Canada: Environmental Fossil

[bk59]

Two percent.

That's how much of the world's man-made CO2 Canada produces. Most Canadians don't know that. We are, sh? It didn't say in The Canadias the saying goes, the proverbial "drop in the bucket."

So, now that you know the truth, consider this: What would happen if Canada were never to produce another man-made CO2 molecule ever again?

If every man, woman and child never exhaled again and therefore never produced anymore hated CO2, what would be the effect?

What would happen if all Canadians just disappeared and therefore all that hated machinery and technology that makes survival through a Canadian winter possible, just sat idle? No cars driving around, no need to heat homes or turn on lights. No more plants and factories. What would the effect on the global climate be?

Absolutely nothing at all.

So worry about Kyoto and hold your breathe.....there,now exhale,you've just done your part for Canada and Canada's foremost climate expert Chretien, who made the Kyoto promise to the world.

Or you could send a cheque to Russia for a $billion to cover your share of Kyoto credits. The choice is yours.

Here's the problem with that argument. We are global citizens. We can't just say, "Well, we don't contribute much therefore we won't do anything at all to solve the problems that we do cause." It would be like saying, "The amount of taxes I pay are so small compared to all of the taxes that the government collects that I might as well not pay any taxes at all." The problem is, everyone else looks at you and starts to wonder what makes you so special that you don't have to pull your weight.

We should be doing what we can to solve the problem in proportion to how much we contribute to the problem - nothing more and nothing less than that. That's why emissions targets are set as a percentage rather than as a discrete amount. People can disagree about how we go about doing that (i.e. Kyoto versus some other plan), but this article advocates doing nothing. It is irresponsible for us to sit back and make others carry our burden.

[Riverwind]

That's why emissions targets are set as a percentage rather than as a discrete amount.

Percentage targets are still arbitrary. There are a number of factors that put Canada at a disadvantage compared to European countries when it comes to reducing emissions as a percentage of total output. These include:

1) A population that is growing faster than Europe. This means we have to be constantly reducing per ca pita emissions faster than the growth in population. Countries with stable or declining populations don't need to work as hard.

2) Low population density makes mass transit less cost effective. This means Canada has to spend much more per capita on transit subsidises to achieve the same reduction in emissions.

3) Increasing energy production. The world needs oil and gas and Canada has been supplying that need. Canada could meet its emission targets by simply shutting off the energy taps but none of our trading partners would want us to do that even if we were willing. Furthermore, reducing carbon emissions during energy production does not do much if your total energy production is increasing as faster.

4) Economic diversity. Canada is a large country with different regions that have very different economies. That means it is much more difficult for Canada to impose national regulations when compared to the more homogeneous European countries.

Bottom line, if Canada is going to do its part it has to forget about this idea of meeting national percentage reductions. What Canada needs to do is set per-person targets that exclude emissions caused by energy production for export. For energy exports we would need to set per-unit targets that would demonstrate that the energy production industry is making progress as well.

IOW, Canada can contribute to the effort by reducing per capita emissions even if total emissions continue to rise due to population growth and increase energy production.

[Charles Anthony]

Bottom line, if Canada is going to do its part it has to forget about this idea of meeting national percentage reductions.

Indeed, but...

IOW, Canada can contribute to the effort by reducing per capita emissions even if total emissions continue to rise due to population growth and increase energy production.

...how do you draw that conclusion? A per capita target has nothing to do with the damaging effect of the pollution. Why not just target total emissions?

A "per caudica" or a "percentiga" target ultimately derives from a measurement of the amount of emissions anyway.

Again, if everybody disappeared to an anarchist haven and left me alone here in Canada, all of your percentages would change (they would rise and you would all blame me) but the total effect of the pollution would be the same. What am I missing?

I fear that the statistical manipulation of data to create nebulous targets is used to hide some type of environmental con-job.

Rewinding a bit:

Per capita statistics are ridiculous? Really? It is generally the best way to compare populations of different sizes. After all, using your logic, you could say that because India as a country consumes more food than Canada on any given day, Indians must therefore be better fed than Canadians. The only problem of course, is that India has a population of one billion while Canada's population is less than 5% of that. When you look at food consumed per person per day then you get an accurate picture of whether or not Indians are better fed than Canadians.

Wrong. Your analogy is phony.

According to your analogy, I could say that because India as a country consumes more food than Canada on any given day, Indians must therefore consume more food than Canadians. Nothing more and nothing less -- with respect to food.

If you want to look at emissions, I could also conclude that if Canadians and Indians generally fart at the same rate, Indians would contribute more to carbon emissions. YOUR "per capita" targets would not make a difference and lead you to chase your tail.

No, it wouldn't. Why? Because the land mass is not polluting or consuming resources. We, the people of Canada, are.

