Canada could be hurt by Kyoto retreat

[punked]

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".

Oh as long as we arguing about hypotheticals, what happens when someone gets a magic lamp and wishes the CO2 emmissions away than it was all a waste. See how that is stuipd, pretty much as stuipd as what you are saying. China will never sign on to something making them an Annex 1 country becuase that way they would have to reduce their emmission and as it stands their enviromental policy sucks ass. They have gotten a huge gdp gains in the last years on the back of killing their enviroment period. PERIOD!

[blueblood]

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).

That's not fair, your assuming the person who's bike and solar power doesn't pollute, China does, where do their tonnes upon tonnes of CO2 come from, breathing?

If your going to make a comparison at least use smart cars vs. an SUV even then. It's safe to say smart cars pollute less than a 6 litre Yukon. You have to realize that China has way more contributors than Canada. So lets put ratios in here, for example 30 smart cars to 8 SUVs (note not 30 to one i'm putting 8 in to offset our contribution, note again that these are arbitrary). Who's polluting more?

I'm not saying that Canadians should clean up a little, they should do as much as they can. As should China. Bottom line the total needs to come down, ALL NEED TO DO THEIR PART.

You also have to realize that China isn't 100% online yet, you can bet that when they do, they'll be up with us in per capita. Also, do you think that China would really go along with it if we dropped our emissions, no they'll be looking for another excuse, that's how they are. They are not entitled to pollute the world just because per capita they do it less, they're still polluting, clean it up simple.

It's like the states, the biggest in both regards I think, they need to get to work too.

[gc1765]

Oh as long as we arguing about hypotheticals, what happens when someone gets a magic lamp and wishes the CO2 emmissions away than it was all a waste. See how that is stuipd, pretty much as stuipd as what you are saying. China will never sign on to something making them an Annex 1 country becuase that way they would have to reduce their emmission and as it stands their enviromental policy sucks ass. They have gotten a huge gdp gains in the last years on the back of killing their enviroment period. PERIOD!

Tell you what....if, when China reaches our per capita emissions, they don't want to cooperate, I'll be the first to join you in criticizing them and insisting they join or else withdraw from Kyoto.

That's not fair, your assuming the person who's bike and solar power doesn't pollute, China does, where do their tonnes upon tonnes of CO2 come from, breathing?

Yes my example was extreme, but I did that to illustrate a point (and the person in my example would emit carbon dioxide everytime they purchase any goods or services).

If your going to make a comparison at least use smart cars vs. an SUV even then. It's safe to say smart cars pollute less than a 6 litre Yukon. You have to realize that China has way more contributors than Canada. So lets put ratios in here, for example 30 smart cars to 8 SUVs (note not 30 to one i'm putting 8 in to offset our contribution, note again that these are arbitrary). Who's polluting more?

If it were 30 people driving 30 smart cars, versus 30 people driving 8 SUVs then it would be similar. But that's not the case. A better comparison would be 8 people driving 8 SUVs versus 30 people driving 30 smart cars. In that case, it would be the 8 people driving SUVs (Canada) who are polluting more.

You also have to realize that China isn't 100% online yet, you can bet that when they do, they'll be up with us in per capita. Also, do you think that China would really go along with it if we dropped our emissions, no they'll be looking for another excuse, that's how they are. They are not entitled to pollute the world just because per capita they do it less, they're still polluting, clean it up simple.

It's like the states, the biggest in both regards I think, they need to get to work too.

Your assumption that China will not go along with Kyoto once they reach our per capita emissions (probably a long way off from that anyhow) is just that, an assumption. I'll make you the same offer that I made to "punked"....once China starts polluting as much as us, then I will start criticizing them just as much.

[punked]

Oh as long as we arguing about hypotheticals, what happens when someone gets a magic lamp and wishes the CO2 emmissions away than it was all a waste. See how that is stuipd, pretty much as stuipd as what you are saying. China will never sign on to something making them an Annex 1 country becuase that way they would have to reduce their emmission and as it stands their enviromental policy sucks ass. They have gotten a huge gdp gains in the last years on the back of killing their enviroment period. PERIOD!

Tell you what....if, when China reaches our per capita emissions, they don't want to cooperate, I'll be the first to join you in criticizing them and insisting they join or else withdraw from Kyoto.

