Canadians want government to meet Kyoto targets

[jbg]

Ok, forest fires, here goes. From what I know about forests, they consist of live plants, and also decaying plants. Decaying plants release methane gas, a highly potent greenhouse gas. Live ones are carbon sinks, intaking CO2 and releasing O2.

When a forest fire comes through, it clears out a lot of decaying matter, and also a lot of living plant matter, releasing a large amount of trapped carbon and water vapour. This results in a huge spike in greenhouse gas emissions. After the fire passes, new growth takes the place of the old growth, and starts to sink away carbon again. This may be at a faster rate than before due to the youth of the new plants, and their accelerated growth. (I have no idea how rapidly this offsets the releases due to fire, but logically it has to balance out over time.)

I hope someone who knows more than I on this subject will correct me if I am mistaken.

I think you have it pretty much right.

[gerryhatrick]

People who get all caught up in the "global warming" and the need for "Kyoto" and the necessity for Canada to do something, seem to forget that Canada only contributes to 6% of the world's problem.

Yea,yea, I know we have to do our part, and we will with a made in Canada policy.

But the reality of the situation is,some become obsessed with blaming the wrong governments to do the major reducing of pollution.

That's a cop-out. Assuming your number is correct....that's 6% of the greenhouse gas from .05% of the population.

It's immature to say we're only 6% and therefore we're the "wrong government" to focus on. We need to lead by example, and Harper is failing us miserably in that regard. You seen to think this "made in Canada" policy will address Global Warming in some significant way, but the previews have been telling us that it's more focussed on clean air and water.

As per the little focus group he paid for, Harper thinks he can get away without doing all that much on Global Warming.

[cybercoma]

People who get all caught up in the "global warming" and the need for "Kyoto" and the necessity for Canada to do something, seem to forget that Canada only contributes to 6% of the world's problem.

Yea,yea, I know we have to do our part, and we will with a made in Canada policy.

But the reality of the situation is,some become obsessed with blaming the wrong governments to do the major reducing of pollution.

That's a cop-out. Assuming your number is correct....that's 6% of the greenhouse gas from .05% of the population.

It's immature to say we're only 6% and therefore we're the "wrong government" to focus on. We need to lead by example, and Harper is failing us miserably in that regard. You seen to think this "made in Canada" policy will address Global Warming in some significant way, but the previews have been telling us that it's more focussed on clean air and water.

As per the little focus group he paid for, Harper thinks he can get away without doing all that much on Global Warming.

So you're saying we should be more like the larger percentage of the world's population who don't live in first world manufacturing nations?

Shut the doors to all industry. We're polluting the environment. We should only pollute as much as, say...Ethiopia.

[Charles Anthony]

You guys are all missing the boat. Up above:

Most rightwing people realize that Canada's health system doesn't work well because we've tried to abolish market laws - it appears to be free to patients.

Well, there is no market for the environment. It's literally a free-for-all. The environment is like communism. Private ownership doesn't exist. And that's a recipe for disaster, as the Soviet Union made plain.

the solution has been clearly illustrated.

Until anybody figures out a way to create a stable market for the environment, there will be no solution. In fact, I would also say that ONCE a real market for the environment is created, there will be less need to know anything about water vapor or carbon dioxide or forest fires or greenhouses. Much like expensive suits: very few people need to know how they are made but everybody makes sure they get them to the dry-cleaners on time.

Now would someone care to have a go at the forest fire argument?

Why bother??? All you have to do is identify whether the forests and the environment are treated like they are free commodities.

Ok, forest fires, here goes. From what I know about forests,

Why bother???

I hope someone who knows more than I on this subject will correct me if I am mistaken.

What difference does it make??? Would you expect everybody who buys a house to know everything about building construction???

Shut the doors to all industry. We're polluting the environment.

No, we do not have to shut down industry at all. We have to figure out a way to incorporate a cost of the environment into their production or preferably whatever they sell. Not an easy task. Effectively, the environment must be "sell-able" : i.e. somebody must be able to own and transfer ownership, similar to real estate.

