Environment top priority

[scribblet]

If man has changed it for the worse, how is it presumptuous to think we could change it for the better?

Those who advocate doing nothing, are absolutely beyond comprehension, Andto use the fact that the USA, China and India are noty buying into it, so why should anyone else even more pathetic an excuse.

And India is NOT one of the world's largerst contributors, that is an absolute fallacy.

India with 1.1 billion people, have 1/10th the GHG emissions that Canada does at 33 million people and Canada with our low population of 33 million people produces 2% of the world's GHG.

And are you some sort of professional that you know if we acheive the goals that the impact would be zero? Please provide proof of that erroneous comment or presumption!

I'm not advocating doing nothing, we obviously need to clean up our act, but what do especially on only a national level will not halt any global climate change.

The earth's climate changed before man was on earth, and when first man was on earth, not likely he contributed to climate change, now is it?

from the BBC

China is the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but as a developing country is not yet required to reduce its emissions. hmmm

Developing countries like India are not obliged to make any cuts in greenhouse emissions under Kyoto. But as they raise living standards their emissions will increase. India's emissions are estimated to have risen by more than 50% in the 1990s, although the country has only submitted emissions figures to the UN for one year, 1994.

Developing countries like India are not obliged to make any cuts in greenhouse emissions under Kyoto. But as they raise living standards their emissions will increase. India's emissions are estimated to have risen by more than 50% in the 1990s, although the country has only submitted emissions figures to the UN for one year, 1994.

But with India's economy and population, like China's, continuing to grow, it is clear that the thorny issue of developing country emissions commitments will have to be tackled soon in future rounds of negotiations.

As I said, ALL countries have to do something now, otherwise it is useless, and even if ALL countries did something it would not stop the earth's climate change, only slow down the inevitable. Climate change cannot be stopped, so we need adapt and and adopt policies that will slow it down, including conserving water etc. and - reducing the population - otherwise !! There is certainly no consensus on any of it .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2341516,00.html one of many

THE world must be more realistic about the chances of preventing climate change and prepare for the inevitability of global warming, the head of one of Britain’s foremost scientific societies will urge today.

Politicians and environmentalists have failed to understand how difficult it will be to curb global warming and are overlooking the importance of adapting to the hotter world it will bring, according to Frances Cairncross, the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.

While measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming are essential, they have been emphasised over and above the equally vital need to develop ways of coping with climate change, Ms Cairncross will say.The “ineffectual” Kyoto Treaty will not stop temperatures rising, as the US and large developing nations such as China and India are not involved, and even if a global agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions is reached, a significant degree of warming is still likely........

[scribblet]

further to this, an excellent editorial by L. Goldstein

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...10/3276397.html

Having had a chance to do some research into the Kyoto accord, I have a question for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.

Why do you support a bizarre United Nations treaty that is mainly concerned with transferring billions of dollars from the First World (i.e. us) to the Third World over a period of decades, without any guarantees this will lower the man-made greenhouse gas emissions you say are the main cause of global warming?

Start delving into the Kyoto accord and you'll quickly discover it has very little to do with sensible things like practising meaningful energy conservation here in Canada, or reducing our heavy reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal.

And plenty to do with having "Annex I" countries (like us) ship big bags full of our money to undeveloped and underdeveloped nations who may, or may not, use said funds to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.

Whatever they do, Kyoto contains no provisions to compel those nations to live up to their word when Canadians and others, either as taxpayers or consumers, bankroll projects abroad to reduce greenhouse gases.

In terms of emission targets, Kyoto rewards notorious polluters like Russia and other former Eastern bloc nations (can you say "Chernobyl"?) for the fact their already inefficient economies collapsed in the early 1990s, after the Soviet Union fell apart.

-snip-

As for Harper, why do you now support a treaty which you surely must know is a mess and why are you ready to have (shudder) NDP leader Jack Layton make things even worse? Other than getting yourself re-elected, that is.

[White Doors]

And India is NOT one of the world's largest contributors, that is an absolute fallacy.

India produces at least 6% of the world's GHG which makes it's contribution 3 times larger than Canada's.

Futhermore, India has 100s of millions of workers that would love to replace high priced Canadian workers. GHG policies that put Canadian companies at a disadvantage compared to third world countries will hurt the Canadian economy and the average Canadian.

She either doesn't understand PER CAPITA or is being purposefully obtuse.

[madmax]

She either doesn't understand PER CAPITA or is being purposefully obtuse.

Why woud you want to compare GHG per capita ?

Why would you compare it on a per person basis?

[White Doors]

She either doesn't understand PER CAPITA or is being purposefully obtuse.

Why woud you want to compare GHG per capita ?

Why would you compare it on a per person basis?

