Canada: Environmental Fossil

[bk59]

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.

The policy is not arbitrary. It acknowledges that pollution will happen and that it must be at a level that the environment can absorb (i.e. the bird won't be harmed by it). It also acknowledges that more people will pollute more in terms of absolute units of pollution, but that the goal is still to get this to an acceptable level. The solution to environmental problems is necessarily political and scientific. This is because the problem is international in nature and therefore politics will play a role. I have proposed a way to use this to solve the problem. You have politicized the scenario in a different way. You say that you don't care how other countries solve the problem and proposed targets that will clearly act as disincentives. Under your proposals nothing will get done, but you can at least pretend that your targets are completely objective (which of course they aren't because no single target can objectively address all of the variables involved in this type of complex problem).

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.

What I talked about had nothing to do with rich or poor. I have no idea where you got that conclusion. I look at what you propose and can say that the environment isn't even remotely your priority. You are more concerned with saying every country must be identical than attempting to solve the problem in a practical way.

[August1991]

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

...

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.

...

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.

...

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

...

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.

Mimas, you make various claims without evidence and without explanation. You mix apples and oranges. In effect, like many wild-eyed ecological nuts, you exaggerate and undercut an otherwise good argument about environmental protection.

Canada's higher CO2 emissions are largely explained by our use of coal. When that is taken out, our per capita CO2 emissions are comparable to Norway. (Bear in mind that we have many industrial processes and wide distances that the Norwegians lack. OTOH, the Norwegian population is small. This link provides good data.)

Sweden relies solely on hydro and nuclear for its electricity.

Russian statistics are notoriously doubtful however it claims to have about 20% lower per capita CO2 emissions now compared with 1991. (In a similar sense, Germany can claim to have lowered its CO2 emissions because it includes East Germany in teh comparison. Europe does the same with Eastern Europe.)

CO2 emissions can hardly be called "crap". They are not toxic nor even dangerous. They pose a potentially serious problem but this problem is not critical now. The hysteria surrounding CO2 and global warming is not helpful.

I once thought that international offsets were a good idea but I now realize that the world is not ready for such. We are too immature. Each country will have to solve this problem alone with sensible targets.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing Canada for its record. I'm try to understand the problem better. I started this thread by arguing that people are using the environment to make partisan hypocritical points about political parties or about western society in general. My only partisan point was to note that the Liberals have no right to point the finger at the Conservatives.

Lastly, you make a good point about raw sewage. I agree that it's a scandal that the city of Montreal subsidizes the production of Hollywood movies here (in the name of job creation) and yet dumps raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. About a year ago, the Longueuil sewage treatmant plant broke down and so they just dumped the raw sewage into the river. This went on for several months until it was repaired.

[Higgly]

And anyway, if Germany imports Canadian paper, who is truly to blame for the greenhouse gases paper production emits into the atmosphere?

I see. And how about those industries that produce something a little bit more liquid than paper?

[Higgly]

First of all, White Doors, the environment is just too important to be left to the lunatic fringers.

Carbon Dioxide is the life gas of green plants just as Oxygen is to animals. Carbon Monoxide is a poisonous and dangerous pollutant that should be minimized. Too many of these "environmentalists" do not know the difference.

One thing that the LFs have completely ignored is the Carbon Dioxide that is converted back to oxygen by green plants. What has to be considered is overall CO2 production and not just the amound produced by combustion. It is unlikely that Canada produces any net CO2 and we should be selling our Oxygen credits to Japan.

Another strange thing about this issue is the concept of taxing an oil producer like Saudi Arabia instead of those who burn the oil and actually produce the CO2. The Saudis do not control how the oil is used. If it is burned then it will produce CO2 but if it goes into plastic then it doesn't. The carbon credits should have to be purchased by the end user that produces the gas.

On a different but similar note, why is our government subsidizing the use of food to power our vehicles? This is a monstrous concept. Millions of people are starving in this world and we are burning corn and grain in our cars and trucks. Is this really the message that we should be sending to the world?

