Canada's "Global Warming" Policy Irrelevant on World Sta

[JerrySeinfeld]

Awhile back I posted this article which I think does a great job of summing up the situation re: Canada's "global warming reaction".

Exceprts from Andrew Coyne:

At the Second World Climate Conference in 1990, Canada committed to stabilizing its emissions of greenhouse gases at then-current levels within a decade. The pledge was repeated in the federal government’s Green Plan of that year.

There followed a federal-provincial National Action Strategy on Global Warming, the federal Efficiency and Alternative Energy Program (1991), and a National Action Program on Climate Change (1995). A revised commitment, at Kyoto, to reduce emissions by 6 per cent from 1990 levels by 2008-12, resulted in the National Climate Change Process (1998), soon overtaken by Canada’s First National Climate Change Business Plan (2000), not to mention Canada’s National Implementation Strategy on Climate Change and, inevitably, a second National Climate Change Business Plan (2002). Meanwhile, the federal government was churning out Action Plan 2000, a Climate Change Plan for Canada (2002), and, in 2005, Project Green, billed as “a plan for honouring our Kyoto commitment.”

Altogether, I make that two programs, four plans, a process, two strategies, and a project. The result: by 2004, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions were nearly 27% above their 1990 baseline, having risen in more or less a straight line throughout this period. Ottawa alone had spent, by the federal environment commissioner’s count, $6-billion on sundry climate change schemes, to no discernible effect.

In other words - if you don't think "action on climate change" is more political than it is reality, you're drunk.

and THIS is a great passage:

Yes, there’s a danger, should concentrations rise above a certain level, that we may pass a tipping point, where the very processes unleashed by atmospheric warming give rise to further warming. But it is impossible to fix that point with any precision. The head of climate science for NASA, James Hansen, warns that global emissions must be capped by 2016. The Conservatives propose to do so starting in 2020. Four years marks the difference between whether the planet lives or dies?

Four years, moreover, in Canada -- a country that accounts for just 2 per cent of world emissions? To listen to some of the more hysterical of the government’s critics, you’d think they held the fate of the world in their hands. They -- we -- do not. We have a moral obligation to do our part, and we hardly set a good example when we renege on our international commitments, either de facto (the Liberals) or de jure (the Tories). But the cold fact is that Canada is largely irrelevant to the overall picture.

This is a problem, in sum, that will require concerted international action over the better part of a century. That’s a hard thing for democratic societies to manage, even one at a time, let alone trying to herd 160 or so countries with wildly diffferent resource bases, standards of living, and political ideologies inside the same corral. Now consider that the costs of global warming are distant and uncertain, while the costs of preventing it are real and apparent, and it is easy to understand why politicians are so slow to come to grips with it. The same public that demands action on global warming screams blue murder if the price of gas rises a nickel.T

That points to both the importance, and the insignificance, of Kyoto. It’s a treaty: nothing more, nothing less. Its targets were not decreed by cosmic writ, but were the result of the usual horse-trading and grandstanding -- witness the 6 per cent figure to which Jean Chretien committed Canada, on the basis that it was 1 per cent more than the Americans had promised. Still, you have to start somewhere. Without some such agreement, the temptation for every nation would be to free-ride on the others. So it’s unfortunate and embarrassing that we have not lived up to our commitments. But it’s not -- well, it’s not the end of the world.

[August1991]

Jerry, once again all you can do is quote others, but in this case your title is entirely misleading. Coyne is not saying that Canada's global warming policy is irrelevant.

If he had said that, then I would argue that my personal global warming policy of driving this (aren't my kids cute?) to work in the morning is also irrelevant. BTW, parking isn't a problem with my vehicle.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jerry, once again all you can do is quote others, but in this case your title is entirely misleading. Coyne is not saying that Canada's global warming policy is irrelevant.

If he had said that, then I would argue that my personal global warming policy of driving this (aren't my kids cute?) to work in the morning is also irrelevant. BTW, parking isn't a problem with my vehicle.