No, it would not. Correct. However, your reasoning is wrong.

We, the people of Canada, are not. Only SOME people in Canada are. Your percentages hide who is polluting.

Personally, I think both ends of the spectrum should be responsible for the environmental friendliness of their respective processes. Saudi Arabia should do everything it can to ensure that the extraction and refinement of oil, and transportation of it, is as environmentally friendly as possible. Just as the consumer then must try to limit the harm to the environment once they take possession of, and use, that oil.

With that logic, anything goes.

We should hold the kitchen knife manufacturers resposible for making sure their kitchen knives are not used to commit crimes.

We should be doing what we can to solve the problem in proportion to how much we contribute to the problem - nothing more and nothing less than that. That's why emissions targets are set as a percentage rather than as a discrete amount.

That is a social and economic agenda -- not an environmental solution.

Do you want to reduce emissions or do you want to use the environment as a tool with which to redistribute wealth?

[Murray B.]

These pollute much less than oil and are close in efficiency. This helps us farmers out by creating a market for our excess grains. Grain costs a lot of money to grow and we need to cover our costs and make a living. If someone gives me a good price to make biofuels then they get it. I can't just give my grain away I'd go broke. If someone wants to pay me a good price to feed starving people than so be it. I am opposed to it though as this leads to dumping. What right do I have to flood the market of a 3rd world nation putting their small farmers out of business. It's better that we put it into our cars so that we put the market back into synch. and not screw over the guys from other places trying to make it, let the guys from the 3rd world feed the guys from the 3rd world. By the way if people are starving it is really inconsiderate of them to have so many kids, it's not my place to take care of them, if you can't take care of kids keep your legs shut as you do not have the right to bring a new person into a life of squalor.

So oil made from plants pollutes less than oil which also came from plants? If the Suphur is removed why does one oil pollute less than the other.

Grain does cost a lot to grow which is why biofuels make no economic sense whatsoever. Any that are currenty produced are heavily subsidised with tax dollars. For example most ethanol actually costs the taxpayer about $8 litre. Subsidising the production of these fuels will never sense.

Even if oil prices were to rise by ten times and make something like ethanol from corn economically attractive there is still the problem of appearances. How does it look to a hungry person when we are putting corn into our gas tanks?

Surely there must be a way to give farmers a better deal without financing the construction of an inefficient and overpriced alternative fuel industry. Based on the historical treatment of farmers what makes you think this industry will be any better than any other in the long term?

That's wrong. Canada's forests are a bank with CO2 deposits. When forests burn or when trees die and decompose, the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. If Canada plants more trees than it harvests, then we can claim to be a net reducer of CO2 emissions.

T'is it now? They bank CO2 how exactly? Perhaps the sap is carbonated or do you mean they bank Carbon and not CO2? Obviously all of that Carbon does not get released into the atmosphere because that is where the oil came from in the first place.

At any given time respiration + combustion (and decay) - photosynthesis = NET CO2 emissions and it is these NET emissions that are important.

[bk59]

Again, if everybody disappeared to an anarchist haven and left me alone here in Canada, all of your percentages would change (they would rise and you would all blame me) but the total effect of the pollution would be the same. What am I missing?

Here's what you are missing. First, unless you can, as an individual, pollute as much as our entire population, then if you were the only person in Canada the total amount of pollution would change. It would decrease drastically. Second, a per capita statistic is not a percentage. It is something like X tonnes of garbage produced per person. It is like taking an average. If a segment of the population disappears then on average the per capita statistic will stay the same.

Wrong. Your analogy is phony.

According to your analogy, I could say that because India as a country consumes more food than Canada on any given day, Indians must therefore consume more food than Canadians. Nothing more and nothing less -- with respect to food.

If you want to look at emissions, I could also conclude that if Canadians and Indians generally fart at the same rate, Indians would contribute more to carbon emissions. YOUR "per capita" targets would not make a difference and lead you to chase your tail.

What I wrote wasn't an analogy at all. It was an explanation of what a per capita statistic is. Maybe I'll try again... If India consumes 2 billion pounds of food per day and Canada consumes 150 million pounds of food per day then someone could look at that and say "India uses so much more food than Canada." However, the Indian population is 1 billion and the Canadian population is (let's just assume this to make the math easy) 50 million people. So the average Indian consumes 2 pounds of food per day, whereas the average Canadian consumes 3 pounds of food per day. It shows us that even though India as a country consumes more food, Canadian as individuals are eating more.

Now pretend in my example that instead of pounds of food we talk about units of pollution. A per capita statistic shows that Canadians are worse polluters than Indians as individuals. In actual fact, Canadians are not doing too well when it comes to pollution and consumption per capita. There are factors that can account for something like that, but in general we don't come out looking too good when for our size we pollute more than we should.

