Clean Air Act vs Kyoto

[gcsw]

What are the goals and implications of the Clean Air Act? How is it different from Kyoto. Do you think it is an effective intervention to solve the problems it was meant for?

[geoffrey]

What are the goals and implications of the Clean Air Act? How is it different from Kyoto. Do you think it is an effective intervention to solve the problems it was meant for?

The main difference is that there is a plan with the Clean Air Act. With Kyoto, the only plan was to get Rick Mercer to ask us politely to reduce our emissions.

[Charles Anthony]

Do we have a deadline?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Do we have a deadline?

Do you mean 'a line over which we cross that will cause us all to be dead'? Yes. However, given our limited scientific capabilities at this time, it is impossible to say exactly where it is. There cannot be empirical knowledge of it, yet some will deny logic in favour of empiricism, if it is in their favour to do so.

Some say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I say it more resembles a ladder laid down, with the rungs representing lines in the sand that we shouldn't (or said we wouldn't) have crossed.

[Charles Anthony]

Some say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I say it more resembles a ladder laid down, with the rungs representing lines in the sand that we shouldn't (or said we wouldn't) have crossed.

Thanks for the insight but some of us work better with deadlines.

I guess I should have asked: Do we have a deadline for this apparent homework assignment?

[scribblet]

What are the goals and implications of the Clean Air Act? How is it different from Kyoto. Do you think it is an effective intervention to solve the problems it was meant for?

The main difference is that we do not have to pay scads of money to other countries while they keep on polluting. Kyoto is strictly a socialist spread the money around document.

[B. Max]

More scientists claim kyoto is a farce.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...global-warming/

Their conclusions with respect to potential policy will more than raise some eyebrows as well as they write “Any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls.” They show that the climatic effects of the Kyoto Protocol would be negligible, leading them to state “Thus, the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of how to achieve the minimum results with the maximum efforts (and sacrifices). Impact of available human controls will be negligible in comparison with the global forces of nature. Thus, the attempts to alter the occurring global climatic changes (and drastic measures prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol) have to be abandoned as meaningless and harmful.”

[White Doors]

Kyoto is only concerned about so called GHG's not real pollution.

The Clean air act will tackle both. You can't help but reduce GHG's if you are reducing pollution. At least we will not waste time on GHG's only.

[White Doors]

Nice article.

I liked this paragraph:

The authors place the recent warming into an interesting perspective noting “the global warming observed during the latest 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history. The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)”. Holy cow, can you imagine the letters and e-mails they must have received in response to that conclusion? They even show that over the last 3,000 years, the earth has cooled, or if you look just at the last 1,000 years, the earth has been cooling as well (the earth was in the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago).

[Saturn]

Some say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I say it more resembles a ladder laid down, with the rungs representing lines in the sand that we shouldn't (or said we wouldn't) have crossed.

Thanks for the insight but some of us work better with deadlines.

I guess I should have asked: Do we have a deadline for this apparent homework assignment?

Yes, 2050. Coincidentally, Harper and Rona will most likely be dead by then and so will most of us.

[hiti]

If you are going to praise the Clean Air Act then it is only fair that the facts are presented regarding Kyoto.

Stephane Dion's Project Green was just started when the Liberals lost the election and Harper quickly canceled all the projects.

The policies and programs under Project Green address environmental initiatives for the 21st century, including measures to improve our energy efficiency and our waste management practices, conserve our biodiversity, protect our water, clean up contaminated sites, ensure cleaner and healthier air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. -end quote

More details

[geoffrey]

Some say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I say it more resembles a ladder laid down, with the rungs representing lines in the sand that we shouldn't (or said we wouldn't) have crossed.

Thanks for the insight but some of us work better with deadlines.

I guess I should have asked: Do we have a deadline for this apparent homework assignment?

Yes, 2050. Coincidentally, Harper and Rona will most likely be dead by then and so will most of us.

Of cancer, not CO2 emissions. It's all priorities.

[gcsw]

Is the Clean Air Act a stragetic or reactive government intervention? And is it direct or indirect intervention?

