Canada could be hurt by Kyoto retreat

[Riverwind]

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.

That number will reverse suddenly as economic development takes hold in places like China in India. The industrialized world's share of GHGs will drop rapidly in the next 20 years for that reason alone. Furthermore, it is not going to make a difference what we do now - the developing world will likely ignore any concerns about GHGs since they will have much bigger problems to deal with like feeding their populations.

[gc1765]

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.

Not if every country did the same. That is the whole point of Kyoto, it is in every country's interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The price of energy would go up worldwide. If history is any indication, consumption won't change much and production will still be profitable. Efficient energy production will be even more profitable because they don't have to pay the extra charges for emissions. The other option is that due to high prices, consumption decreases and thus greenhouse gas emissions decrease.

[Riverwind]

Not if every country did the same. That is the whole point of Kyoto, it is in every country's interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Kyoto does no such thing since Canada is the only major energy exporter that is affected by the limits (the Russians have zero incentive to do anything because they got a free pass due to the timing of the Kyoto agreement).

[gc1765]

Not if every country did the same. That is the whole point of Kyoto, it is in every country's interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Kyoto does no such thing since Canada is the only major energy exporter that is affected by the limits (the Russians have zero incentive to do anything because they got a free pass due to the timing of the Kyoto agreement).

Russia has lower (per capita) emissions than us, so it makes sense that they should not have to pay for credits. They can, however, sell credits (I believe), and this is the incentive I was talking about. (If I am mistaken and that's not the case, that is only an argument that Kyoto doesn't go far enough).

[Riverwind]

Russia has lower (per capita) emissions than us, so it makes sense that they should not have to pay for credits. They can, however, sell credits (I believe), and this is the incentive I was talking about. (If I am mistaken and that's not the case, that is only an argument that Kyoto doesn't go far enough).

Credits that they only qualify for because the Kyoto agreement arbitrarily set 1991 as the target year. If they set a different year - 1995 for example - Canada would be in better shape and Russia would have a lot more work to do.

[Saturn]

Not if every country did the same. That is the whole point of Kyoto, it is in every country's interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Kyoto does no such thing since Canada is the only major energy exporter that is affected by the limits (the Russians have zero incentive to do anything because they got a free pass due to the timing of the Kyoto agreement).

Excuses, excuses. We produce oil, therefore we should be allowed to use the absolutely worst and inefficient ways of producing it. What the oil and gas industry does in Alberta will NOT be allowed in most developed countries. On top of that, we should free-ride on the sins of the oil industry and we should all be allowed to pollute freely. This kind of argument is completely ridiculous and nobody will accept it (aside from Albertans and a few others who can't be bothered to fix their furnaces and to drive cars of reasonable size).

[mikedavid00]

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 guess maybe all of China should claim refugee status and come to Canada then right?

[Saturn]

Credits that they only qualify for because the Kyoto agreement arbitrarily set 1991 as the target year. If they set a different year - 1995 for example - Canada would be in better shape and Russia would have a lot more work to do.

You really make up "facts" as you go. Russia's GHG emissions in 1995 were 30% LOWER than in 1990. The target year is 1990 not 1991.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/cop6_total...missions_russia

Now you ought to get your facts straight before you argue because it's tiring to correct your every unsubstantiated claim (no offense intended).

[gc1765]

Russia has lower (per capita) emissions than us, so it makes sense that they should not have to pay for credits. They can, however, sell credits (I believe), and this is the incentive I was talking about. (If I am mistaken and that's not the case, that is only an argument that Kyoto doesn't go far enough).

Credits that they only qualify for because the Kyoto agreement arbitrarily set 1991 as the target year. If they set a different year - 1995 for example - Canada would be in better shape and Russia would have a lot more work to do.

Were Russia's emissions higher in 1991 than ours were in 1991? If the answer is yes, you may have a point. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. Everyone should be striving for the same per capita emissions, unless you believe that someone in one country is more entitled to pollute than someone in another country.

[gc1765]

You really make up "facts" as you go. Russia's GHG emissions in 1995 were 30% LOWER than in 1990.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/cop6_total...missions_russia

Now you ought to get your facts straight before you argue because it's tiring to correct your every unsubstantiated claim (no offense intended).

I think that was Riverwind's point. Russia's emissions in 1995 were lower. Thus, if the target year was 1995 they would have to achieve those much lower targets, which would be more difficult. As my post above demonstrates, however, this is irrelevant.

[Riverwind]

On top of that, we should free-ride on the sins of the oil industry and we should all be allowed to pollute freely.

I never said that - I strongly support most measures designed to reduce energy consumption in Canada. What I object to are arbitary benchmarks like Kyoto which attempt to measure Canada's success or failure based on clumsy macroscopic data. I especially object to the idea that billions of dollar should be sucked out of the economy to buy credits from another country

[mikedavid00]

Not if every country did the same.

