Canada could be hurt by Kyoto retreat

[mikedavid00]

Therefore, if Canada wants to pollute more than other countries which are more environmentally responsible, Canada should pay those other countries for emission credits.

NO THANKS!

[Riverwind]

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.

1) Canadians already pay more for their energy (e.g. the price of gas in Canada is 2-3x what it is China) so that should already entitle them to emit more.

2) When someone is taxed for buying a hummer that tax money goes back into the same Canadian society so the Canadian society still benefits. Emission credits drain money from the Canadian economy and put money into the hands of gov'ts with dubious human rights records. That makes it a bad idea no matter what.

[mikedavid00]

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!

Your the first person I've ever heard call Toronto's city council brilliant. Idiling is not a major cause of polution when you factor in the million vehicles or so in the GTA that are moving.

Poeple in Syria drive cars too. Shows what you think of Syria. It's not a dirt pit.

And besides, Donkeys aren't meant to be ridden. It's bad for their hips and it's unfair. You might get him upset and come to Canada and claim refugee status so we'll be stuck with fixing the donkey's hip.

[gc1765]

1) Canadians already pay more for their energy (e.g. the price of gas in Canada is 2-3x what it is China) so that should already entitle them to emit more.

The money Canadians pay for their energy does not go to the people who it causes harm, nor does it provide incentive to other people (eg Russia) to reduce the amount of harm they do. For example, hypothetically speaking of course, if I were to punch you in the face I would have to pay you money for doing "harm" to you. It wouldn't make sense for me to give money to the owner of Petro Canada, or John Doe, when it was you that I "harmed". Why should I be entitled to "harm" you just because I gave money to someone else?

[Riverwind]

The money Canadians pay for their energy does not go to the people who it causes harm, nor does it provide incentive to other people (eg Russia) to reduce the amount of harm they do.

Russia is a thugocrasy and the chances of any money actually going to people who are 'harmed' is next to zero. The majority of money would likely be siphoned off in various sorts of bribes and a little bit would go into some project that would reduce a token amount of emissions.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that people living in Russia are going to be harmed by global warming anymore than people in Canada. I could see your logic if the money went to those pacific islands that are likely to be submerged in the next 50 years - but that is not the way Kyoto works. If we levy taxes to encourage people to reduce consumption then the taxes should go back into the province where the taxes were collected. That said, I could see putting some of these taxes into a emergency fund that could be used to provide aid around the world to address the coming refugee crisis. But buying credits from countries that dont really need the money is out of the question.

Actually, we could probably spend most of the money improving our infrastructure inside Canada to better deal with effects of global warming.

[gc1765]

Furthermore, there is no evidence that people living in Russia are going to be harmed by global warming anymore than people in Canada. I could see your logic if the money went to those pacific islands that are likely to be submerged in the next 50 years - but that is not the way Kyoto works.

The point of paying Russia would be to provide the incentive to reduce the harm that it would do to countries that would be harmed by global warming. Both Canada and Russia emit greenhouse gases and thus "harm" other countries. Paying Russia to reduce it's emissions would thus reduce the "harm" to other countires. Using my "punching" analogy again, I could either punch you and then pay you reparations, or I could pay Russia not to punch you. Either way, you come out neutral.

Russia is a thugocrasy and the chances of any money actually going to people who are 'harmed' is next to zero. The majority of money would likely be siphoned off in various sorts of bribes and a little bit would go into some project that would reduce a token amount of emissions.

This is a whole different issue/debate. Unfortunately, it's not practical to pay individual people as it would be difficult for us in Canada to determine who is emitting and who isn't in countries that overall emit little. It's up to the government of those countries to use the money for the benefit of their citizens. Governments don't always do what is best for thier people, but there's not much we can do about that. All we can hope for is that citizens will choose the government that works best for them (even if it means some sort of revolution), even if that is not always the case. I'd be interested in hearing solutions to this problem. Perhaps we could withhold "carbon credit" money from governments unless it could be determined that the money was actually making it's way to the citizens.

In the case of countries that aren't affected by global warming (eg Russia) it wouldn't matter, as the incentive for the government to reduce it's emissions would already be there (even if the money was going to bribes )

That said, I could see putting some of these taxes into a emergency fund that could be used to provide aid around the world to address the coming refugee crisis.