You go boy. The Oxygen/Carbon Dioxide cycle. The lungs of mother earth. The Symbiosis of the plant and animal kingdom. If we can just get that right, we may outlive the next ice age.

[bk59]

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.

They say Kyoto targets are unreachable and that we need new targets. OK, but so far that is still just talk - just like the Liberals.

The problem I have with the Conservative approach to answering most environmental questions is that their answers always end up saying "But the Liberals didn't do anything." So when someone asks them "Isn't your new Clean Air Act the same as what we already have? Can't we already accomplish this with existing legislation?", I don't want to hear about how the Liberals didn't do anything. I want them to actually answer the question and show that their new legislation is adding something, not just an almost meaningless gesture (which is what the Conservatives keep accusing the Liberals of).

I'm willing to give any party a chance to explain their proposals and policies. But not if every question is answered with rhetoric. Of course, every party does this, so maybe I'm just going to have to live with meaningless answers from everyone.

[Higgly]

On a different but similar note, why is our government subsidizing the use of food to power our vehicles? This is a monstrous concept. Millions of people are starving in this world and we are burning corn and grain in our cars and trucks. Is this really the message that we should be sending to the world?

I'll bite...

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.

This is a very serious problem. You have summed it up in a nutshell. One of the pillars of our economy is the healthy farm. We have to be able to grow our own food. I shudder when I go to the supermaket and I see a label that says 'Product of California' or 'Product of Mexico'. Food is one of the cheapest things we have. Why is it so important to shave pennies on tomatoes?

I think the Europeans have it right when they subsidize their food indistry, They know where they came from. Ethanol is not an efficient response to the fuel problem. It costs more in energy than it produces, but here we have a farmer telling us that it is his only out.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Higgly]

Homer Simpson?

O jeez. Here we go. The easy retort.

[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

And have about a third our population, too.

Don't be a smart one. Everything I've said here on emissions here is PER CAPITA! One-third per capita means one-tenth in absolute terms.

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.

PER CAPITA, Angus, PER CAPITA. The difference in population is already taken into account. In other words, 1 Canadian produces 25 tonnes of CO2 annually and 1 Norwegian produces 12 tonnes. One Chinese produces 3.5 tonnes and one Indian 1.5 tonnes in case you want to point at China and India as the evil culprits here. Clear now?

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.

Oh ya? Good excuse! The have larger oil and larger gas industries. They are the second largest exporter of oil and gas in the world, just above Norway.

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.

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.

In many cases? Bull! In 90% of cases the reduction was 8%. Only Canada and a few others got a special deal to do 6%.

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.

Ok, genius. Explain that to the environment and to the species that are dying off at a 100,000 times the natural rate of extinction. Explain to the world that Canada has less than 0.5% of the world's population and produces more than 2% of the world's GHG emissions - twice as high as the EU, 7 times as high as China and 17 times as high as India and that you won't do a damn thing about it. I'm sure they'll understand your explanation that it's the Liberals' fault. I'm sure they will be impressed that Canada didn't reach its targets and didn't even try to reach them.

What? You think that once you've signed a legally binding contract you can weasel out of it by saying that you can't be bothered to even try to meet your responsibilities? Try that in court!

[Higgly]

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.

Why don't we use land mass instead of population? What per cent of the world's land mass do we occupy? Isn't that more realistic?

We have a very, very priviliged position. With privilege comes responsibility.

You want to understand the difference between land mass and population, then go to Bombay (India, by the way, has one third our land mass). Go to Churchgate Station and stand there at 9:00 AM. That is the difference between population and land mass. It is an experience you will not soon forget.

My advice: stand near a wall.

[Higgly]

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.

Your use of the word 'craphole' is just plain disgusting. The zero tolerance rules interdict any further statements I might have for you on this point, Argus.

As much as it grieves me to agree with you, Argus, your point about water pollution is valid and needs to be brought into the Kyoto protocol in a more substantive way.

[Mimas]

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.

Why don't we use land mass instead of population? What per cent of the world's land mass do we occupy? Isn't that more realistic?

We have a very, very priviliged position. With privilege comes responsibility.