Think of your frontyard: do you need to know everything about your property to protect it? No. Do your neighbors need to know everything about your property to respect it? No.

You will likely protect your property and make sure that you maintain curb appeal so that the value of your property does not drop. You will also likely buy home insurance and security service and regular appliance maintenance contracts to out-source things that you can not do -- all because you repsect what you own and because after you pass (or retire or move) you want it to continue to maintain value.

[Argus]

People who get all caught up in the "global warming" and the need for "Kyoto" and the necessity for Canada to do something, seem to forget that Canada only contributes to 6% of the world's problem.

Yea,yea, I know we have to do our part, and we will with a made in Canada policy.

But the reality of the situation is,some become obsessed with blaming the wrong governments to do the major reducing of pollution.

That's a cop-out. Assuming your number is correct....that's 6% of the greenhouse gas from .05% of the population.

You want us to live in the bush with no electricity and no cars so we can be as environmentally friendly as Borneo?

[watching&waiting]

There once was a figure of just how much filtering of pollutants a full grown trees does in a single day. I am not able to remember exactly the amount, but it was a very high number. Now it only goes to show that for every grown tree you cut down or burn in a forest fire, that not only will thta reduce the amount filtered, but in the case of forest fire it will also release very high concentrations of green house gases. Therefore it only goes to show you that the quicker the forest fires are put out the beter for the environment. As for whether then under growth will decay and such also giving off gases, the answer is yes but it will feed the new growth of trees again filtering increased capacity. This is why we all have heard so much about the rainforsest and the loss of filtering ability with its destruction. Same theory just different areas of the globe. Canada does not have rain forests, but we do have very large temporate forests, and because of this we filter much of the pollutants we produce. Probably more then we do produce when all is said and done.

The use of trees within our cities, would make for some very interesting changes in just how much pollution we could filter out of the air. If every home was to have one tree in its front lawn and one in the back, I am sure it would more then filter the poolution that a family car would produce in its daily drives. Those with apartment balconies can have potted ferns etc.. If you have ever gone into a green house when it is in bloom, you can feel the air is refreshing, not only due to the flower flagrances but because it is rich in oxygen.

So there is two ways to look at the pollution problem. One is to reduce the emmissions at the sources at a very high costs, and in many case it just can not be done. Or two increase the ability for the ecosystem to filter out the pollutants that are produced. I would like to see a combination of both happen. Kyoto does nothing to take in the fact that pollutants can be naturally filtered, and is all for the reduction of the pollutants at the source. That is why it will fail and it also is not valid as it leaves out one whole side of the pollution equation. Canada when you take in our vast land mass and our forests, we probably are a negative producing nation, when all is considered. But we need to also understand that if we are not careful we can and will soon not be that way. The USA needs to again allow reforestation of much of its vacant lands, and if they do this, they will be capable of reducing their contributing factor by a large degree. If you have ever been to Europe you will see that most of the lands are farmlands, and yes while even crop growth does some filtering, it is nowhere near what trees will be capable of. They need to plant trees along field borders and maybe even along streets and road ways. Many of their cities just do not have the room for large trees, so they will have to call on the farmers and rural owners to help to their parts. If we all did this, we would have a world that would now be capable of filtering out much of the bad gases we produce. But we still would need technology to also help us filter out these things at the source as well.

[fellowtraveller]

Speaking of forest fires......

The case I heard was along the lines of: one forest fire in Alberta releases about the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as all the fossil fuels burned in one year in the entire province from all sources: auto, home, industrial.

There are on average 200 significant fires in Alberta per year. Nearly all are caused by lightning, very few by man (every lightning strike is observed by satellite, so the source of the fire is documented).

Of course, with global warming - and hotter, drier weather - there should be both more fires and a slower recovery from them with less precipitation.

The ratio of CO2 released naturally to CO2 released by man would be much much higher in places like Yukon and NWT, where huge fires often burn unchecked.

So perhaps there is some credence to fighting fires to prevent release of greenhouse gases....... then again not allowing the forest to burn occasionally changes that ecological balance dramatically since fire is a natural occurence anyway and necessary for the health of the ecosystem.....