No, it would not. Correct. However, your reasoning is wrong.

We, the people of Canada, are not. Only SOME people in Canada are. Your percentages hide who is polluting.

Again, I am not talking about percentages here. Also, no one claimed that a per capita stat would tell you who within the country (by region, industry sector, etc.) was doing the polluting. That is not what that stat is for. As a society, we the people of Canada (all of us) are doing the polluting.

With that logic, anything goes.

We should hold the kitchen knife manufacturers resposible for making sure their kitchen knives are not used to commit crimes.

You have misinterpreted. I said that those who use the oil must be responsible for its use. In your, slightly skewed, comment, that would mean that the person who purchases and uses the knife is responsible for its use - including whether or not they are used to commit crimes. Using the knife analogy it would be the knife manufacturers' responsibility to ensure that knife production was not harming the environment. Shared responsibility comes when you look at the supply & demand. If knives are being overproduced and filling up landfills then perhaps the manufacturers should try to limit their production while the consumers should try to be more responsible with how they use (and not just discard) knives.

We should be doing what we can to solve the problem in proportion to how much we contribute to the problem - nothing more and nothing less than that. That's why emissions targets are set as a percentage rather than as a discrete amount.

That is a social and economic agenda -- not an environmental solution.

Do you want to reduce emissions or do you want to use the environment as a tool with which to redistribute wealth?

I'm not sure I see where you're coming from. Or where you're going. I said that emissions targets are set as a percentage because setting absolute numbers could mean that we end up doing too little compared to our size or taking on too much compared to our size. That seems to be pretty much tied into an environmental solution to me. Reducing emissions is not necessarily tied to wealth redistribution. While some have proposed methods to reduce emissions that involve wealth redistribution, that does not mean that in order to reduce emissions you need wealth distribution.

[Charles Anthony]

Maybe I'll try again... If India consumes 2 billion pounds of food per day and Canada consumes 150 million pounds of food per day then someone could look at that and say "India uses so much more food than Canada." However, the Indian population is 1 billion and the Canadian population is (let's just assume this to make the math easy) 50 million people. So the average Indian consumes 2 pounds of food per day, whereas the average Canadian consumes 3 pounds of food per day. It shows us that even though India as a country consumes more food, Canadian as individuals are eating more.

Maybe you should use your same explanation and exchange "consumes -- pounds of food per day" with "emits -- pounds of pollution per day" and see what you get.

I'm not sure I see where you're coming from. Or where you're going.

Let me simplify:

The damage caused by pollution emitted from Canada is a direct function of the amount of the emissions from Canada -- regardless of the number of people in Canada.

The damage caused by pollution emitted from India is a direct function of the amount of the emissions from India -- regardless of the number of people in India.

Naturally, more people may lead to more pollution but we should not lessen the responsibility of a country which emits more pollution.

Therefore, to reduce the damage caused by pollution, both countries need to reduce the amount of emissions -- regardless of what "per capita" or "percentage of whatever" figures.

Countries should have targets which are absolute quantities of emissions. Period.

Try to imagine one great big polluting firm in India which emits more pollution than the whole of Canada put together. Should the overall targets for India be greater or lesser than Canada's targets???

[Argus]

Countries should have targets which are absolute quantities of emissions. Period.

No chance, no way, no how.

Not without taking into account that Canada is

A northern nation

A populace nation

A nation with huge oil and natural resources industries, as well as a manufacturing industry.

A nation with larger than average transportation costs

A nation which is growing due to immigration

Don't tell me that some third world craphole is more environmentally conscious than Canada because while they dump their raw sewage into the same river they drink from and bathe in they aren't emitting nearly as much CO2s as us - when they don't have any industry.

The Liberals chose our target of 6% based on how it would look to the media. Their only interest in Kyoto was as sound bytes, to make them look good. They had no other purpose behind signing it, which has resulted in us making zero progress - and in fact, backsliding on Kyoto. Anyone who whines at the Tories over this is an imbecile. Their policy might not be the best, but it'll take 13 years of doing nothing before they're as bad as the Liberals.

[Charles Anthony]

Don't tell me that some third world craphole is more environmentally conscious than Canada because while they dump their raw sewage into the same river they drink from and bathe in they aren't emitting nearly as much CO2s as us - when they don't have any industry.

I am not saying they are "more environmentally conscious" but rather I would say that your craphole should not be required to reduce its emissions. Period.

Do you think the craphole should be required to reduce its emissions if it has no industry?

[scribblet]

This is worth a read, as the rhetoric heats up from the esteemed BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6115644.stm

Chaotic world of climate truth

Mike Hulme

As activists organised by the group Stop Climate Chaos gather in London to demand action, one of Britain's top climate scientists says the language of chaos and catastrophe has got out of hand.