You want to understand the difference between land mass and population, then go to Bombay (India, by the way, has one third our land mass). Go to Churchgate Station and stand there at 9:00 AM. That is the difference between population and land mass. It is an experience you will not soon forget.

My advice: stand near a wall.

Why do we use GDP per capita as a measure of economic activity? Why not use GDP per acre of banana orchards?

We can also use emissions per littre of maple syrup produced.

This would make Canada the richest and cleanest country in the world. Yey!

[bk59]

Why don't we use land mass instead of population? What per cent of the world's land mass do we occupy? Isn't that more realistic?

We have a very, very priviliged position. With privilege comes responsibility.

As I've said, land area is a factor, but I believe population to be a more important factor. It is people who produce pollution, not the land. More people driving cars, using electricity, heating and cooling their homes, etc. When you say "What per cent of the world's land mass do we occupy?" you could just as easily ask "What per cent of the world's population do we have?" To put your question back at you, isn't that more realistic given that it is people who produce pollution?

You want to understand the difference between land mass and population, then go to Bombay (India, by the way, has one third our land mass). Go to Churchgate Station and stand there at 9:00 AM. That is the difference between population and land mass. It is an experience you will not soon forget.

My advice: stand near a wall.

What you are talking about is population density. Again, a factor. Higher density means that savings might exist in terms of more efficient mass transit systems, less loss of energy through distribution networks, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I think land area and population density (among other things) should be used to help keep track of the problem. But I think population should be the first thing we look at before looking at the others.

[August1991]

PER CAPITA, Angus, PER CAPITA. The difference in population is already taken into account. In other words, 1 Canadian produces 25 tonnes of CO2 annually and 1 Norwegian produces 12 tonnes.

The Norwegian population is smaller and concentrated. The Canadian population is larger and spread out. Our per capita CO2 emissions are higher for the same reason our per capita roadways are higher.

Norway exports its crude oil. Canada processes it here.

But the big difference is coal. Canada burns coal. Norway does not.

Mimas, this does not excuse Canada's higher emissions (closer to 19 tonnes per capita) but it does put them in context.

[Mimas]

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

...

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.

...

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.

...

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

...

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.

Mimas, you make various claims without evidence and without explanation. You mix apples and oranges. In effect, like many wild-eyed ecological nuts, you exaggerate and undercut an otherwise good argument about environmental protection.

Canada's higher CO2 emissions are largely explained by our use of coal. When that is taken out, our per capita CO2 emissions are comparable to Norway. (Bear in mind that we have many industrial processes and wide distances that the Norwegians lack. OTOH, the Norwegian population is small. This link provides good data.)

My point exactly. Why are we using coal? Cause we are nuts!

If you exclude Chernobyl, Russian nuclear reactors have as good a record as Cando reactors in terms of safety. Your statement about the coal makes just as much sense as this one.

Sweden relies solely on hydro and nuclear for its electricity.

Russian statistics are notoriously doubtful however it claims to have about 20% lower per capita CO2 emissions now compared with 1991. (In a similar sense, Germany can claim to have lowered its CO2 emissions because it includes East Germany in teh comparison. Europe does the same with Eastern Europe.)

CO2 emissions can hardly be called "crap". They are not toxic nor even dangerous. They pose a potentially serious problem but this problem is not critical now. The hysteria surrounding CO2 and global warming is not helpful.

This is where you and 99.99% of the world's experts on climate disagree. The mumbling of Tim Ball and his half-a-dozen friends mosts of them retired and none of them climatologists doesn't stand up to scrutiny and you ought to take real facts more seriously than these conmen.

I once thought that international offsets were a good idea but I now realize that the world is not ready for such. We are too immature. Each country will have to solve this problem alone with sensible targets.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing Canada for its record. I'm try to understand the problem better. I started this thread by arguing that people are using the environment to make partisan hypocritical points about political parties or about western society in general. My only partisan point was to note that the Liberals have no right to point the finger at the Conservatives.