[hiti]

Seems the Clean Air Act is just a Hot Air Act that Layton has offered to tweak so it is more acceptable or in line with Kyoto... and Steve accepted his offer. (committee to change Hot Air Act to Kyoto in new year)

Even Rona Ambrose is going for the extreme make-over, ( and that's not her hair) by flip flopping all over the place. Air act to be nipped, tucked, Ambrose doesn't say no to buying emissions credits

quote: The Minister had another surprise for us yesterday. During her testimony, she talked about how the government isn't necessarily opposed to buying international emissions credits with taxpayers' money. When she was asked by a reporter if she'd be willing to use public money on international projects if they produced verifiable results, she replied in the affirmative. So much for the "made-in-Canada" plan and the election platform criticism of the Liberals for signing "ambitious international treaties" and sending "money to foreign governments for hot air credits."

Ambrose was also far more animated about Canada's future participation in the Kyoto process, post-2012. While she made it clear there needs to be broader participation -- current signatories account for just 30% of global emissions -- we are now, it seems, much more enthusiastic about taking our place in a coalition of the willing.

[M.Dancer]

What are the goals and implications of the Clean Air Act? How is it different from Kyoto. Do you think it is an effective intervention to solve the problems it was meant for?

The main difference is that there is a plan with the Clean Air Act. With Kyoto, the only plan was to get Rick Mercer to ask us politely to reduce our emissions.

Yeah, and the plan takes effect once most of us are retired or dead.......

[geoffrey]

What are the goals and implications of the Clean Air Act? How is it different from Kyoto. Do you think it is an effective intervention to solve the problems it was meant for?

The main difference is that there is a plan with the Clean Air Act. With Kyoto, the only plan was to get Rick Mercer to ask us politely to reduce our emissions.

Yeah, and the plan takes effect once most of us are retired or dead.......

The Liberals wouldn't have even created a plan until we are retired or dead so I don't see the difference.

There is no environmental party in Canada with any relevance.

[JerrySeinfeld]

What are the goals and implications of the Clean Air Act? How is it different from Kyoto. Do you think it is an effective intervention to solve the problems it was meant for?

The main difference is that there is a plan with the Clean Air Act. With Kyoto, the only plan was to get Rick Mercer to ask us politely to reduce our emissions.

Yeah, and the plan takes effect once most of us are retired or dead.......

The Liberals wouldn't have even created a plan until we are retired or dead so I don't see the difference.

There is no environmental party in Canada with any relevance.

Agreed - but why should there be? There isn't reallty any environmental crisis of any significance going on right now. From what I have seen, there are more trees, cleaner waterways, cleaner air, more protected areas now than 20 or 30 years ago. GW Bush's Republicans reduced emissions much more effectively than all the eurosocialist socially concious commie-states combined since Kyoto took effect.

So who needs an environment party? Things seem pretty darned good!

[geoffrey]

Agreed - but why should there be? There isn't reallty any environmental crisis of any significance going on right now. From what I have seen, there are more trees, cleaner waterways, cleaner air, more protected areas now than 20 or 30 years ago. GW Bush's Republicans reduced emissions much more effectively than all the eurosocialist socially concious commie-states combined since Kyoto took effect.

So who needs an environment party? Things seem pretty darned good!

Sure there is an environmental crisis. 150,000 people will be diagnosed with and 70,000 will die of cancer... which is now turning out to be quite an environmentally related disease. (http://www.cancer.ca/vgn/images/portal/cit_86751114/31/21/935505792cw_2006stats_en.pdf.pdf)

If a company were to make a pill that was faulty and killed 70,000 people there would be no end to the criticism. Instead we have laundry soap makers, drapery manufacturers, childrens clothing people and industry in general producing carcinogens that will almost certainly with the trends the way they are, kill you.

There is a real environmental crisis in that.

Or the skyrocketing rates of asthma in areas affected by smog.

Or how about another frightening stat. 74,626 Canadians died of heart disease in 2002.... 54% due to coronary artery disease. When is a government going to step up and say enough is enough, ban trans-fats outright, levy a massive tax on junk food and use the revenues to fund proper programs to get kids active (35% of kids are so fat they are health risks to themselves).