Do images of climate-related chaos distort the scientific truth?

Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change.

But over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country - the phenomenon of "catastrophic" climate change.

It seems that mere "climate change" was not going to be bad enough, and so now it must be "catastrophic" to be worthy of attention.

The increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers "chaotic", "irreversible", "rapid" - has altered the public discourse around climate change.

This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as "climate change is worse than we thought", that we are approaching "irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate", and that we are "at the point of no return".

It seems that we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics

I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.

snipped

First, the discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device being mobilised in the context of failing UK and Kyoto Protocol targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

The signatories to this UN protocol will not deliver on their obligations. This bursting of the campaigning bubble requires a determined reaction to raise the stakes - the language of climate catastrophe nicely fits the bill.

Hence we now have the militancy of the Stop Climate Chaos activists and the megaphone journalism of the Independent newspaper, with supporting rhetoric from the prime minister and senior government scientists.

snipped

I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory.

[bk59]

Maybe you should use your same explanation and exchange "consumes -- pounds of food per day" with "emits -- pounds of pollution per day" and see what you get.

I already did that in the post that you replied to. What is it you are trying to get at?

Now pretend in my example that instead of pounds of food we talk about units of pollution. A per capita statistic shows that Canadians are worse polluters than Indians as individuals. In actual fact, Canadians are not doing too well when it comes to pollution and consumption per capita. There are factors that can account for something like that, but in general we don't come out looking too good when for our size we pollute more than we should.

Let me simplify:

The damage caused by pollution emitted from Canada is a direct function of the amount of the emissions from Canada -- regardless of the number of people in Canada.

The damage caused by pollution emitted from India is a direct function of the amount of the emissions from India -- regardless of the number of people in India.

Naturally, more people may lead to more pollution but we should not lessen the responsibility of a country which emits more pollution.

Therefore, to reduce the damage caused by pollution, both countries need to reduce the amount of emissions -- regardless of what "per capita" or "percentage of whatever" figures.

Countries should have targets which are absolute quantities of emissions. Period.

Realistically when someone says the target is to reduce emissions by X% of 1990's emissions levels then that converts into an absolute number of Y units. Likewise, saying that the target is N units of pollution/emissions is equivalent to saying M% of (some year)'s emissions levels. These things can be converted back and forth. What I am saying is that it is more helpful to do this in terms of percentages or per capita numbers. Why? Because it makes it easy to compare between countries. Trying to compare absolute numbers will be unnecessarily complicated. Why? Because of all of the factors that others have brought up on these boards - geographic location, population density, population size, etc. Using numbers that are easily comparable between nations allows us to quickly see who is pulling their weight and who isn't.

Try to imagine one great big polluting firm in India which emits more pollution than the whole of Canada put together. Should the overall targets for India be greater or lesser than Canada's targets???

But don't you see? If India is polluting more than Canada right now in 2006, and we say (for example) that both countries should decrease their emissions by 5% of their current 2006 levels, then India will, in absolute numbers, have a larger target than Canada.

[cybercoma]

Reducing emissions by some piddly percentage is not going to solve anything. Carbon emissions are increasing, if they're cutback 5% they're just going to increase 5% less....still increasing, still creating higher concentrations in the atmosphere. Has anyone stopped to think what impact this would have on the global average temperature in 50 or 100 years. Next to nothing.

Perhaps some real and viable solutions would be better....

[gc1765]

Reducing emissions by some piddly percentage is not going to solve anything. Carbon emissions are increasing, if they're cutback 5% they're just going to increase 5% less....still increasing, still creating higher concentrations in the atmosphere. Has anyone stopped to think what impact this would have on the global average temperature in 50 or 100 years. Next to nothing.

Perhaps some real and viable solutions would be better....

Any ideas?

[Riverwind]

Any ideas?

Spend the money building dikes around coastal cities. Cut back heavily on immigration since population growth is one of the biggest contributors to Canada's increases in emissions.

[gc1765]

Any ideas?

Spend the money building dikes around coastal cities. Cut back heavily on immigration since population growth is one of the biggest contributors to Canada's increases in emissions.

That's fine for Canada. But I believe the original post I quoted was talking about global CO2 levels & global temperature. I'm curious whether that poster has any "real & viable" solutions on a global level.

[Charles Anthony]

What I am saying is that it is more helpful to do this in terms of percentages or per capita numbers. Why? Because it makes it easy to compare between countries.

Why should we be comparing countries in anything but absolute terms? You have a political agenda.

Your statistics will allow us to over-exaggerate and under-report the problem.

