Moonlight Graham Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 She has delusions of grandeur. These summits are a complete waste of the time that offer no "solutions" to the stated problem and only seek to exploit it as a means to extort money from developed countries in order to fill Swiss bank accounts of third world dictators. What do you mean by this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) She said that the Harper government made her "an environmental refugee." That's a ridiculous over-exaggeration by May. Edited October 25, 2015 by Moonlight Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 Thing is, if the world is going to reduce GHG emissions, it needs to be led by the big producers, like China, US, Russia, India. China produces between 1/3 and 1/4 of the world's CO2, and twice as much as even the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) What do you mean by this?CO2 reduction "targets" are a joke. Smart countries will promise targets that they will meet anyway with no additional effort (e.g. China). Dumb countries (e.g. Trudeau's Canada) make promises that are completely implausible and have to repudiate them later. Meanwhile the developing world faces no limits and their emission continue to grow. The net result is the emission reductions which are claimed to be "necessary" won't happen and we will end up having to adapt anyways. Furthermore, the developing world wants trillions handed over to them from developed world to "compensate" them for past emissions. Handing over free money is recipe for corruption in even in relatively well governed countries like Canada. Handing these kinds of sums to a corrupt organization like the UN which then disburses them to corrupt 3rd world regimes simply ensures that next to none of the money will be spent on the intended purpose. So far promises are made but no one honours them which makes a mockery of the process. In the unlikely event that these promises are kept it will come at the cost of cutting all of the foreign aid budgets because voters will simply not tolerate being force to accept service cuts and tax hikes to funnel money overseas no matter how noble the nominal justification. Edited October 25, 2015 by TimG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 I'm looking forward to what comes out of the Paris summit. Finally we have someone who understands, or at least listen's to what the scientists have to say, and he's actually going show up at a summit on the world stage, and take along a multi party group so as to at least try to rise above the politicizing of such an important issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) CO2 reduction "targets" are a joke. Smart countries will promise targets that they will meet anyway with no additional effort (e.g. China). Dumb countries (e.g. Trudeau's Canada) make promises that are completely implausible and have to repudiate them later. Meanwhile the developing world faces no limits and their emission continue to grow. Trudeau hasn't made any specific target promises I'm aware of, but I guess supports carbon pricing. From the OP article: "During the election campaign, Trudeau steered clear of setting a target, arguing that setting targets that are never met is pointless. He promised instead to work with premiers to develop a national "framework to combat climate change," supporting the different measures provinces have already taken to put a price on carbon." The net result is the emission reductions which are claimed to be "necessary" won't happen and we will end up having to adapt anyways. Well I agree with that for sure. What's clearly going to happen is what's already been happening, which is that virtually nobody is really going to do anything that will hurt their economy in any significant way, and countries will only act when AGW is severe enough where it's negatively affecting the big producers, and by that time it will be too late. The only way AGW will be stopped is if some clean technology happens to come along that will be cheaper than fossil fuels and largely replaces its use, which at this point looks unlikely. Although given the trillions we spend on wars to secure oil interests, green energy is cheaper than we think. Edited October 25, 2015 by Moonlight Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Trudeau hasn't made any specific target promises I'm aware of, but I guess supports carbon pricing.To be fair I am being pessimistic. Trudeau will either be realistic which means he will be criticized for "not doing enough" or he will make faux promises that need to be repudiated by a future government. How he handles this trip will tell as a lot about what to expect in the next 4 years. BTW: I support BC style carbon taxes despite my contempt for the IPCC/UN and the belief that CO2 is a overblown concern. Although given the trillions we spend on wars to secure oil interests, green energy is cheaper than we think.Except we don't need to do that anymore because North America is self sufficient in oil and gas. Edited October 25, 2015 by TimG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 To be fair I am being pessimistic. Trudeau will either be a realistic which means he will be criticized for "not doing enough" or he will make faux promises that need to be repudiated by a future government. How he handles this trip will tell as a lot about what to expect in the next 4 years. BTW: I support BC style carbon taxes despite my contempt for the IPCC/UN and the belief that CO2 is a overblown concern. Except we don't need to do that anymore because North America is self sufficient in oil and gas. And so I guess you think the so called self sufficiency (which I question) in any case will never run out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 BTW: I support BC style carbon taxes despite my contempt for the IPCC/UN and the belief that CO2 is a overblown concern. Interesting, how do BC-style