MOney where you mouth is they are already at our sulfur and nitrogen emissions or close to it which cause acid rain. SO stop ignoring the facts please and acting like China is part of kyoto. They are a dirty contry and they are not going to clean up their act. Talk hypotheticals all you want you are wrong look at their enviromental record.

[gc1765]

MOney where you mouth is they are already at our sulfur and nitrogen emissions or close to it which cause acid rain. SO stop ignoring the facts please and acting like China is part of kyoto. They are a dirty contry and they are not going to clean up their act. Talk hypotheticals all you want you are wrong look at their enviromental record.

We are talking about global warming and carbon dioxide emissions, and you want to change the subject to sulfur and nitrogen emissions and acid rain? Way to avoid the topic. If you want to debate China's greenhouse gas emissions, as we have been doing, I'd be more than happy to. If you want to change the subject and talk about acid rain, please post proof that China's emissions of substances that cause acid rain are equal or higher to ours, and I'll be the first to join in condemning them for acid rain, but not for global warming.

[punked]

fine lets talk CH4 that is a green house gas, what is chinas what is Canadas? How about PCP's those are green house gasses. I was just using a simple example but we can do it your way. Point is your wrong.

[Riverwind]

China starts polluting as much as us, then I will start criticizing them just as much.

Sorry, China already pollutes more than us. The fact that their per capita emissions are lower is irrelevant because it is to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere what makes the difference. The idea that we draw arbitrary lines on maps and say that everyone living within area X must reduce their emissions by Y is rediculous. Canada would be much better off if used provincial boundaries as a way to measure compliance.

[mikedavid00]

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?

The logic is so simple I can't believe it's even being debated.

I guess it's more of a partison issue for some people. Remember, there are card carying Liberal members on this board so if Dion dictates it's the number 1 issue, it will be become those people's number 1 issue.

The more I hear about it, the more Ambrose's plan suits us perfectly. She didn't have a good media spin on it that's all.

[mikedavid00]

China will never sign on to something making them an Annex 1 country becuase that way they would have to reduce their emmission and as it stands their enviromental policy sucks ass. They have gotten a huge gdp gains in the last years on the back of killing their enviroment period. PERIOD!

Well I got the answer. China is 'poor' so lets use our tax dollars and send them to China in international credits so they can fix their polution?

Good one Dion. Good one.

[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.

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.

So you are unknowingly agreeing with me then. High polluting corporations will move to the "tax haven" of China to pollute. Why would any company choose between the constraint of polluting and money when there are no restrictions of the like with the trade-off (or lack thereof) in China? They wont. They will maximize profits by heading to China polluting as much as they like. And whats this about shifting labour taxes? Why is that related - because it results in the same income for the gov? We are talking about the addition of pollution tax here and there relationship with polluting corporations - not labour taxes, which is a different policy change. And please stop talking down to me as if you have all the answers.

[Saturn]

Sorry, China already pollutes more than us. The fact that their per capita emissions are lower is irrelevant because it is to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere what makes the difference. The idea that we draw arbitrary lines on maps and say that everyone living within area X must reduce their emissions by Y is rediculous.

It's also ridiculous that you would measure pollution by area or by artificial political boundaries. The Chinese eat 40 times as much food as we do, so they must be horrible gluttons.

Yes, you should be allowed to pollute as much as 20 Chinese people because it makes sense that the 20 of them together will eat as much as you do, will all share one car the same as yours and will use as much power as you do. It is your God given right to use as much resources and produce as much garbage as 20 Chinese because they are Chinese and you are Canadian, right? Wrong!

[mikedavid00]

Yes, you should be allowed to pollute as much as 20 Chinese people because it makes sense that the 20 of them together will eat as much as you do, will all share one car the same as yours and will use as much power as you do. It is your God given right to use as much resources and produce as much garbage as 20 Chinese because they are Chinese and you are Canadian, right? Wrong!

There's got to be a good joke to be made from up there.

[Saturn]

So you are unknowingly agreeing with me then. High polluting corporations will move to the "tax haven" of China to pollute. Why would any company choose between the constraint of polluting and money when there are no restrictions of the like with the trade-off (or lack thereof) in China?

Yes, Canada's biggest polluters, which just happen to be energy, oil and gas companies, will take the Albertan oil sands and their coal burning electricity generating facilities and will move to China. Over there, they will extract the oil from the oil sands and generate the electricity we need and will ship it over here by boat. What a plan!

