down temporarily, but they are still building coal fired generating station for future growth, and once the economy rebounds you're going to see them in use.

ndia has gone from refusing to participate, to actually quantifying commitments. They have started to build solar capacity and have planned a massive reforestation project.

Nothing I have seen of India inclines me to believe they will put any kind of real effort or money into fighting C02. They won't even clean the garbage and human excrement from their own city streets! And their new government is all business, all the time, focused on building the economy, which, btw, requires a lot of new power plants.

The moves by either of these two countries utterly dwarfs any conceivable improvement Canada can make in world C02 emissions.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

The box fossil fuel shills live in is shrinking at an accelerating rate. Coal assets are being devalued as the world moves toward a carbon neutral future. You and the anti-science crowd are being left behind.

More than 1000 coal fired power plants in the planning in dozens of countries.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources-institute

Edited May 27, 2015 by Argus