I said that I don't care about the Libs or the Cons and what they say. What I want is for our government to take serious measures and do everything possible to clean up. I don't care about western or whatever society. I want good, environmentally responsible measures placed across the country. Greenhouse gasses are the same whether they come from Halifax, Toronto, or Calgary. All politician should shut up, stop pointing fingers at one another and work together to solve the problem.

Lastly, you make a good point about raw sewage. I agree that it's a scandal that the city of Montreal subsidizes the production of Hollywood movies here (in the name of job creation) and yet dumps raw sewage into the St. Lawrence. About a year ago, the Longueuil sewage treatmant plant broke down and so they just dumped the raw sewage into the river. This went on for several months until it was repaired.

Victoria has no sewage treatment plants and has always dumped its sewage in the ocean. There are no plans to ever treat the sewage. Are you not mentioning this because Victoria is in the west?

[Higgly]

What you are talking about is population density.

I think that land mass brings with it a responsibility in terms to the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle that should be calculated separately from calculations related to population. I feel we should accept that our huge land mass is a privilege and be ready to bear with it our share of responsibility.

[Mimas]

PER CAPITA, Angus, PER CAPITA. The difference in population is already taken into account. In other words, 1 Canadian produces 25 tonnes of CO2 annually and 1 Norwegian produces 12 tonnes.

The Norwegian population is smaller and concentrated. The Canadian population is larger and spread out. Our per capita CO2 emissions are higher for the same reason our per capita roadways are higher.

August, only 20% of emissions in North America are due to transport. You can't blame one-fifth of the cause for the doubling of emissions compared to Europe. If every vehicle in North America is removed from the equation, emissions will still be higher than in Europe.

Norway exports its crude oil. Canada processes it here.

But the big difference is coal. Canada burns coal. Norway does not.

Mimas, this does not excuse Canada's higher emissions (closer to 19 tonnes per capita) but it does put them in context.

You always come up with something. First, it's because we produce oil. If it's not because we use oil, it's because we process it here. If that's not it, it's because we are a bigger country. And on and on.

Let me put it this way. The sizes of North America and Europe are comparable. Oil produced in North America is processed in North America and oil produced in Europe is generally processed in Europe. Emissions in North America are approximately 20 tonnes per person and in Europe they are approximately 10 tonnes per person. Have you been to Europe? Well, let me tell you that if you live there, you will notice a huge difference in how much energy the Europeans use compared to us. I lived there in a larger apartment than the one I live in now and I was using less electricity (heating wasn't electric so you can't say that Canada is colder). The difference comes from the fact that appliances there are more efficient. Everything there is very, very efficient and Europeans use only half the the energy we do. But this does not cause inconvenience. There are a million ways to do very small changes and save huge amounts of energy. It's good for the environment and it's good for your pocket too. But we kick and scream like it will take some draconian measures to pollute less. It's all spin by the oil and gas companies because they fear that if Canadians realize that there are easy ways to save energy, then their sales of oil and gas will fall.

[Higgly]

The sizes of North America and Europe are comparable.

Are you including Russia?

[gc1765]

Let me put it this way. The sizes of North America and Europe are comparable. Oil produced in North America is processed in North America and oil produced in Europe is generally processed in Europe. Emissions in North America are approximately 20 tonnes per person and in Europe they are approximately 10 tonnes per person. Have you been to Europe? Well, let me tell you that if you live there, you will notice a huge difference in how much energy the Europeans use compared to us. I lived there in a larger apartment than the one I live in now and I was using less electricity (heating wasn't electric so you can't say that Canada is colder). The difference comes from the fact that appliances there are more efficient. Everything there is very, very efficient and Europeans use only half the the energy we do. But this does not cause inconvenience. There are a million ways to do very small changes and save huge amounts of energy. It's good for the environment and it's good for your pocket too. But we kick and scream like it will take some draconian measures to pollute less. It's all spin by the oil and gas companies because they fear that if Canadians realize that there are easy ways to save energy, then their sales of oil and gas will fall.

They also drive smart cars & motorcycles, which are much better for the environment.

[Mimas]

The sizes of North America and Europe are comparable.

Are you including Russia?

Ya, the European part of it. I said Europe, no?