[mikedavid00]

Yes, Canada's biggest polluters, which just happen to be energy, oil and gas companies, will take the Albertan oil sands and their coal burning electricity generating facilities and will move to China. Over there, they will extract the oil from the oil sands and generate the electricity we need and will ship it over here by boat. What a plan!

That's why I said Dion's plan is known to be a new 'Alberta tax'.

He knows he wont get seats there, so he might as well tax us and make gasoline more expensive for the sake of Kyoto.

Nice one Dion. Nice one.

[Riverwind]

It's also ridiculous that you would measure pollution by area or by artificial political boundaries. The Chinese eat 40 times as much food as we do, so they must be horrible gluttons.

Actually they are. Global warming and virtually every other environmental problem is caused by overpopulation. The industrialized countries have learned to self-limit their populations and are only growing via immigration. Unfortunately people in the developing world are still breeding like rabbits (China is the one exception). We will never make any progress on GHG unless the human population explosion is stopped. Unfortunately, no one is talking about that issue and everyone seems to think that reducing GHG produced in wealthy countries with stable or declining populations will actually accomplish something.

Incidently, it is next to impossible to reduce Canada's total GHG emissions as long as the population is growing. If cutting GHG gases is so important then Canada should just stop allowing immigrants and allow the population to decline.

[Saturn]

It's also ridiculous that you would measure pollution by area or by artificial political boundaries. The Chinese eat 40 times as much food as we do, so they must be horrible gluttons.

Actually they are. Global warming and virtually every other environmental problem is caused by overpopulation. The industrialized countries have learned to self-limit their populations and are only growing via immigration. Unfortunately people in the developing world are still breeding like rabbits (China is the one exception). We will never make any progress on GHG unless the human population explosion is stopped. Unfortunately, no one is talking about that issue and everyone seems to think that reducing GHG produced in wealthy countries with stable or declining populations will actually accomplish something.

Incidently, it is next to impossible to reduce Canada's total GHG emissions as long as the population is growing. If cutting GHG gases is so important then Canada should just stop allowing immigrants and allow the population to decline.

Canada's GHG emissions have risen by roughly 30% since 1990. The population rose by 20% over the same period. Consequently, GHG emissions per capita increased by 10%. http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/vie...pub.asp?id=1926

Over the same period, GHG emissions per capita in most European countries decreased and most countries in Europe have already reached their Kyoto targets or are well on their way of getting there despite growing populations.

http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/vie...pub.asp?id=1926

[Riverwind]

Canada's GHG emissions have risen by roughly 30% since 1990. The population rose by 20% over the same period. Consequently, GHG emissions per capita increased by 10%.

How much of that has been a result of increases in energy exports? Natural gas allows the user to get credit for emission reductions but increases the emissions of the producer. If a cleaner fuel like natural gas is used in Canada then Canada will get credit for a net reduction in emissions. If that same fuel is used in the US the world gets a net reduction in emissions but Canada gets labelled as a polluter because its emissions as mesaured by arbitrary geographic lines went up. That is why it is incrediblely simplistic to measure Canada's contribution by measuring total GHG production or per capita production. The only measure that would mean anything is a number that excludes emissions from energy exports.

Incidently, how much of the European reduction has been achieved by closing down coal plants in relying on natural gas imported from Russia?

[Saturn]

Actually they are. Global warming and virtually every other environmental problem is caused by overpopulation. The industrialized countries have learned to self-limit their populations and are only growing via immigration. Unfortunately people in the developing world are still breeding like rabbits (China is the one exception). We will never make any progress on GHG unless the human population explosion is stopped. Unfortunately, no one is talking about that issue and everyone seems to think that reducing GHG produced in wealthy countries with stable or declining populations will actually accomplish something.

Incidently, it is next to impossible to reduce Canada's total GHG emissions as long as the population is growing. If cutting GHG gases is so important then Canada should just stop allowing immigrants and allow the population to decline.

Unfortunately, the only country that is taking strong measures on overpopulation is China through its one child policy but China is constantly being criticized for it and we consider limiting the number of children an abuse of "human rights".

[Saturn]

Canada's GHG emissions have risen by roughly 30% since 1990. The population rose by 20% over the same period. Consequently, GHG emissions per capita increased by 10%.

