Canada could be hurt by Kyoto retreat

[Leafless]

" Canada's repudiation of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol could harm its economy in coming years, warns the head of the United Nations Environment Program.'

"Achim Steiner says Canadian business could be left out of major profit opportunities created by an international emissions trading system that he predicts will be worth $100 billion in 10 years."

You better watch out for the new line of carbon trader fear mongers, there here.

The bottom line of what this guy says is : ""Frankly, some people will make money."

Sure with government financing the bill with tax payers money for all these fancy little manufacturing companies. These companies hope they will 'hit the jackpot' with some energy saving or pollution device and then turn around and sell their little business for a fortune to some multinationals or large foreign owned company and promptly retire a multimillionaire, resulting in all that Canadian investment going down the tube.

This same scenario has been played over an over in the computer field playing with taxpayer money and government contracts.

Mr.Steiner also says: "The United States and Australia simply stayed out of Kyoto, but environmentalists say Canada's approach is arguably more damaging because it defies the internal logic of the treaty."

Meaning what, that Canada is one of the few countries with $5M dollars to blow with heavy future financial commitments.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...fbea28d&k=93764

[kimmy]

" Canada's repudiation of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol could harm its economy in coming years, warns the head of the United Nations Environment Program.'

"Achim Steiner says Canadian business could be left out of major profit opportunities created by an international emissions trading system that he predicts will be worth $100 billion in 10 years."

What? How do "we" make money under Kyoto?

Under Kyoto, rich and productive nations (ie, us) will be sending billions of dollars to poor and unproductive nations, in exchange for ... nothing. From a sheer dollars and cents perspective, nothing could be better for Canada than staying the hell out of this "emissions trading industry".

An "industry" produces something. This "emissions trading industry" won't produce anything, it will be (rather literally) just pushing hot air around. The notion that Canadian business could make a profit at this is ... rather disturbing, and frankly I somewhat agree with Leafless (which is a first) that if some Canadian businesses make big profits in an "industry" whose primary purpose is sending money *out* of our country, you don't need to be a genius to figure out who is going to be paying for those profits.

Companies making money by literally pushing hot air around? Isn't that what Bernard Ebbers and those Enron punks are serving hard time for?

-k

[nickjbor]

Kyoto makes no sence.

the goal make sence, but the route to it is pointless.

it's like saying "punching people is bad, therefore, no one is allowed to wear boxing gloves, except the people who are in boxing training school; they will be allowed to wear gloves forever" if you want to decrease the ammount of toxic gasses in the air, you need to decrease the ammount of toxic gasses in the air, not pay china to dump more CO2 in the air.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

frankly I somewhat agree with Leafless (which is a first)

I do too...I think, despite some evident contradictions. Had I not known Leafless , I would almost get the impression that he is pro-Kyoto. I wish he would learn to use the quote function.

[jbg]

The international interest interests of international organizations benefits by Kyoto, period. This bureaucracy does nothing constructive for any real people. It, and the UN, should be disbanded.

[jdobbin]

The international interest benefits by Kyoto, period. This bureaucracy does nothing constructive for any real people. It, and the UN, should be disbanded.

Why didn't Bush do it when he controlled the agenda in the U.S.? Or was it just easier to play against the U.N. than actually take a stand?

[Leafless]

The international interest benefits by Kyoto, period. This bureaucracy does nothing constructive for any real people. It, and the UN, should be disbanded.

Why didn't Bush do it when he controlled the agenda in the U.S.? Or was it just easier to play against the U.N. than actually take a stand?

He wasn't playing against the U.N.

He was exasperated with China being exempted and the harm Kyoto would do to the American economy.

"The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide[42]). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Real countries lose with Kyoto.

Harper's proposed 'Clean Air Act' makes good sense by firstly regulating 'smog' that affects all Canadians especially in major cities and also introducing a number of regulation timetables for industries that emit air pollution and greenhouse gases, including the auto industry and the oil and gas sector.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/19/clean-act.html

[Ricki Bobbi]

Real countries lose with Kyoto.

Harper's proposed 'Clean Air Act' makes good sense by firstly regulating 'smog' that affects all Canadians especially in major cities and also introducing a number of regulation timetables for industries that emit air pollution and greenhouse gases, including the auto industry and the oil and gas sector.

Bravo sir, well said.

When Harper strikes a deal with Layton on the environment it will include pretty much everything from the Clean Air Act.

If Layton really wants a deal he'll have to know that Kyoto is dead. But if he can agree to a deal that is better for Canada it's win-win for the Conservatives and the Dippers.

Real action on climate change doesn't involve sending hard-earned Canadian dollars to lesser developed countries with a spotty record of adhering to international *standards*.