You just can't win.

[M.Dancer]

Speaking of forest fires......

The case I heard was along the lines of: one forest fire in Alberta releases about the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere as all the fossil fuels burned in one year in the entire province from all sources: auto, home, industrial.

Sounds like spurious anecdotal non evidence...since when is a Forest fire a finite measurable unit? I seem to recall forest fires came in all sizes; local CBC news, regional CBC news, provincial CBC news and national CBC news ......

It would also be irrelevant non evidence as that forest fires of all sizes have been occuring since time began.....so given that forest fires are with us always....what accounts for the prodigious rise in co2?

[Electric Monk]

If you think about it a bit, you'll realise that forest fires have a zero net impact if the forest is allowed to regrow, it ends up sinking the same amount of carbon away in the long term as was released in the short term forest fire. It's a cyclical thing, neccesary for healthy plant growth.

[rover1]

Well, yes it is a cyclical thing, but it is much more complicated than that.

There are a lot of well intentioned but incorrect statements being made here. If fact Canada contributes less than 2% of greenhouse gases to the world supply. If Canada were to eliminate all CO2 emissions today, a clearly impossible task, it would make no difference to global warming now or in the future. In fact, if the whole world stopped emitting CO2 today, again clearly impossible, what is happening now, and what is scheduled to happen for the approx next 15 years would remain the same because of the heat sink properties of the world's oceans and the release of the stored heat in them. But Canada and the world cannot stop emissions by even a much lesser percentage, in part because not all emissions are man made.

There is indeed respectable scientific opinion that the green house gases are mostly other than man made, but I have to say that these opinions are in the minority.

Most scientists believe that man has been increasingly emitting excess CO2 since about 1790 with the advent of the industrial revolution, and that lately the concentration measured in parts per million, ppm, has reached or is reaching a critical point insofar as climate is concerned. Hence all the dire predictions and projections we have seen in the last several years.

My own view, should you wonder, is that most likely man made activity has or will affect weather and climate in a negative way. Although Canada might well benefit from some of the changes, much of the rest of the world will likely suffer, to one degree or another. In other words, I agree with the majority of the scientists, on a balance of probilities basis.

Knowing what the problem is, even as imprecisely as we do, and coming up with a workable solution, are two different things, however.

It is accepted that in 1790 atmospheric CO2 was about 175 ppm,and that presently it is about 250 ppm. The 2001 IPCC report, which took several years to compile, and which states virtually all the accepted scientific knowledge of the subject, proposes that if stabilisation were to take place at 450 ppm, the most serious damage might be avoided, although quite a few of the dire predictions would still take place. This is a guess, of course, but it is the best guess we have.

In order to achieve the 450 ppm figure by 2100, CO2 emissions would have to be reduced by over 50% of the 1990 rate. 50%+ is the most optimistic estimate, most likely it would be more, and David Suzuki thinks it is more like 80%, as do many others.

Such reductions are physically impossible to achieve, and even if they were somehow achievable physically, they are clearly impossible to achieve politically. No democratic government could get elected or stay in office if they proposed the measures, let alone tried to enforce the measures necessary to come to even half the figure, owing to the extreme financial dislocation involved for all their citizens. Developing countries simply haven't the resources to enforce this sort of thing, even at a lower level.

So where does Kyoto figure in all this? Well, nobody who really knows about it thinks that Kyoto will do anything, nor was it meant to. It was simply done as a compromise, 'to show the developing world that were were sincere' in the hopes that they would then cooperate. The idea was that after 2012, the whole world would then join in, and make the necessary reductions somehow. The facts are however, that after 2012 or any other time it is not going to happen, according to the best scientific knowledge we have. But the public do not understand this.

Most who are aware of the present state of knowledge of this are hoping that some new, yet undiscovered, technology will save us, but if they are wrong, we shall just have to adapt. Perhaps those who think that things are not nearly as bad as imagined, will turn out to be right, let's hope so.

