What's the best deal the US (and other countries) could get with C

[Vega]

In your opinion (and other experts), what do you think is the best deal the US can get with China on Climate Change? Fine if the deal would take a good bit of convincing.

[TimG]

In your opinion (and other experts), what do you think is the best deal the US can get with China on Climate Change? Fine if the deal would take a good bit of convincing.

China only cares about real pollution like smog and if combating real pollution has a side effect of reducing CO2 it will do that. It has also stated it will make no effort to actually reduce emissions until it feels its economy has grown enough. They say 2030 for emissions to peek but if growth is not enough by that time they will repudiate that target and keep emitting.

The only thing that will change that is a cost effective CO2 emission free energy source that provides power where and when it is needed. There is nothing current generation of technology that solves this problem.

[dre]

China only cares about real pollution like smog and if combating real pollution has a side effect of reducing CO2 it will do that. It has also stated it will make no effort to actually reduce emissions until it feels its economy has grown enough. They say 2030 for emissions to peek but if growth is not enough by that time they will repudiate that target and keep emitting.

Of course. Why would China cap its emissions at 6 tons when the US makes 17 and Russia makes 12.

[waldo]

In your opinion (and other experts), what do you think is the best deal the US can get with China on Climate Change? Fine if the deal would take a good bit of convincing.

November 11, 2014: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change

September 25, 2015: FACT SHEET: The United States and China Issue Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change with New Domestic Policy Commitments and a Common Vision for an Ambitious Global Climate Agreement in Paris

China's submission to the UNFCCC... as a part of global nations "Paris Contributions" in regards to the upcoming Paris COP meetings:

[bush_cheney2004]

China hasn't even figured out how to curb air pollution emissions....something the U.S. did many decades ago. Cough...cough.

[waldo]

China hasn't even figured out how to curb air pollution emissions....something the U.S. did many decades ago. Cough...cough.

hey now... good on ya for highlighting the heavy industrialization path the U.S. had to manage... apparently, that U.S. Clean Air Act had teeth, hey! And now, China is in the midst of a "like" path... and is working towards the required air clean-up... details of which have been provided in prior (other thread) posts.

[TimG]

Of course. Why would China cap its emissions at 6 tons when the US makes 17 and Russia makes 12.

A cap that it plans to ignore until 2030. A lot can happen between then and now. Maybe new tech appears to make compliance easy. Or maybe it finds out making promises is easy - keeping them is much harder. Policies based on "caps" with no viable plan for how they can be reached are policies for idiots looking to boost their egos which the illusion of action.

Look at the US: the only reason it managed to meet its kyoto promises was because of a completely unexpected bonanza of natural gas. If that had not appeared its "caps" would have been ignored. That says nothing good about the ability of bureaucrats to control emissions with policies.

Edited September 29, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

A cap that it plans to ignore until 2030.

absolute nonsense! You can't presume to meet a peak target by sitting and doing nothing until that peak is reached.

[waldo]

Look at the US: the only reason it managed to meet its kyoto promises was because of a completely unexpected bonanza of natural gas. If that had not appeared its "caps" would have been ignored. That says nothing good about the ability of bureaucrats to control emissions with policies.

uhhh... the U.S. turned it back on it's signed commitment to the world community... the U.S. refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty. Nice try though!

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada actually ratified the stoopid Kyoto Protocol treaty...then proceeded to blow it off anyway. Now that's leadership !

[waldo]

Canada actually ratified the stoopid Kyoto Protocol treaty...then proceeded to blow it off anyway. Now that's leadership !

good on ya for highlighting exactly what Harper did! He, as you say, unofficially "blew it (Kyoto) off"... in favour of what he labeled his "made in Canada solution". Of course, that was the first of the Harper Conservative failures in meeting formally stated emission reduction targets. And, of course, it was Harper that finally, formally and officially (in 2010), withdrew Canada from Kyoto... to avoid the $17 million penalty that was due for Canada (for Harper Conservatives) failing to meet Canada's Kyoto pledge.

[Shady]

good on ya for highlighting exactly what Harper did! He, as you say, unofficially "blew it (Kyoto) off"... in favour of what he labeled his "made in Canada solution". Of course, that was the first of the Harper Conservative failures in meeting formally stated emission reduction targets. And, of course, it was Harper that finally, formally and officially (in 2010), withdrew Canada from Kyoto... to avoid the $17 million penalty that was due for Canada (for Harper Conservatives) failing to meet Canada's Kyoto pledge.

What Harper did? You mean the Chrétien/Martin Liberals.

[waldo]

What Harper did? You mean the Chrétien/Martin Liberals.

I'd stop right there Shady... you clearly know nothing of the history of Kyoto within Canada. Oh wait, perhaps you can actually step-up and support your statement - yes?

[Shady]

1997 - 2005, Harper's fault!!! Lol.

[waldo]

1997 - 2005, Harper's fault!!! Lol.

I've documented it in detail in prior MLW posts... I've documented exactly what the Liberals did, what they spent and what they laid the foundation for, and what the plans were at the point Harper took the keys and proceeded to ignore/dismantle everything the Liberals had done. As I said, perhaps you can actually step-up and support your statement - yes?

[bush_cheney2004]

1997 - 2005, Harper's fault!!! Lol.

Chretien blamed Martin...Martin blamed Chretien....now they want to blame Harper !