Trying to compare absolute numbers will be unnecessarily complicated. Why? Because of all of the factors that others have brought up on these boards - geographic location, population density, population size, etc. Using numbers that are easily comparable between nations allows us to quickly see who is pulling their weight and who isn't.

Actually, quite the opposite. It hides the truth.

Your statistics could hide the fact that one country may not be polluting much at all -- but because their pollution did not change from the previous years, you would be able to trumpet out all of the pop stars saying "You bad guys have not reduced your emissions enough relative the the poor countries!"

Your statistics could hide the fact that one country could STILL be polluting more than the entire rest of the world combined -- but because they polluted double the entire rest of the world combined last year, you would say "Good work guys! You win the prize!"

Try to imagine one great big polluting firm in India which emits more pollution than the whole of Canada put together. Should the overall targets for India be greater or lesser than Canada's targets???

But don't you see? If India is polluting more than Canada right now in 2006, and we say (for example) that both countries should decrease their emissions by 5% of their current 2006 levels, then India will, in absolute numbers, have a larger target than Canada.

You are justifify your percentage policy by exemplifying a percentage application. It goes nowhere. How about we compare your percentage policy to an ABSOLUTE emissions policy.

Using your example, if Canada's pollution is the equivalent of one fart per year and the Indian's pollution is the equivalent to a million farts per year, YOUR PERCENTAGE POLICY would take centuries for India to come close to pulling its weight.

With an absolute emissions policy, we could say: "Every country must reduce its emissions to one fart per year per square mile of land mass." Canadians (could sell fart credits but) would not have to do anything and still pull its weight.

If India reduced its emissions to the same level as Canada (down to only one fart per year), who cares how many people live in India??? That is their problem -- nobody else's.

Your method is good for concealing the true effects of emissions policy on the environment.

If I was your neighbor and I was burning crap in my backyard and the fumes were spilling over to your yard, would you really care how many people live in my house??? My responsibility to the environment should not change.

[bk59]

Why should we be comparing countries in anything but absolute terms?

Answered in my previous post. Absolute terms are not easily comparable at face value. Per capita statistics can still give you absolute numbers if you want to figure them out.

You have a political agenda.

Your statistics will allow us to over-exaggerate and under-report the problem.

What is my political agenda? Other than to ensure that each country shares an appropriate portion of the burden when it comes to reducing pollution.

How does using statistics based on population size (per capita) over-exaggerate and under-report the problem?

Actually, quite the opposite. It hides the truth.

Your statistics could hide the fact that one country may not be polluting much at all -- but because their pollution did not change from the previous years, you would be able to trumpet out all of the pop stars saying "You bad guys have not reduced your emissions enough relative the the poor countries!"

Your statistics could hide the fact that one country could STILL be polluting more than the entire rest of the world combined -- but because they polluted double the entire rest of the world combined last year, you would say "Good work guys! You win the prize!"

First, you can determine absolute levels of pollution from a per capita statistic fairly easily. So if that counts as "hiding the truth" then it's a pretty poor job of hiding.

Second, in your example, if a country goes from producing double the pollution from the rest of the world in one year to something less than that, then they should be applauded for moving in the right direction. That doesn't mean that they still don't have work to do.

Third, if a country has not changed its emissions levels then you have to look at something like... wait for it... things like per capita statistics to see if their level of pollution is reasonable for their population size. Just because a small country is producing less total emissions than a larger country does not mean that they are being environmentally friendly. A per capita statistic can indicate that. If a small country is being extremely wasteful and polluting like crazy then they still have a duty to reduce that pollution even if their total emissions are less than a larger country's pollution levels. Everyone must pull their weight.

You are justifify your percentage policy by exemplifying a percentage application. It goes nowhere. How about we compare your percentage policy to an ABSOLUTE emissions policy.

Using your example, if Canada's pollution is the equivalent of one fart per year and the Indian's pollution is the equivalent to a million farts per year, YOUR PERCENTAGE POLICY would take centuries for India to come close to pulling its weight.

If a country is heavily polluting right now, then yes, it will probably take more time for them to get to a reasonable level of pollution. This is to be expected and this problem will exist no matter how you set your targets. The fact that a heavy polluter may take more time to reach a reasonable level of pollution in no way detracts from using one form of a target over another.

With an absolute emissions policy, we could say: "Every country must reduce its emissions to one fart per year per square mile of land mass." Canadians (could sell fart credits but) would not have to do anything and still pull its weight.

If India reduced its emissions to the same level as Canada (down to only one fart per year), who cares how many people live in India??? That is their problem -- nobody else's.

Your method is good for concealing the true effects of emissions policy on the environment.