That's a great idea.

[Saturn]

2) When someone is taxed for buying a hummer that tax money goes back into the same Canadian society so the Canadian society still benefits. Emission credits drain money from the Canadian economy and put money into the hands of gov'ts with dubious human rights records. That makes it a bad idea no matter what.

Now that you've got that, you would be smart to get the word out and make it clear to your family and friends that if we don't tax our own pollution (which will inevitably bring pollution down and generate some revenue to treat our asthma sufferers) and keep our money here, we will end up sending our money to others overseas. The deal is done, it's sealed and we have no way getting out of it no matter how much we whine and complain. We are like whiny kids who get dragged to school by their parents. But we are going to end up going to school anyway and instead of kicking and screaming on the way, we can think up how to make our day in the classroom more enjoyable instead.

[Saturn]

Actually, we could probably spend most of the money improving our infrastructure inside Canada to better deal with effects of global warming.

That's the whole point of Kyoto. Kyoto was not created to get money flowing around the world. Kyoto was designed to force nations to clean up their act internally. Only retards would do nothing internally and send money overseas. Well, it seems that the wide majority of other nations have been working hard on solving their problems internally and are well on their way to achieving their goals (the Europeans are going to exceed their goals). Canada is the only idiot out there who doesn't realize that there will be consequences. Let me rephrase that: Canadians are the only idiots who would rather suffer the consequences than tell industry to clean up its act and clean up our own act. Well, it's time to get back to reality and realize that peeing in the pool won't clean it up, it won't make others forgive us for it either, and that even our own urine stinks. It's time we realized that getting out of the pool and going to the bathroom is not that terrible an inconvenience.

[Riverwind]

That's the whole point of Kyoto. Kyoto was not created to get money flowing around the world. Kyoto was designed to force nations to clean up their act internally.

You are missing my point. Global warming is a done deal. Nothing we do now will stop it but there are plently of people that are going to get hurt by the changes. I am suggesting that we spend the money preparing now rather that worrying too much about our total emmissions since they are going to go up no matter what we do as long as our population increases. Taxing to improve energy efficiency is different from taxing to reduce GHG although the two are connected.

[Saturn]

You are missing my point. Global warming is a done deal. Nothing we do now will stop it but there are plently of people that are going to get hurt by the changes. I am suggesting that we spend the money preparing now rather that worrying too much about our total emmissions since they are going to go up no matter what we do as long as our population increases. Taxing to improve energy efficiency is different from taxing to reduce GHG although the two are connected.

On the contrary, all evidence suggests that we are going to be far more hurt if we don't clean up. Death is a done deal but that doesn't mean we have to run off to the desert and die of thirst by the end of the week. It's not important that you will die, it's when you die and how you die that makes the difference. Now puffers are important and it's good to have them but it's even better if we don't get asthma in the first place. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, no?

This sounds a bit like the obesity epidemic that is sweeping north america. We like to eat a lot but watching what we eat and how much we eat will be very inconvenient for some people. So instead of causing inconvenience by encouraging a healthier lifestyle, let's just get more hospitals and more surgeons, so that give the obese more diabetes treatment and all the heart surgeries they need.

[Ricki Bobbi]

That's the whole point of Kyoto. Kyoto was not created to get money flowing around the world. Kyoto was designed to force nations to clean up their act internally. Only retards would do nothing internally and send money overseas. Well, it seems that the wide majority of other nations have been working hard on solving their problems internally and are well on their way to achieving their goals (the Europeans are going to exceed their goals). Canada is the only idiot out there who doesn't realize that there will be consequences.

Let's look at the situation the Conservatives inherited. After 13 years of Liberal grandiose talk and inaction on the environment our Kyoto targets become unattainable. So the only way this Conservative Government could have honoured our Kyoto commitment was to ship billions of dollars overseas.

Instead of following this, less than wise, course of action the Conservatives are working to chart a new course. Look for our new Minister of the Environment to reach out to the opposition to come to an agreement that is better for Canadians now and in the future than Kyoto.