These aren't your traditional GHG or acid rain issues. These ones are real, and likely according to the stats, they are going to kill you or your family.

I can't believe people just don't get what the real priorities are.

[mikedavid00]

Agreed - but why should there be? There isn't reallty any environmental crisis of any significance going on right now. From what I have seen, there are more trees, cleaner waterways, cleaner air, more protected areas now than 20 or 30 years ago. GW Bush's Republicans reduced emissions much more effectively than all the eurosocialist socially concious commie-states combined since Kyoto took effect.

So who needs an environment party? Things seem pretty darned good!

I agree. The auto market is developing amazing battery power cars with no emissions at all. Not even water. The technology is already ther

Ed Beagly Jr. was plugging the Phoenix SUT which is an electirc powered truck that goes highway speeds. He said also that he got from LA to Las Vegas for $12. It goes for a total of 200KM a day which is a downfall, but more than I need for city driving. It also takes the night to recharge in a regular 240volt plug.

Again, the market is demanding these technologies. The demand creates the supply, not the other way around.

The gov't can't march in and dictate a 'vision' of a clean Canada and play politics. You can't just 'change the world' over night. It took use years to get here, it will take us that long to get us out. If we throw money at this 'problem', it's just as good as throwing it down the toilet.

We need clean nuclear power, emission free vehicles like the Pheonix SUT, and solar/wind generation that is affordable and reliable (which they are not).

I feel that 2050 is a perfect target and will not have been done by gov't interferance and false promises.

[geoffrey]

Agreed - but why should there be? There isn't reallty any environmental crisis of any significance going on right now. From what I have seen, there are more trees, cleaner waterways, cleaner air, more protected areas now than 20 or 30 years ago. GW Bush's Republicans reduced emissions much more effectively than all the eurosocialist socially concious commie-states combined since Kyoto took effect.

So who needs an environment party? Things seem pretty darned good!

I agree. The auto market is developing amazing battery power cars with no emissions at all. Not even water. The technology is already ther

Ed Beagly Jr. was plugging the Phoenix SUT which is an electirc powered truck that goes highway speeds. He said also that he got from LA to Las Vegas for $12. It goes for a total of 200KM a day which is a downfall, but more than I need for city driving. It also takes the night to recharge in a regular 240volt plug.

Where you essentially power your car with coal... what an improvement.

[mikedavid00]

Or how about another frightening stat. 74,626 Canadians died of heart disease in 2002.... 54% due to coronary artery disease. When is a government going to step up and say enough is enough, ban trans-fats outright, levy a massive tax on junk food and use the revenues to fund proper programs to get kids active (35% of kids are so fat they are health risks to themselves).

These aren't your traditional GHG or acid rain issues. These ones are real, and likely according to the stats, they are going to kill you or your family.

I can't believe people just don't get what the real priorities are.

The govern should goven yes. But they aren't giong to solve these problems.

And all those things you listed people have been noting as concerns since I was a kid.

In the 60's, they swore that by the year 2000 the air would be poluted and there would be a 'dark cloud' over a satalite image on the US. Actually, there is more polution now and there is no dark cloud.

In the 70's, there was going to be no gas and oil left in the world! I was a kid in school and our teach said 'we're running out of oil soon and there won't be anything left'.

In the 80's itt was GLOBAL COOLING. Yes. There was going to be abother ICE AGE! Eeeek! Run for the hills!

In the 90's it was the OZONE! A HOLE IN THE OZONE! The atmosphere is going to collapse and the eartht will become like the moon! Didin't happen.

Now we have Global Warming. Which is still debated and unproven as all the rest.

There is always a public scare. Always a scientific unknown. .Always a FEAR of the unknown. That's all this is. And these fears are usually very left wing, trendy, intelectual, and seem to come out of San Fransico.

What we DO know is that north america and Europe has higher levels of Cancer. We do NOT know why.

We DO know that DDT and pestisides have been banned YEARS ago when that was the big scare, and it's made NO EFFECT.