It involves setting attainable goals that don't kill the economy. It involves truly sustainable development.

[jdobbin]

He wasn't playing against the U.N.

My question was why Bush didn't pull out of the U.N. if he disagrees with it so much?

[gc1765]

if you want to decrease the ammount of toxic gasses in the air, you need to decrease the ammount of toxic gasses in the air, not pay china to dump more CO2 in the air.

He was exasperated with China being exempted and the harm Kyoto would do to the American economy.

"The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide[42]). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy."

I don't understand all this criticism of China. Do people not realize that China emits a fraction of what the U.S. or Canada emit per capita?

[blueblood]

Yah but China has a billion people. It adds up. It's not the per capita that hurts the environment at the end of the day, but the total, and china has a high total. Don't get me wrong Canada should do our part, so should the other countries as it is a GLOBAL problem. If Canada cleans up and China doesn't, that won't make a dent in the GLOBAL warming thing. We'll still pay and have spent billions of dollars. Like it or not, the ones who contribute the most have to clean up in order to make it work or it's all a waste.

[gc1765]

Yah but China has a billion people. It adds up. It's not the per capita that hurts the environment at the end of the day, but the total, and china has a high total.

So, if someone lives in China, they should only be allowed to emit a small amount of carbon dioxide. But if somoene lives in Canada, they are entitled to emit much, much more carbon dioxide? Why the difference?

Like it or not, the ones who contribute the most have to clean up in order to make it work or it's all a waste.

That would be us (and by us I mean industrialized nations).

[blueblood]

Yah but China has a billion people. It adds up. It's not the per capita that hurts the environment at the end of the day, but the total, and china has a high total.

So, if someone lives in China, they should only be allowed to emit a small amount of carbon dioxide. But if somoene lives in Canada, they are entitled to emit much, much more carbon dioxide? Why the difference?

Like it or not, the ones who contribute the most have to clean up in order to make it work or it's all a waste.

That would be us (and by us I mean industrialized nations).

I'm not saying we're entitled to pollute, thats crap, I'm saying that we don't in total pollute as much as others. Everyone should be cleaning this up.

Is china exempt from cleaning up because they don't emit as much per capita even though they contribute a lot globally?

[Saturn]

Yah but China has a billion people. It adds up. It's not the per capita that hurts the environment at the end of the day, but the total, and china has a high total. Don't get me wrong Canada should do our part, so should the other countries as it is a GLOBAL problem. If Canada cleans up and China doesn't, that won't make a dent in the GLOBAL warming thing. We'll still pay and have spent billions of dollars. Like it or not, the ones who contribute the most have to clean up in order to make it work or it's all a waste.

China will NOT clean up if Canada, which is far richer and far dirtier than China, doesn't. The Chinese will point to us and say that we pollute 7+ times as much as they do and we don't want to take any action, so why should they? If we take action and responsibility for our mess, China will have to get on board. But right now we give them the perfect excuse not to.

[blueblood]

Yah but China has a billion people. It adds up. It's not the per capita that hurts the environment at the end of the day, but the total, and china has a high total. Don't get me wrong Canada should do our part, so should the other countries as it is a GLOBAL problem. If Canada cleans up and China doesn't, that won't make a dent in the GLOBAL warming thing. We'll still pay and have spent billions of dollars. Like it or not, the ones who contribute the most have to clean up in order to make it work or it's all a waste.

China will NOT clean up if Canada, which is far richer and far dirtier than China, doesn't. The Chinese will point to us and say that we pollute 7+ times as much as they do and we don't want to take any action, so why should they? If we take action and responsibility for our mess, China will have to get on board. But right now we give them the perfect excuse not to.

I said we should do our part. I'm saying that even though we do in the long run it's a drop in the bucket, but it's still important that we do it as everyone else.

[mikedavid00]

China will NOT clean up if Canada, which is far richer and far dirtier than China, doesn't.

We're far richer than China? Didn't know that. Learn something new each day.

And I don't think China really cares about Kyoto or Canada very much..

I mean don't get me wrong.. the people of China care about Canada because they all have relatives here and such.. with many waiting to come here and take advantage of our criminally lax system, but China's gov't doesn't care what we do with global warming.

The Chinese will point to us and say that we pollute 7+ times as much as they do

I don't think the Chinese are that ill-informed.

[gc1765]

I'm not saying we're entitled to pollute, thats crap, I'm saying that we don't in total pollute as much as others. Everyone should be cleaning this up.

But the point is that we DO emit more. The average Canadian emits several times as much carbon dioxide as the average person from China.

Is china exempt from cleaning up because they don't emit as much per capita even though they contribute a lot globally?