[watching&waiting]

If you think about it a bit, you'll realise that forest fires have a zero net impact if the forest is allowed to regrow, it ends up sinking the same amount of carbon away in the long term as was released in the short term forest fire. It's a cyclical thing, neccesary for healthy plant growth.

Do you have any idea of just how long it takes a forest to regrow trees the the size that will filter pollutants in large volumes? I have a tree farm and it is now 28 years of growth and the trees are now large enough to be considered as good filters, but are still about half of what would be considered mature trees. So after a forest fire you will have at least 10-15 years before you start getting trees to be of any great size and twice that long to get to half of what mature trees can filter. So yes eventually the reforestation will again filter polllutants, but it will take about 30 years to do so. Remember that the age of a tree is done by counting its rings. With the average ring being .25 inches that means the width of a tree increase .5 inches each year. So after 30 years it is apprx 15 inches in diameter. You can go on further and work ourt its size doing the same formula. Canada is not like the rain forests that regrow trees etc at about 5 times the rate. Here it takes much longer to grow trees, even the poplar tress that grow like weeds but are on of the fasts growing trees in Canada, take about 2/3 the time to grow as other deciduos or evergreen varieties.

[Hicksey]

You beat me to the punch most Canucks I talk to don't have a clue about Kyoto. Sure they are worried about pollution and think Kyoto is the b all to end all, they havn't read up on it. What very few canucks are aware of is the purchase of credits and that Kyoto is really about distributing wealth.

I'll pick on Southern Comfort, although everyone else seems to be using the "Canadians are ignorant about Kyoto argument".

Well, so what! Most Canadians are ignorant about all kinds of arcane issues, but that doesn't stop them having an opinion, and often an intelligent opinion.

It is obvious that Canadians are concerned about the environment and want the government to do something about it.

I took the trouble of finding the wording of the question used in the poll:

As you may know, the international Kyoto agreement to address “global warming” requires countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For Canada that means cutting emissions from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas to 6 percent below 1990 levels, over the next 10 years. Do you support or oppose Canada adopting the Kyoto agreement? PROBE: Is that strongly or somewhat …?

Link (Admittedly, that was a 2002 poll but McAllister's web site explains that they pose the same question to track responses.)

To that question, 77% of Canadians answered either "strongly support" or "somewhat support". You are foolish to dismiss this by saying that Canadians don't know what they are saying. I'm sure Harper is not so foolish as you.

Compared to Afghanistan, this is an issue that could determine who will form the next government.

----

BTW, the poll linked in the OP was conducted in July 2006. Why is it now in the news?

I disagree. While most people know of Kyoto, almost nobody really understands it, or more importantly what adhering to it would cost them from their everyday existence. If that was detailed, I too think that the results of the poll would be much different. As it stands, the question states about as much as the average person knows about Kyoto.

The issue isn't that people support things that will destroy our environment. Everyone I know wants to keep it clean. But they also acknowledge that the environment isn't the only important issue of the day and it has to be balanced with our economy and health care as an issue of the day. If we institute what would be needed to achieve the target we would decimate our economy and eliminate the resulting tax revenue that supports our health care system.

Kyoto is not a solution. But I whole heartedly agree that there should be worldwide targets. They should be reasonable, but the solutions should be home-grown ones so that each country has the flexibility to reach them without systematically destroying itself.

L(l)iberals tell the public that conservatives don't care about the environment and would willingly accept its demise for a dollar. That is simply not true. We care too. We're just realistic about what we can achieve.

[Electric Monk]

This site has a pretty good explanation of the carbon cycle in a forest during various stages of growth. Apparently a mature forest no longer absorbs more carbon than it releases, but is in equilibrium. Once equilibrium is reached, there is no more net storage of carbon. If the forest regrows to the equilibrium point after a forest fire has gone through, there is no net loss in the amount of carbon stored.

Incidentally, the more dead fuel accumulates on the forest floor between fires (more time between forest fires), the more damaging and severe the next fire will be, and more animals (humans too!) and larger trees will die. This has given rise to the modern policy of fire management, rather than the all-out "war on fire" of years past.

I think this is the last post I'm going to make in this thread on forest fires, if we continue I think it should be in another thread.