I wasn't. She was. Read the thread more carefully. She said that Canada produces more GHG's than India which is patently false - or do you care to dispute that?

waiting...

[geoffrey]

Dion extends an olive branch to Alberta:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...75bf4cd&k=30623

No carbon tax, only more money to Alberta to fund environmental upgrades of the oilsands. Sounds like a win-win. Mr. Dion, we'll take your deal.

Now what do you think are the chances he'll do an about face upon being elected... I mean, you can't be nice to Alberta and get votes in Quebec.

Perhaps this is Kennedy's influence on the party. The only real Western candidate might be saying to ol' Chrietien II, "hey Stevie... give Alberta a chunk of cash and they'll be happy."

Who knows. But unexpected from a Quebecois, trying to get votes in Quebec? Absolutely.

--

EDIT: I also like how Dion thinks he's got something in common with Stelmach. A snobby Quebec academic and an Alberta farmer. I never thought I'd see the day.

Perhaps Dion is being silly....

[jdobbin]

Perhaps this is Kennedy's influence on the party. The only real Western candidate might be saying to ol' Chrietien II, "hey Stevie... give Alberta a chunk of cash and they'll be happy."

Who knows. But unexpected from a Quebecois, trying to get votes in Quebec? Absolutely.

I think I mentioned to you before that Kennedy might have an impact. I'm not sure if this is the case but Dion is trying to reach out to Alberta. And they might need some of that help because of the hardline of a state like California.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

To be sure the leader of the official opposition's office and the head office of the party have brought it a whole new bunch of people including a few westerners. Dion is changing quite a few people at the top to better organize the party and bring in different views.

[geoffrey]

He's still the only old news candidate out of a bunch of new faces. The Liberal's picked the old way, and can't be forgiven for that.

Being said, I'll give credit where it is due and this idea is definitely due for some Western credit.

Taxing petroleum like that makes no sense dobbin, California has it all wrong. If California rejects it, someone else is going to burn it. It's not like 'clean' petrol can just appear and fill the void.

[jdobbin]

He's still the only old news candidate out of a bunch of new faces. The Liberal's picked the old way, and can't be forgiven for that.

Being said, I'll give credit where it is due and this idea is definitely due for some Western credit.

Taxing petroleum like that makes no sense dobbin, California has it all wrong. If California rejects it, someone else is going to burn it. It's not like 'clean' petrol can just appear and fill the void.

I didn't say California was making sense. However, Schwarzenegger has come up with a winning formula for Republican rule in California. Given that he was running into possible reelection trouble before he struck out on this policy, I don't think he will be turning back now.

I'll settle for more policies that keep western Canada in mind. I know that you will as well.

[geoffrey]

I'll settle for more policies that keep western Canada in mind. I know that you will as well.

It's a tough sell coming from a Quebecois. This would be more remarkable than Harper in Quebec if Dion was able to pick up a seat in Alberta.

Either way, something needs to be done by the oilsands ASAP. Otherwise some wacko in Ottawa is going to do something terrible. A little regulation now will prevent a shut down policy later.

I'd just prefer it come from the area with constitutional jurisdiction over Nat. Resources, Alberta. And as climate is a natural resource, perhaps Ottawa is overstepping their constitutional powers... perhaps they were when they ratified Kyoto without support from the provinces.

[jdobbin]

It's a tough sell coming from a Quebecois. This would be more remarkable than Harper in Quebec if Dion was able to pick up a seat in Alberta.

I fully expect that Harper will be swinging through Quebec quite a lot in the next weeks. We'll see how his approach works with Quebecers.

In the meanwhile, Dion does not take Alberta for granted because there might not be anything to gain for a long time. He will have to build his support one policy at a time.

[Catchme]

Breaking news on the CPC Harper planned destruction of the environment that most likely prompted the useless Clean Air Act, and now their going; "ta da we are now taking the environment seriously" with Baird professing to be green.

And the timing of the Harper government meeting ith US oil, leaves no room for wondering who the donors are of those hidden campaign costs are/were. This was covered on the National tonight and there will be a full report on it on the National on Friday. This meeting took place 2 days after the CPC won their minority

U.S. urges 'fivefold expansion' in Alberta oilsands production

U.S.and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a "fivefold expansion" in oilsands production in a relatively "short time span," according minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC's French-language network, Radio-Canada.

Canada is already the top exporter of oil to the American market, exporting the equivalent of one million barrels a day — the exact amount that the oilsands industry in Alberta currently produces.

A fivefold increase would mean the exportation of five million barrels a day, which would supply a quarter of current American consumption and add up to almost half of all U.S. imports.

But the current extraction of oil from the tarsands results in the spewing of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere: it's already the biggest source of new greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

Harper to destroy environment