[Saturn]

Let's look at the situation the Conservatives inherited. After 13 years of Liberal grandiose talk and inaction on the environment our Kyoto targets become unattainable. So the only way this Conservative Government could have honoured our Kyoto commitment was to ship billions of dollars overseas.

Instead of following this, less than wise, course of action the Conservatives are working to chart a new course. Look for our new Minister of the Environment to reach out to the opposition to come to an agreement that is better for Canadians now and in the future than Kyoto.

I don't care about what the conservatives inherited. The more time they lose, the bigger the bill gets. The new minister better reach out and better start producing some real results right away. Their Bad Air Act needs A LOT of improvement before it starts looking like something tangible.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I don't care about what the conservatives inherited. The more time they lose, the bigger the bill gets. The new minister better reach out and better start producing some real results right away. Their Bad Air Act needs A LOT of improvement before it starts looking like something tangible.

Examples of the improvements necessary?

Pretty clever pun "Bad Air Act". Wow guess you gotta be super smart to think of something so witty.

Wouldn't Dirty Air Act have been wittier? Oh wait, that would have brought up too many memories of the Liberals ethics in government. BAH!

[Curiouscanuck]

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!

First off, the way you try and twist and nitpick the meaning of a valid point is unproductive for anything but your ego. Clearly, and I think that it is possible for even you to agree, that corporations that CAN move will do so. Unless you prove that all corporations that pollute are exclusively immovable oil sands corporations, my point still stands. It is also important to understand the problem that the double standard creates - as Kyoto is a global protocol and for it to succeed (well it has no chance, but perhaps other non horrible thought out plan with similar intentions , chalk up another -1 for the UN) will need global cooperation with one standard - for everyone, not some, to do their part.

[Saturn]

It is also important to understand the problem that the double standard creates - as Kyoto is a global protocol and for it to succeed (well it has no chance, but perhaps other non horrible thought out plan with similar intentions , chalk up another -1 for the UN) will need global cooperation with one standard - for everyone, not some, to do their part.

The double standard was set 50 years ago when the developed countries started polluting at enourmous rates. We've had a 50 year run of care-free pollution which has brought things to the point where we currently are. The developing countries are still 50 years behind us on pollution but we plan to push them to join the effort in 2012. Of course it's rather unfair to them to give them far less care-free pollution time than we've had but of course we have a problem to solve, so 2012 it is. Now you ought to stop whining about others who are far cleaner than yourself and deal with your own mess. Global co-operation and "one standard" would mean that we all get treated the equally and the fact that you pollute 7 times as much as someone in China and 15 times as much as someone in India, doesn't give you any right to complain whatsoever. When you clean up your act and you start polluting one-tenth as much as you currently do, then you'll have the right to complain about being treated unfairly relative to the Chinese.

[Curiouscanuck]

The double standard was set 50 years ago when the developed countries started polluting at enormous rates. We've had a 50 year run of care-free pollution which has brought things to the point where we currently are. The developing countries are still 50 years behind us on pollution but we plan to push them to join the effort in 2012. Of course it's rather unfair to them to give them far less care-free pollution time than we've had but of course we have a problem to solve, so 2012 it is. Now you ought to stop whining about others who are far cleaner than yourself and deal with your own mess. Global co-operation and "one standard" would mean that we all get treated the equally and the fact that you pollute 7 times as much as someone in China and 15 times as much as someone in India, doesn't give you any right to complain whatsoever. When you clean up your act and you start polluting one-tenth as much as you currently do, then you'll have the right to complain about being treated unfairly relative to the Chinese.

I completely agree that yes the wealthy nations have created this pollution . That is the cost. But what is/was the benefit? It was crucial and helped saved millions perhaps billions get food and amount to some sort of wealth to get off the farms and out of the poverty trap. Our wealth, technology and knowledge is all being shared to these previously decimated countries, (namely China and India and their high populations and recent turnaround - economically, as well as the well being of their societies). There is a strong argument - in the amount of lives saved. If we never polluted we would be hearing more of "save the poor" so again you have a constraint of poverty vs pollution. If we hadnt polluted (or polluted less) we would not be wealthy/knowledgeable/advanced as we are now. I personally prefer to pollute in exchange for saved lives. Now given that, scientists now see (potential) devastating effects that global warming will have. This effects everyone and only a single standardized cooperative effort with realistic goals will have any meaningful benefit. Regardless of the past anyone who pollutes is part of the problem - no exceptions.