People like you who use words like "all" you can do... either don't have a command of the english language or see the world in black and white - either way it's simply not true.

But in this case, since I am using the article to spurn debate about a current issue, I stand guilty as charged

Now unless you hav something to say about politics, I'm not sure how your opinions about my opinions represents and original opinion

[theloniusfleabag]

I'll have to concur with August1991, and I'll have to add...The Moderator has requested that multiple threads be ended, yet there are several on Global warming already, and now this one, simply a regurgitation of already posted stuff. Really this is nothing more than 'partisan trolling' and should be reported.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I'll have to concur with August1991, and I'll have to add...The Moderator has requested that multiple threads be ended, yet there are several on Global warming already, and now this one, simply a regurgitation of already posted stuff. Really this is nothing more than 'partisan trolling' and should be reported.

No it's not. It's a relevant discussion of facts and reality versus "policy". The other threads discuss whether global warming is natural or man made. This thread is an entirely different issue - that of Canada's government's role, importance and past effectiveness in fixing the problem. It also reveals those in Canada who position the issue as "critical to the future" as frauds given our overall contribution to CO2 emissions.

I'm sorry you can't see the difference between the two issues and threads. But that's your problem, not mine.

FACT:

Various governments in Canada (primarily the Liberals) have put forth countless new papers, policies, actions plans etc. and spent $6 billion on "climate change" initiatives to no discenrable effect.

FACT:

Canada contributes very little to the overall CO2 emissions in Canada.

FACT:

The Kyoto protocol excludes the largest polluters in the world.

ergo: FACT:

Whichever policy our government "implements" (read: publishes, then ignores), it will have virtually no effect on whether or not the globe warms up.

so: FACT:

Any thread about Harper's or Layton's stance on global warming is a thread abuot fairy tales.

[August1991]

Jerry, I won't be drawn into saying that Earth will turn into the planet Venus by 2015 unless we do something now. I won't even defend Kyoto. But I will dispute your claim that global warming is not a potential problem.

Canada contributes very little to the overall CO2 emissions in Canada.

[bad sarcasm]My own personal CO2 emissions are even smaller than Canada's. Since I'm irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, I decided to get around in something that gets less mpg than your puny excuse for a "vehicle".[/bad sarcasm]

----

I have argued elsewhere that one ballot in a federal election is completely irrelevant and will change absolutely nothing. That's true. The same argument does not apply to atmospheric emissions. Your emissions change something, however minute. You (and typically the Left) misunderstand the difference between one person's vote in an election and one person's CO2 emissions. They are fundamentally different.

[Catchme]

This thread is redundant and wastes server space. Just because the other 2 threads on the environment went off of todays recent posts does not mean a new one needs to be started. Thinking they are out of sight out of mind and discussion is incorrect. Particularily when this thread starts out with a report from 1990! Time to update your view point maybe? The other 2 threads cover recent breaking news on Carbon Dioxide emissions and the PART THAT HUMANS PLAY IN THE FAST RISING LEVELS

So, I am just going to link to the other threads that cover this topic that somebody started, it seems they must not have liked the direction the other threads went in. I will also link this to them make a comment on Jack on them so this redundant thread can go by the way side.

Environmental thread that has actual new data

Link to thread on NEW study not a 1990 study

Layton did not rule out working with the Tories on the proposed clean air act to have the legislation "totally rewritten" with the NDP's input.

When it comes to Canada's global role in tackling climate change, "you've got to rise above the usual partisan nonsense that goes on … to take the strong action that's needed," he said.

Layton on the Environment and working with the CPC

[mikedavid00]

ergo: FACT:

Whichever policy our government "implements" (read: publishes, then ignores), it will have virtually no effect on whether or not the globe warms up.

I agree.

What part of this fact do people chose to ignore?

[scribblet]

ergo: FACT:

Whichever policy our government "implements" (read: publishes, then ignores), it will have virtually no effect on whether or not the globe warms up.

My point in the other thread, anything we do as a nation is irrelevant, the earth is changing as it has many times before, man cannot stop it.