[Charles Anthony]

If there is a forest fire, we should put out the fire. Is it that simple?

This site has a pretty good explanation of the carbon cycle in a forest during various stages of growth.

Interesting but unfortunately it provides ZERO incite on how to protect the environment in the real world.

[rover1]

If I may be forgiven for commenting on forests, I do think that their inclusion in the discussion, including some reference to fires, is on topic.

A few years ago, a nine year study on the Amazon Rain Forest was completed, with surprising results. It had been generally held, up to that time , that forests and rain forests in particular, formed a kind of carbon sink, which removed CO2 from the atmosphere, and injected oxygen, amounting to a net reduction of greenhouse gases. There had been severe criticism of Daniel K Ludwig and others like him, who were busy cutting down the forest for various reasons, on the basis that they were destroying this protective effect.

The results of the study, done by scientists of high repute in the field, and eagerly awaited by environmentalists everywhere, showed that contrary to the popular belief, the Amazon Forest, was actually a net contributor to greenhouse gases by a small amount. This was a large disappointment, and had and has large implications in the field.

[yam]

yes,

you need to site who and what company sponsored the research . Im not saying this to be akward but sponsors of scietific research often clash due to the sponsors longer and larger interests.

You did say that the rain forest was a "net contributor to greenhouse gases by a small ammount" - im not sure what you are trying to tell us here. . . .concerning quantities?

[Argus]

In order to achieve the 450 ppm figure by 2100, CO2 emissions would have to be reduced by over 50% of the 1990 rate. 50%+ is the most optimistic estimate, most likely it would be more, and David Suzuki thinks it is more like 80%, as do many others.

Such reductions are physically impossible to achieve, and even if they were somehow achievable physically, they are clearly impossible to achieve politically. No democratic government could get elected or stay in office if they proposed the measures, let alone tried to enforce the measures necessary to come to even half the figure, owing to the extreme financial dislocation involved for all their citizens.

And yet, Layton insists Canada must cuts its emissions by 30% over the next few years in order to meet its Kyoto target. He doesn't say how, of course. Or what it would cost.

And I might add, the media seems to be uncritically accepting the calls for us to meet Kyoto - somehow. I've seen no criticism of Layton or the Liberals whining about Kyoto except from a few conservative commentators.

[rover1]

yes,

you need to site who and what company sponsored the research . Im not saying this to be akward but sponsors of scietific research often clash due to the sponsors longer and larger interests.

You did say that the rain forest was a "net contributor to greenhouse gases by a small ammount" - im not sure what you are trying to tell us here. . . .concerning quantities?

I regret to say that I cannot find the study in question at the moment, but as I recall, it was not commercially sponsored, rather was by several universities. I am looking for it, and will reference it when I find it. In the meantime, here is a BBC report on similar studies. I hope this helps.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3246938.stm

[gerryhatrick]

And yet, Layton insists Canada must cuts its emissions by 30% over the next few years in order to meet its Kyoto target. He doesn't say how, of course. Or what it would cost.

And yet, the Conservatives and all their friends in the oil sector and rightwing thinktanks with their so-called "scientists" claim that action under Kyoto (or global warming action in general) will cost us dearly...hurt our economy.

They don't say how, of course.

And I might add, the media seems to be uncritically accepting the calls for us to meet Kyoto - somehow. I've seen no criticism of Layton or the Liberals whining about Kyoto except from a few conservative commentators.

Quite whining about the media for not being critical of Kyoto. They're the ones who've for years reported that Global Warming is still uncertain or under debate. Whine about that if you want to whine. Whine about all the times Tim Ball and Bob Carter and other lying scum have been given editorial page space....so amazingly out of proportion to all the honest scientists who aren't being funded by oil companies.

What a joke...what a sick bizarre joke that anyone would complain the media is being complicit in support of a Global Warming issue.

[Argus]

And yet, Layton insists Canada must cuts its emissions by 30% over the next few years in order to meet its Kyoto target. He doesn't say how, of course. Or what it would cost.