We DO know that Americans started to become obese AFTER the birth of processed foods in the 70's (foods high in sugar).

That's pretty much all we really know for sure. The rest are just intillectualls trying to figure out the unknown.

Next decade we'll move on to some new scare. I predict it will involve the clouds. The POISON CLOUDS!

Here' the theory, it's actually air formation from Asia that is blowing over the ocean and over N.America. By this time the clouds have been poisoned by micro combustions of atoms. Thus we have poisonouos clouds! Tainted clouds! From the region of asia! So we need to figure out a way to give the Asia region trillions of dollars so they reduce emissions.

Now seriously, If I presented that to the right elite science audience, they would eat that up and jump on board as long as it was intellectual enough and delivered by the right elite. Then we'd have poisonous clouds! Clouds that dissipeat into the air we breath, and thus causing cancer over time in humans becuase of our lung system which is able to uptake micro particles that other lungs cannot.

Maybe I can get the Nobel Prize?

[mikedavid00]

Where you essentially power your car with coal... what an improvement.

That's why we need nuclear power. It's extremely clean.

[geoffrey]

Where you essentially power your car with coal... what an improvement.

That's why we need nuclear power. It's extremely clean.

Until it goes wrong.

Or you need to get rid of the waste.

[gc1765]

Or how about another frightening stat. 74,626 Canadians died of heart disease in 2002.... 54% due to coronary artery disease. When is a government going to step up and say enough is enough, ban trans-fats outright, levy a massive tax on junk food and use the revenues to fund proper programs to get kids active (35% of kids are so fat they are health risks to themselves).

I'd be all for that.

Although, it shouldn't take much money to get kids active. What it takes is good parenting and a $10 pair of running shoes.

[punked]

In the 70's, there was going to be no gas and oil left in the world! I was a kid in school and our teach said 'we're running out of oil soon and there won't be anything left'.

Are you saying gas and oil will never run out casue that is just silly.

In the 80's itt was GLOBAL COOLING. Yes. There was going to be abother ICE AGE! Eeeek! Run for the hills!

That can still happen if the ocean currents shut down due to fresh water from melting ice caps.

In the 90's it was the OZONE! A HOLE IN THE OZONE! The atmosphere is going to collapse and the eartht will become like the moon! Didin't happen.

Remember that whole conference in Montreal where they actually did things to fix this problem.

Now we have Global Warming. Which is still debated and unproven as all the rest.

You can;'t debate Global warming it happens with out it our earth would be 33 degreees cooler.

There is always a public scare. Always a scientific unknown. .Always a FEAR of the unknown. That's all this is. And these fears are usually very left wing, trendy, intelectual, and seem to come out of San Fransico.

What we DO know is that north america and Europe has higher levels of Cancer. We do NOT know why.

Yah better not try and find out.

We DO know that DDT and pestisides have been banned YEARS ago when that was the big scare, and it's made NO EFFECT.

Peregrine Falcon not endangered any more? Yes ohh thats cause we stopped killing it with ddts.

We DO know that Americans started to become obese AFTER the birth of processed foods in the 70's (foods high in sugar).

Ummmm what and many will put that off instead to the suburbs of the 1950;s and lifestyles after that.

That's pretty much all we really know for sure. The rest are just intillectualls trying to figure out the unknown.

Next decade we'll move on to some new scare. I predict it will involve the clouds. The POISON CLOUDS!

Here' the theory, it's actually air formation from Asia that is blowing over the ocean and over N.America. By this time the clouds have been poisoned by micro combustions of atoms. Thus we have poisonouos clouds! Tainted clouds! From the region of asia! So we need to figure out a way to give the Asia region trillions of dollars so they reduce emissions.

Now seriously, If I presented that to the right elite science audience, they would eat that up and jump on board as long as it was intellectual enough and delivered by the right elite. Then we'd have poisonous clouds! Clouds that dissipeat into the air we breath, and thus causing cancer over time in humans becuase of our lung system which is able to uptake micro particles that other lungs cannot.

Maybe I can get the Nobel Prize?

Maybe you hate poeple becuase they actaully read and study number instead of blaiming the scientfic boogie man.