When you gave your example of an absolute emissions policy you said "one fart per year per square mile of land mass." This is not an absolute number. Instead of using a per capita target you are using a per area target. Here is an example with a real absolute target. Let's say that both Canada and India should reach emission levels of 1 billion "units of pollution" per year. This means that Canadians, because we have so much less population, can pollute like crazy. We don't even have to try to be environmentally friendly and we can hit that target. On the other hand, India has a huge population and the only way they could meet that target is if they all stopped driving cars, never manufactured anything etc. In other words, India could never meet that target no matter what it did if it was to be a developed nation. How does that help the environment? In this situation Canada has no incentive at all to reduce pollution. Neither does India (since it will never reach the targets no matter what).

Realistic targets must take into account things like population size, population density, geographic region, etc. Per capita by default takes into account population size and is more helpful in this respect.

Pollution is not limited to the borders of a nation. If we place unreasonable restrictions on countries like India (due to their population, etc.) then they will be unable to effectively deal with the issue. And that becomes a problem for more than just India.

If I was your neighbor and I was burning crap in my backyard and the fumes were spilling over to your yard, would you really care how many people live in my house??? My responsibility to the environment should not change.

OK, let's run with this. You are burning crap & I have to deal with the fumes. I may not like that, but I may look over the fence and say "well, the amount of stuff that he is burning is reasonable, so I can live with the results of that." On the other hand, if you were burning the equivalent of an apartment buildings' worth of garbage then I would say "wait, that guy is burning way too much and I shouldn't have to deal with that amount of fumes from only one person." On the other hand, if it was an apartment building doing that then I would say "again, I don't like it, but since it's 100 people's worth of garbage then that seems reasonable."

You can't close your eyes to the reality that more people will generate more waste, pollution, etc. Absolute numbers do not take into account mitigating circumstances.

[August1991]

Hypocrisy goes into the stratosphere (and takes on a sinister edge):

Media bias on climate change

Much ink has been spilled on the "fossil of the day" award which was given to Conservative environment minister Rona Ambrose at this year's U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Activists complain that the Canadian government deserved the dubious distinction for its inaction on addressing greenhouse gases.

As one of my readers points out, this is not the first time that Canada has earned the "fossil of the day" award. At last year's UNFCCC conference in Montreal, Mr. "gavel banger" himself, then-minister of the environment (a Liberal), received the "fossil of the day award" too! (do an inline search for "fossil")

News stories on (Conservative) Rona Ambrose receiving the fossil of the day award: 193

News stories on (Liberal) Stephane Dion receiving the fossil of the day award: none

Stephen Taylor

[mikeisking]

Bruce! You're contracts and criminal law books are calling out. Just accept that the stupid people are winning and move on!

- A mysterious friend

[Charles Anthony]

I would like to welcome MysteryMike to the forum and point out a quote from the Forum Rules and Guidelines:

RESPECT OTHERS PRIVACY

Do not post unauthorized personal information about anyone on the board. Any posts that contain personal communication (emails, etc) between multiple individuals will be deleted without notice.

You have a political agenda.

Your statistics will allow us to over-exaggerate and under-report the problem.

What is my political agenda? Other than to ensure that each country shares an appropriate portion of the burden when it comes to reducing pollution.

Your political agenda??? You tell me: what is appropriate portion supposed to mean and who gets to define it?

Third, if a country has not changed its emissions levels then you have to look at something like... wait for it... things like per capita statistics to see if their level of pollution is reasonable for their population size.

Here comes a political agenda question: what is reasonable supposed to mean and who gets to define it?

Everyone must pull their weight.

What exactly does that mean?

When you gave your example of an absolute emissions policy you said "one fart per year per square mile of land mass." This is not an absolute number.

Yes, it is. Land mass does not come or go.

Here is an example with a real absolute target. Let's say that both Canada and India should reach emission levels of 1 billion "units of pollution" per year. This means that Canadians, because we have so much less population, can pollute like crazy.

No.

It means that only 1 billion "units of pollution" can come from Canada per year -- same as India.

Only a politician can judge the emissions of the two countries as being different.

On the other hand, India has a huge population and the only way they could meet that target is if they all stopped driving cars, never manufactured anything etc.

I do not care how Indians need to meet that target, that is their responsibility. If the two countries have the same land mass, they should be judged by the total amount of emissions. I do not care how many people live in each country and I do not think the birds flying overhead care either.

In other words, India could never meet that target no matter what it did if it was to be a developed nation. How does that help the environment?

By NOT politicizing it.

In this situation Canada has no incentive at all to reduce pollution. Neither does India (since it will never reach the targets no matter what).

What incentives do they have now?

Politicians either agree to reduce emissions or not.

On the other hand, if you were burning the equivalent of an apartment buildings' worth of garbage then I would say "wait, that guy is burning way too much and I shouldn't have to deal with that amount of fumes from only one person."

The environment is not your priority.