How much of that has been a result of increases in energy exports? Natural gas allows the user to get credit for emission reductions but increases the emissions of the producer. If a cleaner fuel like natural gas is used in Canada then Canada will get credit for a net reduction in emissions. If that same fuel is used in the US the world gets a net reduction in emissions but Canada gets labelled as a polluter because its emissions as mesaured by arbitrary geographic lines went up. That is why it is incrediblely simplistic to measure Canada's contribution by measuring total GHG production or per capita production. The only measure that would mean anything is a number that excludes emissions from energy exports.

Incidently, how much of the European reduction has been achieved by closing down coal plants in relying on natural gas imported from Russia?

Incidentally, Russian GHG emissions have gone DOWN by roughly 30% since 1990. You can't blame the Russians in any way. Besides natural gas emissions would be included in the numbers of the countries where the gas is burned, i.e. in those European countries whose emissions have gone down.

http://unfccc.int/files/essential_backgrou..._booklet_06.pdf page 4

[Riverwind]

Unfortunately, the only country that is taking strong measures on overpopulation is China through its one child policy but China is constantly being criticized for it and we consider limiting the number of children an abuse of "human rights".

I would have more sympathy for the GHG reduction arguments if the advocates looked at the entire picture. Without some discussion of population control it is a waste of time to talk about GHGs because any reduction in the industrialized world will be overwhelmed by the masses in the developing world. The idea that the third world will sign onto a Kyoto 2 agreement in the future is a pipedream - all that they will care about is feeding their massive populations.

[gc1765]

fine lets talk CH4 that is a green house gas, what is chinas what is Canadas? How about PCP's those are green house gasses.

I asked you to post proof. Please post proof that China is emitting more greenhouse gases per capita (including CH4).

Point is your wrong.

Simply saying so doesn't make it true. Please try and prove me wrong.

China starts polluting as much as us, then I will start criticizing them just as much.

Sorry, China already pollutes more than us. The fact that their per capita emissions are lower is irrelevant because it is to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere what makes the difference.

So what? Because you or I live in a less populated country we are entitled to pollute more than a person living in China? If it's geographic area we are talking about, does that mean we should be able to pollute ten times more than someone living in the U.S.? Afterall, our country is larger geographically even though we have 1/10th the population.

[Saturn]

Unfortunately, the only country that is taking strong measures on overpopulation is China through its one child policy but China is constantly being criticized for it and we consider limiting the number of children an abuse of "human rights".

I would have more sympathy for the GHG reduction arguments if the advocates looked at the entire picture. Without some discussion of population control it is a waste of time to talk about GHGs because any reduction in the industrialized world will be overwhelmed by the masses in the developing world. The idea that the third world will sign onto a Kyoto 2 agreement in the future is a pipedream - all that they will care about is feeding their massive populations.

The developed world is still by far the biggest polluter of all. Developed countries make up only 20% of the world's population but are responsible for over half of the GHGs. We cannot point a finger at them for increasing pollution while we continue to increase our own. Especially since we are so far ahead of them on the pollution scale. Do you expect them to start cutting their pollution while ours is 10 times as high and we don't bother to cut it?

[gc1765]

The only measure that would mean anything is a number that excludes emissions from energy exports.

That energy is being exported for profit. If someone is profiting from something that pollutes, why shouldn't they pay more? Of course, that would only drive up prices and the end user would end up paying the increase in cost anyways.

[Riverwind]

Incidentally, Russian GHG emissions have gone DOWN by roughly 30% since 1990.

Of course, the Russian economy collapsed in 1991-3 so they could meet the target by doing absolutely nothing. The Russians would never have signed on if Kyoto used their emissions in 1995 as a baseline. Yet another reason why Kyoto is flawed agreement.

Besides natural gas emissions would be included in the numbers of the countries where the gas is burned, i.e. in those European countries whose emissions have gone down.

You are missing the point: natural gas production emits GHGs (called fugitive emissions in the doc you linked). The GHGs emitted during the production of natural gas are counted against the producer. The GHGs emitted during combustion are counted against the consuming country. If the consuming country replaces a coal plant with natural gas plant they will get a net GHG reduction. However, the country that provides them with the gas pays a penalty for helping them reduce their emissions.

[Riverwind]

That energy is being exported for profit. If someone is profiting from something that pollutes, why shouldn't they pay more? Of course, that would only drive up prices and the end user would end up paying the increase in cost anyways.

Energy producers have no control over the price they can charge for the product. Any tax imposed on the Canadian industry would simply make many producers uneconomic and force them to shutdown production. This might increase prices but it would not actually lead to any more efficient production.