carbon taxes work? Except we don't need to do that anymore because North America is self sufficient in oil and gas. Yes but governments will still feel the need to control the global supply and therefore price of oil. We've seen our current recession & oil glut spearheaded by Saudi Arabia that the ME still has great control on our oil interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Interesting, how do BC-style carbon taxes work?Tax all CO2 emissions but reduce income taxes to ensure no additional revenue is collected. No targets. No carbon trading. No renewable mandates. I also only support at a provincial level because it becomes an interprovincial wealth transfer if done nationally. Edited October 25, 2015 by TimG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 I'm pleasantly shocked. Even if it's posturing, it will be hard for him to move away from this symbolic gesture moving forward. I know. It's called leadership - and it's something we haven't seen in this country for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 This premier thing is a load off bullshit. Fly all the Premiers to Paris to have a great party? At that flight length, they all will be expensing business class. No real targets yet, but hey, let's fly all the Premiers in, stay in expensive hotels and to charge the taxpayers for all of it. Complete and utter bullshit. The LPC at it again, wasting taxpayer money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 You do understand that the Airforce will be flying Trudeau on a CC-150, right? He'll probably take the premiers with him. They may have to go light on the staff, but oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) You do understand that the Airforce will be flying Trudeau on a CC-150, right? He'll probably take the premiers with him. They may have to go light on the staff, but oh well. Even if this is the case, that means all the Premiers will have to fly when it's convenient for Trudeau to fly, and even if this is the case, the Premiers still have to get to YOW. What, you expect all the Premiers to share a room with Trudeau too? Premiers don't fly in Y, only J. Edited October 25, 2015 by angrypenguin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 You're just upset I killed most of your complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 You're just upset I killed most of your complaint. Umm no. We don't know how the Premiers will be getting there. I suspect multiple J tickets and that they won't all be flying on the CC150. I can't even imagine that that aircraft has the range for all of those Premiers and their luggage to fly from YOW to CDG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) It's an Airbus A310-300 with around 100 seats (usually 194, but not with the executive suite installed). Even so, there's always Iceland. Most will go with Trudeau. Some won't. Edited October 25, 2015 by Smallc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 It certainly has range to spare but whether it has enough seats will depend on how many flunkies they take with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 It's an Airbus A310-300 with around 100 seats (usually 194, but not with the executive suite installed). Even so, there's always Iceland. Most will go with Trudeau. Some won't. Exec suite? It has one? What does it look like? The 310 AFAIK has never made a technical stop on TATLs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 These are ex Wardair machines that came from Canadian Airlines after the two were merged. They were modified for the RCAF. Wardair used to operate them from London to Vancouver non stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 These are ex Wardair machines that came from Canadian Airlines after the two were merged. They were modified for the RCAF. Wardair used to operate them from London to Vancouver non stop. Source? I'm a huge plane buff, so I thought i'd ask Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 Source? I'm a huge plane buff, so I thought i'd ask https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_CC-150_Polaris I also personally know this for a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 Umm no. We don't know how the Premiers will be getting there. I suspect multiple J tickets and that they won't all be flying on the CC150. I can't even imagine that that aircraft has the range for all of those Premiers and their luggage to fly from YOW to CDG. Plenty of range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_CC-150_Polaris I also personally know this for a fact. This is cool!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 These summits are a complete waste of the time that offer no "solutions" to the stated problem and only seek to exploit it as a means to extort money from developed countries in order to fill Swiss bank accounts of third world dictators. care to offer past examples of same... and the practical mechanisms of how such "exploit seeking" have been... or, in the future, could be... carried out? Considering the long established UNFCCC COP focus on a 'funding mechanism'... and given the highly contentious area of exchange between developing versus developed countries in that regard, there is clearly no absence, no lack of attention, to ensure a fully transparent, accountable and audited practice exists to cover financial disbursements --- UNFCCC Review of the Financial Mechanism as the principal focus on financial disbursement is towards adaptation measures for developing nations, one that aligns with your ever prevalent 'Adapt-R-Us-Only' positioning, it is odd that you would speak of "time wasting... no solutions". Oh wait, that's right, aren't you the guy who has suggested/implied developing countries aren't "owed" any monies in spite of the influence developed countries have had in fostering/imposing the impacts of climate change upon them? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts