Stockwell Day touts benefits of global warming

[jdobbin]

Technology change.

Citation for that?

This would mean the technology came before the 1979 protocol?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emiss...uction_Protocol

[B. Max]

Technology change.

Citation for that?

This would mean the technology came before the 1979 protocol?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur_Emiss...uction_Protocol

What ever, you can't put technology in place than doesn't exist.

[jdobbin]

What ever, you can't put technology in place than doesn't exist.

Exactly, so my question is why would a company invest in a technology that they don't need to unless compelled to by economic reasons?

Is it cheaper to have filters? No, by all accounts it isn't.

Therefore, it was a regulatory body that made companies invest in the technology to limit sulfur.

There were a lot of people in the 1980s who said that sulfur didn't do anything. They said dead lakes came from ducks. Why would coal plants believe differently, especially since it would cost them millions.

[jbg]

Gas usage is mostly inelastic, fruits and veggies still need to be shipped and same with your clothing and the computer your using this forum from. The trends indictated that even through the major price inflation of gas in the summer (was it the summer?) demand never really declined substantially.

A higher gas price, no matter how you make it so will not fix the environment.

I disagree strongly. In the long run, it influences decisions on what vehicles to purchase. In the short run it's even simpler; Daddy doesn't raise his childrens' allowance when gas prices rise, so sorry, less money for aimless recreational driving.

[geoffrey]

Some coal plants still have sulfur emissions and natural gas flaring produces SO2...

It's sometimes necessary to flare off H2s but over all farling has been reduced in the province by around 90%.

Tell that to poor ol' Wiebo... I'm a big advocate of the oil and gas industry, but I really believe they play too lightly with landowners lives at times.

There is a major sour gas exploration south-east of Calgary that was going to be expanded... they needed to draw up an emergency evacuation plan and I was within the limits... some 150,000 people were. In the end, they figured it was too much a pain in the ass and decided to can the expansion so I no longer live in the zone set out by the EUB. Unfortunately... this was an expansion, there is already wells there but because they are completed and the company has a good safety record, there is apparently no need for a warning plan in place.

Just one case among many where producer margins are more important than safety. Travelling in backcountry south-western Alberta you often get a whiff of the sulfur from sour gas production. The health effects? I'm sure they aren't great considering higher dosages kill...

[mikedavid00]

Rather than seeing you as someone who might be open to discussion and some conservative ideas, it looks like you've been driven away by the belligerence of some of the posters.

There are some conservatives here who have some good ideas and don't have to be put on ignore.

Second one just bit the dust, mikedavid. Ignorant jerk!

I hope these rational conservatives show up soon, this forum seems so extreme-right, I'm starting to understand why there are barely any liberals.

Hehehe.. i love the libs, when they hear things that don't agree with their opinion, they just want to cencor it or put their head in the sand.

My argument: You shouldn't let someones view on an ineternation issue affect your vote as a Canadian.

BC Chick: I don't like the way harper said it. He should have sounded nicer to both sides. Maybe if he did that I would vote for him.

Me: That's a shame you feel so strongly about that incident, and the fact that we give off only 2% of the worlds emissions which is also something that is not important. I think you should rethink your priorities and get more informed.

BC Chick: Ignore! What an ignorant right wing jerk!

Oh well, poeple will let their emotions lead them and not the truth.

[mikedavid00]

Higher gas prices will drive more innovation that any kyoto agreement. Billions went into venture funds for alternative fuels in 2005 when the gas prices started their upward march. The market will drive the breakthrough.

I said this a million times. The market and C02 emissions in Canada will look after itself and 2050 is a good target. We aren't China or India with a population of 1 billion poluting and burning tons of coal all day.

We have no control of Kyoto.. i just love what Geoffrey said in my sig...

[geoffrey]

We have no control of Kyoto.. i just love what Geoffrey said in my sig...

That hardly means that I don't support the premise of reducing emissions.

My environmental focus is much more on pollution, toxins and carcinogens in our environment... real issues that are going to more than likely kill you. But that doesn't mean there isn't a place for limiting GHG emissions, often these goals can go hand in hand.

I believe very much in the science of global warming... I dispute the armageddon tomorrow folks like Suzuki... but it's a valid issue that needs to be taken seriously.

I don't support a 50 year timeline... about half this board won't be around then... it's truly passing the buck. The CPC simply isn't doing enough.

[mikedavid00]

Higher gas prices will drive more innovation that any kyoto agreement. Billions went into venture funds for alternative fuels in 2005 when the gas prices started their upward march. The market will drive the breakthrough.

The market doesn't alway drive a breakthrough. For example, if you are a chemical company dumping into the water system, what market force prevents you from doing so?

If you are emitting sulfur into the atmosphere, what market force stops that as well?

Demand creates supply. Not the other way around. When prices are high, consumer demand for alternative energy will go up.

I'm just not a believer in the fact that bio fuel will be cheaper than gasoline. I just don't see that happening.

Say we have the engines etc.. i don't know.. i just don't see it being cheaper. I see it being 1.98/L

Just a hunch.

[mikedavid00]

That hardly means that I don't support the premise of reducing emissions.

My environmental focus is much more on pollution, toxins and carcinogens in our environment... real issues that are going to more than likely kill you. But that doesn't mean there isn't a place for limiting GHG emissions, often these goals can go hand in hand.

I agree also. But I think Kyoto is something that we should make as a last priority.

I believe very much in the science of global warming... I dispute the armageddon tomorrow folks like Suzuki... but it's a valid issue that needs to be taken seriously.

Regardless, Canada as a country, ultimately has no power or control in this matter since we aren't a major poluter.

I don't support a 50 year timeline... about half this board won't be around then... it's truly passing the buck.

I think it's a good timeline for GHG.

I think that other things like merucry, lead etc. should be more of a priority.

I think though, that we should do these things with the least economic impact possible because the last thing we need at this point is more canadian jobs lost or something to become more expensive.