Until they reach the same per capita emissions as us, yes. It doesn't make much sense to measure emissions by country. If I were to start my own country, should I be allowed to emit as much carbon dioxide as Canada even though I'm only 1/30 millionth of the population?

[blueblood]

I'm not saying we're entitled to pollute, thats crap, I'm saying that we don't in total pollute as much as others. Everyone should be cleaning this up.

But the point is that we DO emit more. The average Canadian emits several times as much carbon dioxide as the average person from China.

Is china exempt from cleaning up because they don't emit as much per capita even though they contribute a lot globally?

Until they reach the same per capita emissions as us, yes. It doesn't make much sense to measure emissions by country. If I were to start my own country, should I be allowed to emit as much carbon dioxide as Canada even though I'm only 1/30 millionth of the population?

It doesn't make much sense to measure emissions per capita too then, If we only contribute lets say 5% of total CO2 emissions, and if we clean up all of our emissions, we still have 95% of the Earth polluted, does that make any sense? Bottom line, everyone cleans up, 100% of problem solved.

What i'm saying is Global warming is not going to go away if just Canada and Europe cleans up. Pollution is one of those Global things. If you admit CO2, clean it up. China too. They're putting a lot of tonnes of CO2, they should clean it up like us. Why the double standard?

[punked]

Umm these crazy numbers, I really don;t think and by think i mean know that we pollute 7 times more than china they just dump toxics into their rivers. They have a huge enivromental problem over there right now. They are also not a part of Kyoto they are part of the 77+china that were exempt. Kyoto is stuipd but what this guy says could be right becuase we got carbon sinks included in kyoto we are one of the biggest carbon sinks in the world. Whatever though it was a dumb idea we need a different way to bring out carbon down.

[gc1765]

It doesn't make much sense to measure emissions per capita too then, If we only contribute lets say 5% of total CO2 emissions, and if we clean up all of our emissions, we still have 95% of the Earth polluted, does that make any sense? Bottom line, everyone cleans up, 100% of problem solved.

That doesn't make much sense. It's like telling someone who rides a bike & uses solar power for energy that they have to cut their emissions by a certain percentage while the person down the street driving an SUV and leaving every appliance in their home on that they have to cut theirs by the same percentage (which probably means keeping the SUV and turning off their appliances once in a while).

What i'm saying is Global warming is not going to go away if just Canada and Europe cleans up. Pollution is one of those Global things. If you admit CO2, clean it up. China too. They're putting a lot of tonnes of CO2, they should clean it up like us. Why the double standard?

If anything that's more of an incetive to reduce our emissions. Industrialized nations contribute a lot more than 5% of CO2 emissions (in reference to your example above). Once we reduce our emissions to the level of China's (per capita) then China can reduce it's CO2 emissions as well. To do otherwise would be to suggest that as Canadians we are somehow entitled to emit more than someone in China. There's no way around that...either we strive for the same per capita emissions as China or we are saying that a person living in Canada is more entitled to pollute than a person in China.

[Curiouscanuck]

And to go along with the double standard thing.... corporations are not fixed in one particular country. Allowing China to pollute recklessly creates a market where high polluting corporations have incentive to move to China - Where they dont pay environmental tax/costs - creating the same amount of pollution. Also this move arguably adding to the transfer of wealth from rich to poor. Some call this a Socialist protocol.

[punked]

And to go along with the double standard thing.... corporations are not fixed in one particular country. Allowing China to pollute recklessly creates a market where high polluting corporations have incentive to move to China - Where they dont pay environmental tax/costs - creating the same amount of pollution. Also this move arguably adding to the transfer of wealth from rich to poor. Some call this a Socialist protocol.

This is why you shift cost from labour to polluations like taxes that way companies don't suffer but they are given a choice between enviroment and money. Don;t you read about this stuff at all? You shift taxes from labour to polluants than your are taxing the same amount but at the same time corperations are given a choice.

[gc1765]

And to go along with the double standard thing.... corporations are not fixed in one particular country. Allowing China to pollute recklessly creates a market where high polluting corporations have incentive to move to China - Where they dont pay environmental tax/costs - creating the same amount of pollution. Also this move arguably adding to the transfer of wealth from rich to poor. Some call this a Socialist protocol.

The whole purpose of Kyoto is to provide countires with an incentive to reduce emissions. If China is being paid money because of their low emissions (or paying money if someday they start polluting as much as us) that will provide them an incentive to stop corporations from polluting there. Whether they choose a carbon tax, or regulations, it is in their best interest to stop people from "polluting receklessly"

[punked]

China doesn;'t have to ever pay shit gc1765 they are non annex 1 country pay attention.

[gc1765]

China doesn;'t have to ever pay shit gc1765 they are non annex 1 country pay attention.

I'm arguing hypotheticals here, pay attention. That is the purpose of the word "if".