[Higgly]

Ya, the European part of it. I said Europe, no?

Which part of Russia is the European part?

[Mimas]

Ya, the European part of it. I said Europe, no?

Which part of Russia is the European part?

??? The European part of Russia is the part of Russia that is in Europe. West of the Ural mountains.

Are you splitting hairs here? Are you asking so that you can say that we use twice as much energy because Canadians who live in Halifax and drive to work in Vancouver have a longer distance to go than Moskovites who work in Lisbon?

[August1991]

You always come up with something. First, it's because we produce oil. If it's not because we use oil, it's because we process it here. If that's not it, it's because we are a bigger country. And on and on.

Let me put it this way. The sizes of North America and Europe are comparable. Oil produced in North America is processed in North America and oil produced in Europe is generally processed in Europe. Emissions in North America are approximately 20 tonnes per person and in Europe they are approximately 10 tonnes per person. Have you been to Europe? Well, let me tell you that if you live there, you will notice a huge difference in how much energy the Europeans use compared to us. I lived there in a larger apartment than the one I live in now and I was using less electricity (heating wasn't electric so you can't say that Canada is colder). The difference comes from the fact that appliances there are more efficient. Everything there is very, very efficient and Europeans use only half the the energy we do. But this does not cause inconvenience. There are a million ways to do very small changes and save huge amounts of energy. It's good for the environment and it's good for your pocket too. But we kick and scream like it will take some draconian measures to pollute less. It's all spin by the oil and gas companies because they fear that if Canadians realize that there are easy ways to save energy, then their sales of oil and gas will fall.

Mimas, Netherlands has a population density of 466/km2 and Canada about 3/km2. (Nova Scotia has about 17/km2). Europe also has a milder climate.

Your comments about living style largely concern electricity. I agree in part that electricity is underpriced in Canada. In Quebec, Manitoba BC, electricity is 6 cents/kwh whereas in Massachusetts and New York, it is around 15 cents (as it is in France).

For many reasons, we should raise the price of electricity. If we did so, we would probably not need coal for generating electricity and our CO2 emissions would fall. Of course, no government would ever get re-elected if it raised electricity prices.

It is hard not to notice that oil and gas are produced by private companies that follow the market. Electricity is a government business and electricity tarification is a political question.

[Mimas]

You always come up with something. First, it's because we produce oil. If it's not because we use oil, it's because we process it here. If that's not it, it's because we are a bigger country. And on and on.

Let me put it this way. The sizes of North America and Europe are comparable. Oil produced in North America is processed in North America and oil produced in Europe is generally processed in Europe. Emissions in North America are approximately 20 tonnes per person and in Europe they are approximately 10 tonnes per person. Have you been to Europe? Well, let me tell you that if you live there, you will notice a huge difference in how much energy the Europeans use compared to us. I lived there in a larger apartment than the one I live in now and I was using less electricity (heating wasn't electric so you can't say that Canada is colder). The difference comes from the fact that appliances there are more efficient. Everything there is very, very efficient and Europeans use only half the the energy we do. But this does not cause inconvenience. There are a million ways to do very small changes and save huge amounts of energy. It's good for the environment and it's good for your pocket too. But we kick and scream like it will take some draconian measures to pollute less. It's all spin by the oil and gas companies because they fear that if Canadians realize that there are easy ways to save energy, then their sales of oil and gas will fall.

Mimas, Netherlands has a population density of 466/km2 and Canada about 3/km2. (Nova Scotia has about 17/km2). Europe also has a milder climate.

The northern countries in Europe have very similar climate to ours. Besides air-conditioning in the summer uses as much energy as keeping yourself warm in the winter. Also, Australia and most of the US have mild climate but they are as awful as we are in terms of GHGs. I'm not sure what population density has to do with GHG emissions though. It may have a small effect because the rural population in Canada would have to travel further for some services but I don't think that rural people's trips to the doctor would have much an impact. Besides 90% of Canada's population is within 100 km of the US border, so the population density in those areas is not that far from Europe's pop'n density.