You can't close your eyes to the reality that more people will generate more waste, pollution, etc. Absolute numbers do not take into account mitigating circumstances.

Mitigating circumstances??

If you were a bird flying around the world and trying to determine a safe place to nest, would you care about the political percapitas or percentages or mitigating circumstances? No.

[bk59]

When you gave your example of an absolute emissions policy you said "one fart per year per square mile of land mass." This is not an absolute number.

Yes, it is. Land mass does not come or go.

An absolute number is a total. As soon as you divide that number by something then it is no longer absolute, it depends on something. It does not matter that the dividing number (e.g. land area) does not change. You have taken the total amount of emissions and modified it by another variable. (That being said, we still talk about the amount of pollution per year because we don't measure pollution from the beginning of time.)

As a general comment here is why population is important for looking at pollution / emissions: people produce these emissions. When you have double the population then you have more people driving cars, more people heating or cooling their homes, more electricity being used, etc. And this is what I mean when I say countries must be able to pollute to an appropriate amount. If every country was equally environmentally friendly (i.e. they all drive the same efficient cars, generate electricity in an environmentally friendly manner etc.) then countries with more people will pollute more. Even though their industries, etc. are just as environmentally friendly as other countries. Population is not the only criteria, but it is one of the biggest, if not the biggest. Saying that everyone must pull their weight means that everyone must try to make their country as environmentally friendly as possible, but that larger populations can't be expected to pollute the same as, or less than, much smaller populations in terms of an absolute number.

Who gets to decide what is appropriate? That is something that will have to come from scientists and politicians through international agreements. Scientists can tell us what the environment is capable of absorbing on its own and politicians will have to sort through the competing scientific testimony (because scientists can disagree) and reach a consensus with each other about what countries need to do. Economists will also play a role.

Here is an example with a real absolute target. Let's say that both Canada and India should reach emission levels of 1 billion "units of pollution" per year. This means that Canadians, because we have so much less population, can pollute like crazy.

No.

It means that only 1 billion "units of pollution" can come from Canada per year -- same as India.

Only a politician can judge the emissions of the two countries as being different.

But if both countries can only generate 1 billion "units of pollution" then that means the smaller Canadian population can drive cars that pollute more, waste electricity, etc. and still come in under that target, while the much larger Indian population could drive extremely environmentally friendly cars, use clean energy sources, etc. and still exceed the target simply because of the number of people involved. There is no incentive for the smaller population to be environmentally friendly because they don't have to be to meet the target. And if India does everything in its power, but still cannot reach the target, then why would it even bother? It too has no incentive. This has nothing to do with politicizing the problem. It's simple economics. Using the same total emissions number for every country creates disincentives for almost everyone.

If the two countries have the same land mass, they should be judged by the total amount of emissions. I do not care how many people live in each country and I do not think the birds flying overhead care either.

Using that rationale, I doubt the birds care about the size of the country either. I've tried to show how population affects pollution and therefore why a per capita target is effective. I admit that area also has an effect, but only indirectly (by considering things like population density). So why should targets be based on something like area? Saying that area does not change is not a valid reason on its own. There has to be something more to justify using area as the determining factor.

If you were a bird flying around the world and trying to determine a safe place to nest, would you care about the political percapitas or percentages or mitigating circumstances? No.

Of course not. But I'm not a bird. I'm someone trying to think of a way to solve the problem realistically. And a per capita statistic is not "political" any more than saying an average is political or the number zero is political.

[jdobbin]

Hypocrisy goes into the stratosphere (and takes on a sinister edge):

Media bias on climate change

Much ink has been spilled on the "fossil of the day" award which was given to Conservative environment minister Rona Ambrose at this year's U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Activists complain that the Canadian government deserved the dubious distinction for its inaction on addressing greenhouse gases.

As one of my readers points out, this is not the first time that Canada has earned the "fossil of the day" award. At last year's UNFCCC conference in Montreal, Mr. "gavel banger" himself, then-minister of the environment (a Liberal), received the "fossil of the day award" too! (do an inline search for "fossil")

News stories on (Conservative) Rona Ambrose receiving the fossil of the day award: 193

News stories on (Liberal) Stephane Dion receiving the fossil of the day award: none

Stephen Taylor

You are wrong. Dion won the fossil day of the year award in 2004 not in 2005.

And Anderson won in 2002.

The awards were mostly inhouse until this year. This year they actually sent out news releases. Media bias, huh? I think the bias is that the media will mostly run with any news release they get.

[Charles Anthony]

If you were a bird flying around the world and trying to determine a safe place to nest, would you care about the political percapitas or percentages or mitigating circumstances? No.

Of course not. But I'm not a bird. I'm someone trying to think of a way to solve the problem realistically.

No. You mean politically. Since your policies are arbitrary to the bird, you are using the environment as a tool for political purposes.