[Shady]

I've documented it in detail in prior MLW posts... I've documented exactly what the Liberals did, what they spent and what they laid the foundation for, and what the plans were at the point Harper took the keys and proceeded to ignore/dismantle everything the Liberals had done. As I said, perhaps you can actually step-up and support your statement - yes?

Did it take long for Harper to dismantle nothing?

[waldo]

Chretien blamed Martin...Martin blamed Chretien....now they want to blame Harper !

your revisionism is noted! Of course, your ongoing play is to belittle Kyoto at each and every point you can... to say it is/was useless... and then, somehow, get all concerned about Canada not meeting its Kyoto pledge! And for some strange reason, you (again focused on Canada) manage to actually ignore the Harper actions in regards to Kyoto. And... of course... I can't let an equal opportunity pass to remind you of the, as you're so fond of speaking to, the real Kyoto failure was the U.S. - you know, as I often reply to you in regards the efforts the U.S. put forward in structuring the Kyoto treaty, the efforts the U.S. put towards negotiating with other countries to accept Kyoto commitments, the efforts the U.S. put towards signing the treaty... only to have the U.S. turn its back on the world community of nations and refuse to ratify everything it had worked towards and all the influence it brought toward Kyoto...

[waldo]

Did it take long for Harper to dismantle nothing?

I'm not reading any details/specifics from you Shady! Is there a problem... for you?

Edited September 30, 2015 by waldo

[Shady]

I'm not reading any details/specifics from you Shady! Is there a problem... for you?

You want specifics on how Harper dismantled nothing?

[ReeferMadness]

Harper likes to brag that emissions have gone down (2%) under his watch. If he's taking credit, here are the things he needs to take credit for:

• the 2008 recession
• BC's carbon tax
• Ontario's decommissioning of coal fired plants
• Quebec's cap and trade system

Seems just a wee bit hypocritical.

[waldo]

You want specifics on how Harper dismantled nothing?

you can continue your charade... or you can step-up and support your unsubstantiated statements concerning your comments on the Liberal party actions/intents/plans to support Canada's Kyoto commitment. Your choice.

[waldo]

Harper likes to brag that emissions have gone down (2%) under his watch.

of course, the amounts in question are minimal in terms of actual reduction levels... simply a reflection of how little Harper Conservatives have done. And by the literal comparison of that most minimal change, Harper continues to outright lie, as he did in the most recent Munk debate just days ago:

Per the most recent Canadian National Inventory Submission to the UNFCCC (April 17, 2015):

726 Megatonnes of CO2 equivalent (Mt CO₂ eq)

Per the Canadian National Inventory Submission to the UNFCCC (April 9, 2008... presenting data for 2006): 721 Megatonnes of CO2 equivalent (Mt CO₂ eq)

of course, the real Harper failures... repeated failures... reflect upon the many formal commitments he has made to reduce Canada's emission levels - commitments made to the world community and then outright ignored.

[Michael Hardner]

... or you can step-up and support your unsubstantiated statements concerning your comments on the Liberal party actions/intents/plans to support Canada's Kyoto commitment.

Out of curiosity, I looked for related material on this point.

Jeffrey Simpson:

Like all governments, Liberal and Conservative, since the Kyoto Protocol was signed by the Jean Chrétien government in 1990, the Harper government announces targets for GHG reductions and then misses them by a mile. The Chrétien and Martin governments were just as bad as the Harper government has been for the past nine years. Nothing suggests the target announced by Ms. Aglukkaq on Friday will be any more credible than anything else Canada has promised for a quarter of a century. Canada is justly known in international climate-change circles as a cross between a hypocrite and a deadbeat.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/an-unambitious-emissions-target-we-wont-even-hit/article24490986/

Mentions about Paul Martin's policies in related articles yielded:

The One-Tonne Challenge Wikpedia:

The One-Tonne Challenge was a challenge presented by the Government of Canada in March 2004 for Canadians to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by one tonne each year. The figure represents 20% of total greenhouse gas output by Canadians and aimed to help the country reach its Kyoto Protocol emission reduction targets. The Liberal Government under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin approved over $45 million to fund the program from 2003 to 2006.[1]

To promote this program, the government had placed television and print ads featuring comedian Rick Mercer. In one commercial, he describes Canadians as wanting to take the challenge. "C’mon... we’re Canadian... we’re up for a challenge!"

The program has received a lukewarm reception from the public, having been criticized as ineffective and wasteful.

This program was started by Liberal Party of Canada. However, as of the election of Stephen Harper's Conservative Government, the One Tonne Challenge had been scrapped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Tonne_Challenge

The Canadian Encyclopedia has just one line about Martin's leadership in this area:

On climate change, he supports meeting our Kyoto targets and making sure Alberta's oil patch and the Atlantic offshore don't pay the price.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/paul-martins-accomplishments/

Depending on whether you think that agreeing to targets are "action", I think it's reasonable to state that there was a lack of action from these governments.

[Rue]

That was very helpful Monsieur Hardner. Thank you. It meshes with my two cents that no government in Canada can take credit for anything and trying to blamr it simply on Harper is not accurate.

That said I thinkt he cap and trade system is defective. China is able to buy its way out of conformity and any country can trade its responsibilities to another country like a baseball card.

To me it makes no sense. It provides China a huge advantage.

Bottom line, anytime countries try organize a world effort, it gets bogged down in individual country agendas trying to exempt themselves from that world effort and it fails.

The cold reality is if anyone thinks they can enforce any standard in India or China in terms of air emissions and pollution is deluded.

Other countries can take initiatives but it may provide unintended advantages to China and India.