And yet, the Conservatives and all their friends in the oil sector and rightwing thinktanks with their so-called "scientists" claim that action under Kyoto (or global warming action in general) will cost us dearly...hurt our economy.

They don't say how, of course.

Gee, given the only way to cut our emissions by a third is to close down half our manufacturing, oil and mining industries I wouldn't think anything more complex would be required.

[gerryhatrick]

And yet, Layton insists Canada must cuts its emissions by 30% over the next few years in order to meet its Kyoto target. He doesn't say how, of course. Or what it would cost.

And yet, the Conservatives and all their friends in the oil sector and rightwing thinktanks with their so-called "scientists" claim that action under Kyoto (or global warming action in general) will cost us dearly...hurt our economy.

They don't say how, of course.

Gee, given the only way to cut our emissions by a third is to close down half our manufacturing, oil and mining industries I wouldn't think anything more complex would be required.

Wow, I didn't know that was the choice facing us. You've really clarified it there Argus. There must have been some really big brains at work to come up with that estimation. I guess fighting Global Warming would totally destroy our economy and maybe even help the terrorists.

Would we all have to give up our cars too?

[Richard]

The science is flimsy to non-existant on how any "global warming" can be attributed to human activities as opposed to natural cycles. Oh, the punch line; 97% of greenhouse gases are water vapor, 3% CO2. Any idea how much economic activity would have to be reduced to make a meaningful dent, even if "global warming" was man-made?

Quoted from: National Energy Information Center

Many gases exhibit "greenhouse" properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human-made.

Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes collectively known as the carbon cycle. The movement or flux of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While these natural processes can absorb some of the net 6.1 billion metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions produced each year (measured in carbon equivalent terms), an estimated 3.2 billion metric tons is added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth’s positive imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of human-made carbon dioxide emissions were from burning fossil fuels.

The ability of natural plant photosynthesis world wide is greatly reduced by the elimination of plant life, mainly forests.

[gerryhatrick]

The science is flimsy to non-existant on how any "global warming" can be attributed to human activities as opposed to natural cycles. Oh, the punch line; 97% of greenhouse gases are water vapor, 3% CO2. Any idea how much economic activity would have to be reduced to make a meaningful dent, even if "global warming" was man-made?

Quoted from: National Energy Information Center

Many gases exhibit "greenhouse" properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human-made.

Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are naturally regulated by numerous processes collectively known as the carbon cycle. The movement or flux of carbon between the atmosphere and the land and oceans is dominated by natural processes, such as plant photosynthesis. While these natural processes can absorb some of the net 6.1 billion metric tons of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions produced each year (measured in carbon equivalent terms), an estimated 3.2 billion metric tons is added to the atmosphere annually. The Earth’s positive imbalance between emissions and absorption results in the continuing growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of human-made carbon dioxide emissions were from burning fossil fuels.

The ability of natural plant photosynthesis world wide is greatly reduced by the elimination of plant life, mainly forests.

Tranlsation: IT'S OUR FAULT.

Thanks.

[cybercoma]

And yet, Layton insists Canada must cuts its emissions by 30% over the next few years in order to meet its Kyoto target. He doesn't say how, of course. Or what it would cost.

And yet, the Conservatives and all their friends in the oil sector and rightwing thinktanks with their so-called "scientists" claim that action under Kyoto (or global warming action in general) will cost us dearly...hurt our economy.

They don't say how, of course.

Gee, given the only way to cut our emissions by a third is to close down half our manufacturing, oil and mining industries I wouldn't think anything more complex would be required.

Wow, I didn't know that was the choice facing us. You've really clarified it there Argus. There must have been some really big brains at work to come up with that estimation. I guess fighting Global Warming would totally destroy our economy and maybe even help the terrorists.

Would we all have to give up our cars too?

seeing as homes produce more greenhouse emissions than cars, you'll have to give up your home.

[gerryhatrick]

seeing as homes produce more greenhouse emissions than cars, you'll have to give up your home.

Or both.

Gee, taking action on Global Warming is just too hard...according to a few highly partisan and mostly rightwing folks. I guess we should just do nothing.