And a per capita statistic is not "political" any more than saying an average is political or the number zero is political.

Yes, it is because of the way you apply such a statistic.

The environment is not your priority. It is just a cover for treating some "rich polluters" and "poor polluters" differently.

[Mimas]

Countries should have targets which are absolute quantities of emissions. Period.

No chance, no way, no how.

Not without taking into account that Canada is

A northern nation

Bad example. Sweden is a northern nation and they produce less one-third of the emissions we produce

A populace nation

What the heck does this have to do with emissions?

A nation with huge oil and natural resources industries, as well as a manufacturing industry.

Norway has a huge oil industry (as large or larger than Canada's) and is a northern country and they produce less than half of the emissions we produce.

A nation with larger than average transportation costs

So is Russia being 70% larger than Canada. They also have a huge oil industry and are a norther country but they produce half the crap we do.

A nation which is growing due to immigration

So what? All EU countries are growing due to immigration and they put half as much crap in the air as we do.

Don't tell me that some third world craphole is more environmentally conscious than Canada because while they dump their raw sewage into the same river they drink from and bathe in they aren't emitting nearly as much CO2s as us - when they don't have any industry.

Ha! Canada dumps its raw sewage into rivers and oceans too, including cities like Victoria and Montreal which dump tens of millions of tonnes of untreated sewage every year.

The Liberals chose our target of 6% based on how it would look to the media. Their only interest in Kyoto was as sound bytes, to make them look good. They had no other purpose behind signing it, which has resulted in us making zero progress - and in fact, backsliding on Kyoto. Anyone who whines at the Tories over this is an imbecile. Their policy might not be the best, but it'll take 13 years of doing nothing before they're as bad as the Liberals.

I don't give a crap! What's done is done and you can't change the past. I don't care where it's Liberals or Conservatives or the NDP, I just want whoever is in power to take this very, very seriously and clean up our mess.

What the Cons are saying is that the Libs set the kitchen on fire, so we are going to let the whole house burn down. The kitchen is already ruined so what's the point of trying to extinguish the fire. We'll just pour some gasoline on the house, let the whole thing burn down and blame it on the Libs. Well, we aren't stupid!

[jdobbin]

The United States is to announce shortly an environmental policy according to the Nairobi convention.

California is leading the charge and it will influence all of the U.S. according to AP wire services.

I wonder if it will have any impact on Canada.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061118/ap_on_...mate_conference

[Argus]

Countries should have targets which are absolute quantities of emissions. Period.

No chance, no way, no how.

Not without taking into account that Canada is

A northern nation

Bad example. Sweden is a northern nation and they produce less one-third of the emissions we produce

And have about a third our population, too.

A populace nation

What the heck does this have to do with emissions?

Stands to reason a country of 30m produces more pollution than a country of 10m.

A nation with huge oil and natural resources industries, as well as a manufacturing industry.

Norway has a huge oil industry (as large or larger than Canada's) and is a northern country and they produce less than half of the emissions we produce.

And the population of Norway is what, a quarter ours, and their oil and gas comes from out in the North Sea from under the water, not in the complicated oil sands manner they're doing out west. Nor is the rest of their resource industry on the scale ours is.

A nation with larger than average transportation costs

So is Russia being 70% larger than Canada. They also have a huge oil industry and are a norther country but they produce half the crap we do.

Because Russian industry is in the toilet.

A nation which is growing due to immigration

So what? All EU countries are growing due to immigration and they put half as much crap in the air as we do.

All EU countries are growing due to immigration? Got any figures on their growth rates?

The Liberals chose our target of 6% based on how it would look to the media. Their only interest in Kyoto was as sound bytes, to make them look good. They had no other purpose behind signing it, which has resulted in us making zero progress - and in fact, backsliding on Kyoto. Anyone who whines at the Tories over this is an imbecile. Their policy might not be the best, but it'll take 13 years of doing nothing before they're as bad as the Liberals.

I don't give a crap! What's done is done and you can't change the past. I don't care where it's Liberals or Conservatives or the NDP, I just want whoever is in power to take this very, very seriously and clean up our mess.

Overnight? That ain't gonna happen. Kyoto allowed 20 years to reach goals which, in many cases, were as hard as a 1% cut. It'll take longer than that for any kind of substantive reduction.

What the Cons are saying is that the Libs set the kitchen on fire, so we are going to let the whole house burn down. The kitchen is already ruined so what's the point of trying to extinguish the fire. We'll just pour some gasoline on the house, let the whole thing burn down and blame it on the Libs. Well, we aren't stupid!

What the Cons are saying is that our Kyoto targets are unreachable and so we need to set new targets which are reachable. Seems logical to me. But as you say, some people are indeed stupid.