Aside from all that your point seems to me like your stating that two wrongs make a right. (ie we polluted recklessly and so should they). Think about when every developing or undeveloped country had this right and started growing industry, our pollution would be so bad that the wealthy nations efforts wouldnt amount to any conservation of our planet. Along with the corporation moving to these countries point I mentioned before. So stopping it in 2012 is better than 50 years.

Also because we have cooperated with these countries and transferred our wealth to their countries, we are the hands that feed them. Its our wealth that drives these economies through our high consumption of goods. If we werent around they would have no jobs and be about as worse of as they were 50 years ago. So yes the wealthy countries do have a right to complain and polluting the same amount per capita as these countries, whos wealth vitally depends on ours would severely hurt both us and them.

[Saturn]

1) Canadians already pay more for their energy (e.g. the price of gas in Canada is 2-3x what it is China) so that should already entitle them to emit more.

So if you can afford to buy cigarettes, you should have the right to puff in my face. Or since you can afford to buy a lot of junk, you have the right to come and dump your garbage in my back yard. It don't work that way! If you want to store your garbage in my back yard, you are going to have to pay a price that we agree on.

[Saturn]

Aside from all that your point seems to me like your stating that two wrongs make a right. (ie we polluted recklessly and so should they). Think about when every developing or undeveloped country had this right and started growing industry, our pollution would be so bad that the wealthy nations efforts wouldnt amount to any conservation of our planet. Along with the corporation moving to these countries point I mentioned before. So stopping it in 2012 is better than 50 years.

My point was quite the opposite. We polluted recklessly for 50 years, they get 5. It is ridiculous and disingenious of us to complain that we are somehow being treated unfairly. In fact, we got a much, much better deal and they have much more right to complain. If we don't stop whining and start cleaning up our act, they will never agree to start cleaning up theirs.

[Riverwind]

My point was quite the opposite. We polluted recklessly for 50 years, they get 5.

We polluted recklessly for 50 years developing the technology that allows them to improve their standard of living much faster than they would have been able to do on their own. If a Chinese company can steal technology from Western companies and then make a huge profit selling into Western markets then the Chinese should be expected to adopt the same pollution controls.

[Saturn]

My point was quite the opposite. We polluted recklessly for 50 years, they get 5.

We polluted recklessly for 50 years developing the technology that allows them to improve their standard of living much faster than they would have been able to do on their own. If a Chinese company can steal technology from Western companies and then make a huge profit selling into Western markets then the Chinese should be expected to adopt the same pollution controls.

That's something to think about when you go shopping and you buy a tonne of Chinese junk which manufactured by burning piles of coal, will last half as long before it ends up in a landfill as a similar product of better quality made elsewhere (but costs more).

[B. Max]

" 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

Actually we should get out of the UN and we be better off.

[jbg]

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.

You can't be serious. Do you really think China would clean up just because Canada does. Canada has enforced child and slave labor laws. Does China prevent the use of slave or child labor?

[jdobbin]

You can't be serious. Do you really think China would clean up just because Canada does. Canada has enforced child and slave labor laws. Does China prevent the use of slave or child labor?

You can also get a heart in China from a Falun Gong who will no longer have need of it.

The only way to pressure China is through trade which no one seems to want to do.

Coincidently, this is the same hammer that China uses on Canada.

Still, it is hard to say what Harper's policy towards China is because he hasn't announced one.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You can also get a heart in China from a Falun Gong who will no longer have need of it.

Still, it is hard to say what Harper's policy towards China is because he hasn't announced one.

Hasn't announced one? Sounds like you are ignoring the facts to attack the PM ... yet again.

Falun Gong practitioners seem to support the Prime Minister's support for human rights. Link

If you are going to continue to spew your vile for anything the PM does at least have some element of truth in your attack.

[jbg]

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.

Why would China, if getting rich because they can emit and Canada cannot, be nice and just follow Canada's example? Frankly, I think that in many of these countries, it's not a wealth issue, it's a distribution issue. Mandarins are Mandarins, whether called Mandarins or leaders of Communist Party.