That's the thing with idealism, it's not reality. When has the world ever worked together and functioned with a single program.. EVER?

Emmissions will be reduced soon and will take care of themselves:

"The Phoenix SUT is designed with a range of 100 miles and can be recharged in 10 minutes with a fast charger. Otherwise, it takes about 7 hours with a conventional outlet. Top speed in the 3,800-pound truck is 95 mph"

http://news.com.com/2300-11389_3-6139442-1.html

[Riverwind]

Were Russia's emissions higher in 1991 than ours were in 1991? If the answer is yes, you may have a point. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. Everyone should be striving for the same per capita emissions, unless you believe that someone in one country is more entitled to pollute than someone in another country.

Why not measure it as per dollar of GDP instead of per person? Why not per square meter of land? In any case, Kyoto does not care about per capita targets - it only cares about total emissions. So if you are concerned about per capita targets then Kyoto is useless.

[Saturn]

Here are some tips on saving energy, reducing pollution and SAVING MONEY that everyone should take advantage of:

http://www.foe.co.uk/living/poundsavers/home_front.html

Enjoy

[gc1765]

Why not measure it as per dollar of GDP instead of per person? Why not per square meter of land?

Because setting the limit per person is saying "you, as a person living in Canada, are entitled to emit x amount of carbon dioxide. Another person living in China (or anywhere else) is also entitled to emit x amount of carbon dioxide."

Measuring in square meter of land, for example, is saying that "you own x amount of land, therefore you are entitled to emit x amount of carbon dioxide. Since that other person over there only owns a small amount of land, they are not entitled to emit as much as you do." or "you have x amount of money, therefore you are entitled to emit x amount of carbon dioxide...." etc...Thus, in this case one person is entitled to emit more than another person, just as I have been saying all along. In that case, the question becomes why should one person be entitled to pollute more than someone else?

In any case, Kyoto does not care about per capita targets - it only cares about total emissions. So if you are concerned about per capita targets then Kyoto is useless.

The fact that it is not per capita only shows that it favours industrialized nations at the expense of less developed nations. I imagine that a treaty specifying that each country is allowed to emit x amount of carbon dioxide per person would not be politcally popular in the countries where people are emitting the most. For example, the U.S. is opposed to Kyoto despite the fact that they are entitled to pollute more than almost anyone. Imagine how unpopular a treaty would be if it specified that the U.S. was only allowed to pollute the same (per capita) as everyone else.

[Saturn]

Why not measure it as per dollar of GDP instead of per person? Why not per square meter of land? In any case, Kyoto does not care about per capita targets - it only cares about total emissions. So if you are concerned about per capita targets then Kyoto is useless.

Because the atmosphere doesn't grow as economic activity does. We are already polluting as much as would be sustainable if we had THREE planet Earth's but the problem is that we have only one Earth and it's much easier to pollute less than to create Earth's. Now we can't kill off people either, so our only option here is to start cleaning up our own act. Now turn your thermostat down by a degree, replace your lights with energy efficient ones, energy-proof your house, buy a smaller and more energy efficient vehicle next time around and stop idling.

More tips: http://www.ase.org/section/_audience/consu.../energybilltips

[Riverwind]

In that case, the question becomes why should one person be entitled to pollute more than someone else?

Should a rich person who can afford a hummer is entitled to pollute more than a poor person who must take public transit? Should we pass laws that forbid rich people from spending money on things that cause them to emit more per capita emissions than others? Rich people in China's cities on the coast are probably emitting close to first world per capita emissions. Is it fair that they get a free ride because they share a country with 750 million subsistance level farmers? If it fair that Quebequers who have the opportunity to rely on hydro electric power have their per capita emissions increased because of tar sands development in Alberta? Is it fair to exclude methane emitted by decomposing matter in areas flooded for hydro power from per capita calculations? Per capita GHGs emissions based on national boundaries are arbitrary and irrelevant.

[mikedavid00]

buy a smaller and more energy efficient vehicle next time around and stop idling.

Toronto's corrupt and incompetant NDP city city council made a bylaw so you are not allowed to idle your vehicle for more than 3 min or so. If it's too hot or too cold you are allowed to idle. People actually got tickets for this and just couldn't believe that they actually pay people to enfornce this stuff.

But Saturn, you shouldn't be driving at all. you should be taking public transit or better yet ride a bicycle with a helmet.

[Saturn]

In that case, the question becomes why should one person be entitled to pollute more than someone else?

Should a rich person who can afford a hummer is entitled to pollute more than a poor person who must take public transit. Should we pass laws that forbid rich people from spending money on things that cause them to emit more per capita emissions than others? Rich people in China's cities on the coast are probably emitting close to first world per capita emissions. Is it fair that they get a free ride because they share a country with 750 million subsistance level farmers? Per capita GHGs emissions are arbitrary and irrelevant.