Your comments about living style largely concern electricity. I agree in part that electricity is underpriced in Canada. In Quebec, Manitoba BC, electricity is 6 cents/kwh whereas in Massachusetts and New York, it is around 15 cents (as it is in France).

For many reasons, we should raise the price of electricity. If we did so, we would probably not need coal for generating electricity and our CO2 emissions would fall. Of course, no government would ever get re-elected if it raised electricity prices.

Not using coal would be a huge step in the right direction. Coal is the worst possible fuel both in terms of GHG emissions but other harmful gases and particles that are responsible for respiratory problems that affect millions of Canadians. Unfortunately, instead of going off this poison, some are still building coal power plants. Cough, cough.

Secondly, if we could cut our use of electricity by 30% (which is quite reasonable), we could close all coal plants and still have some left to power cars, replace oil furnaces with electric ones, etc.

It is hard not to notice that oil and gas are produced by private companies that follow the market. Electricity is a government business and electricity tarification is a political question.

Agreed. But pollution is also a political question and governments regulate it. Governments also regulate the prices of medications, financial services, , etc. In the Maritimes, governments regulate the price of gasoline. What governments need to do is to ensure that behaviours that pollute are more expensive than clean behaviours. If dumping toxic chemicals into rivers was free, everyone would do it. The reason industries don't do it is that there are penalties associated with it.

[Canadian Blue]

Unless they developed clean coal technology in order to be more environmentally friendly.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/es/etb/cetc/combust...overview_e.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05167/522393.stm

But once again, at the same time some action has to be taken on climate change now. I think more stringest regulations, or perhaps making people pay an extra amount of money for vehicles based on their emissions. That money would then go towards clean energy programs, or new incentives for environmentally friendly businesses.

I'd support that.

[scribblet]

No fair shake - not a bad commentary, too bad that the media plays the political game and tries to shape the news rather than report it - accurately that is.

By PAUL STANWAY

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists...19/2417081.html

It should have been a good week for the Harper government, with Environment Minister Rona Ambrose talking honestly about the Kyoto accord, and the PM insisting human rights are more important to Canadians than “the almighty dollar.”

You’d think that’s the sort of stuff Canadians want from their government and would strongly support. And maybe they would, if the message wasn’t filtered through dysfunctional media coverage.

-snip-

Judging by media reports from the UN conference on climate change in Nairobi last week, Ambrose was uniquely scorned because she’s “abandoned” or “repudiated” the Martin-Chretien support of the Kyoto accord.

Much was made of the fact that – in the words of The Canadian Press – “Ambrose received two ‘fossil of the day’ awards from environmentalists at the conference.” This was so newsworthy it triggered (by my rough count) at least 180 stories.

Yet Liberal environment minister Stephane Dion got the same award in 2004, which triggered no stories. When his Grit predecessor David Anderson won it in 2002, the same result – zero attention! We did a little better in 2001, four “fossil” awards and four stories, but any reasonable person might deduce from this that there is one standard for Liberal environment ministers and another for Ambrose.

-snip-

We can’t do it because under the Liberal governments that committed Canada to that goal, our emissions increased 30%. Yet according to the nonsense regurgitated by most media last week, Canadians should believe this failure is entirely the responsibility of a government and minister on the job for less than a year – not the government that embraced Kyoto but did virtually nothing about it for over a decade.

Ah, but the Conservatives’ commitment to Kyoto is “suspect.” The Grits may be environmental failures, but the Tories are worse. They’re not doing anything. At least that’s the impression left by much of last week’s coverage.

[b[Except that the Harper government agreed with the other 179 nations in Nairobi to fast-track an updating of Kyoto. Some countries that are exempt from the original plan, notably China, argued to delay that as long as possible in an attempt to keep their Kyoto-free status. No “fossils” for them.[/b]

Ambrose is working with the Europeans on a green technology fund, and she’s even talking about linking Canada to the European system of trading pollution credits – a move that is not going to make her Miss Congeniality in Alberta or with the climate-change sceptics in her party.

-snip-

A fair shake from the media? Only if your definition of fair is a kick in the head.