No, a rich person should not be allowed to pollute more without paying for it. That's why a Hummer should come with a hefty carbon tax and a Civic Hybrid with a good carbon refund. In addition, energy should come with a hefty carbon tax because it is currently too cheap and we waste it like crazy. There is so much energy waste going on in this country, it is truly ridiculous.

[Saturn]

Toronto's corrupt and incompetant NDP city city council made a bylaw so you are not allowed to idle your vehicle for more than 3 min or so. If it's too hot or too cold you are allowed to idle. People actually got tickets for this and just couldn't believe that they actually pay people to enfornce this stuff.

But Saturn, you shouldn't be driving at all. you should be taking public transit or better yet ride a bicycle with a helmet.

Toronto's city council is brilliant - idling is completely unacceptable. One should ride a bike more often - it will keep him/her thinner and healthier than those obese drivers who will be waiting for years to have their knees and hips replaced after damaging them with their bulging waistlines. You should go to Syria and ride a donkey!

[gc1765]

Should we pass laws that forbid rich people from spending money on things that cause them to emit more per capita emissions than others?

No, but they should have to pay more. Kyoto is not about forbiding people from emitting carbon dioxide, it is about making those who do pay, and rewarding those who don't. It comes down to what is the cost of global warming in terms of dollars. (This is nearly impossible to put an exact figure on, and thus any number would necessarily be arbitrary. The debate over how much carbon credits should cost is one that I would like to stay out of, because like I said it's almost impossible to put a dollar figure on. I will, however, say that it is greater than $0. ). The "cost" of global warming would thus be paid by those who contribute to it.

Rich people in China's cities on the coast are probably emitting close to first world per capita emissions. Is it fair that they get a free ride because they share a country with 750 million subsistance level farmers? Per capita GHGs emissions are arbitrary and irrelevant.

It is (or should be) in every contry's interest to reduce emissions. The reason why targets are set per country is because there would be no way to enforce it, through a carbon tax for example, on a global level. Thus, it is up to each individual government (country) to reach it's targets, and those governments are held accountable through the exchange of carbon credits. Thus, it is China's obligation to find incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their own country, but they are encourage to do so through the exchange of carbon credits. So, really it would be up to China to determine what to do with rich people in China emitting high levels of carbon dioxide, presumably through some type of carbon tax (or other method) but Kyoto provides incentive for them to do so.

[Riverwind]

No, a rich person should not be allowed to pollute more without paying for it.

So if a rich person is willing to pay more then they should be allowed to pollute as much as they want. You can extend that: Canadians pay more for their energy than Chinese so they should be entitled to pollute more.

[mikedavid00]

In addition, energy should come with a hefty carbon tax because it is currently too cheap and we waste it like crazy. There is so much energy waste going on in this country, it is truly ridiculous.

I love yoru idealisms. It's entertaining actually.

Listen, there are already NO emission vehicles in production that are completely battery power and go 180 km/h with 400lbs ft. torque (because of the nature of the engine). These are already here now.

Ford, GM, and all the major manufacturers are already working on tranitoining to these technologies. It's going to come soon and we'll have enough gas and oil to get us there.

Canada is not poluting the world and our economy shouldn't suffer for this.

Why can't you just leave it at that?

[Saturn]

No, a rich person should not be allowed to pollute more without paying for it.

So if a rich person is willing to pay more then they should be allowed to pollute as much as they want. You can extend that: Canadians pay more for their energy than Chinese so they should be entitled to pollute more.

Precisely, people who want to pollute more should pay penalties for damaging the environment. Therefore, if Canada wants to pollute more than other countries which are more environmentally responsible, Canada should pay those other countries for emission credits.

It's just like a landfill where you pay nothing for the first 2 bags of garbage you bring per week and $x for each additional bag. The more garbage you bring to the landfill, the more you pay. Except, Canada got a special deal and we can bring 4 garbage bags for free while European countries can bring only 2.

[Saturn]

In addition, energy should come with a hefty carbon tax because it is currently too cheap and we waste it like crazy. There is so much energy waste going on in this country, it is truly ridiculous.

Listen, there are already NO emission vehicles in production that are completely battery power and go 180 km/h with 400lbs ft. torque (because of the nature of the engine). These are already here now.

Why can't you just leave it at that?

Because battery power comes from coal in the first place. No emission vehicles do NOT exist (except for some solar powered prototypes). On top of that we have very efficient vehicles on the market right now but we prefer to drive gas guzzlers that pollute 5 times as much because polluting is CHEAP. Idling is cheap to the idler but it costs our health care system $3 billion annually just in asthma attack visits to doctors and ERs. The idler should be paying through the nose for idling because the people he sends to the ER are paying for it through their lungs and the rest of us are paying for it through our wallet. Finally, vehicles are only 20% of our pollution. Even if we switch to no pollution vehicles (which is not the case anyway), there will be 80% of pollution left to go.