Do you agree with Kyoto - or not?

[Keepitsimple]

Many Canadians think that "supporting" Kyoto means making a concerted effort to reach certain targets. It is more than that....and that is why more and more Canadians are becoming skeptical of its merits. Please read on and let us know where you stand.

Liberal leader Christian Dion does not want to address the most serious flaw in the Kyoto agreement. It is clear that Canada will miss its Kyoto targets by a huge margin. According to Kyoto, we are obligated to "buy" credits from "developing" countries or Russia to make up for our shortfall. This would amount to billions of dollars being directed out of the country - instead of being invested here in Canada - in our own green solution. The previous Liberal government had actually set aside many billions (not sure of the exact amount), precisely for this purpose because they knew they could not possibly meet their targets. Our left-leaning media will simply not address this directly with Dion and pin him down - will he, or will he not send money out of the country to meet our shortfalls? If he does, he should be clear. If he does not, he's violating Kyoto.

On a similar front, the CBC continually trots out John Bennet, the talking head of the Climate Action Network. He consistently uses the catch-phrase that Kyoto has "flexible mechanisms that will allow Canada to meet their Kyoto commitments". Those mechanisms of course, are again, the shipping of hard-earned tax dollars to foreign countries to make up for any Canadian shortfall against our Kyoto targets. CBC of course, refuses to re-phrase their question to pin this activist down.

Where do you stand on this issue? If your choice was to send billions to another country or to invest those billions in a Green solution here in Canada - what choice would you make? Some might say it is not that simple. It is that simple - because buying credits is the lynch-pin of Kyoto and if you don't agree with that philosophy, you don't agree with Kyoto.

[B. Max]

Where do you stand on this issue? If your choice was to send billions to another country or to invest those billions in a Green solution here in Canada - what choice would you make? Some might say it is not that simple. It is that simple - because buying credits is the lynch-pin of Kyoto and if you don't agree with that philosophy, you don't agree with Kyoto.

Kyoto and anything connected with it is insanity.

[Riverwind]

The answer should be obvious: if the choice is between saying screw Kyoto and shipping billions overseas then the answer can only be screw kyoto. However, Canada does have the option of withdrawing from the protocol according to Section 27:

1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary.

Three years for Canada is 16 February 2008. It is time for our politicians to do the responsible thing and withdraw. We can still work towards reducing GHG but anyone who thinks Canada can meet the targets is hopelessly naive.

[B. Max]

Another scientist says CO2 global warming is crap.

Anyone with a clue knows Russia signed in hopes of filling their pockets.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

[gc1765]

I'm in favour of the idea that was originally posted by Riverwind:

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.

...I mean, if our actions are going to cause someone's house to be underwater, the least we could do is cut them a cheque to provide some aid.

[August1991]

While I understand Kyoto and even agree with its intent, I can also perfectly understand why the US never ratified the treaty. Kyoto is deeply flawed but I have no doubt there will be a Kyoto II, similar to this one, within a decade. An agreement such as Kyoto is the only way to deal with greenhouse gases.

At the same time, Kyoto has become a shibolleth - a way to decide whose side a person is on. Most people who say they are against or for Kyoto don't know what it is. Instead, they are simply identifying themselves, like shirts or skins.

According to Kyoto, we are obligated to "buy" credits from "developing" countries or Russia to make up for our shortfall. This would amount to billions of dollars being directed out of the country - instead of being invested here in Canada - in our own green solution.

Under Kyoto, Canada is not obliged to send money to Russia. We have a choice of either spending money to reduce our GHG emissions or else spending money to reduce emissions elsewhere in the world. If it's cheaper to reduce GHG emissions in Russia, then we would be foolish to spend more money reducing fewer emissions here in Canada. It's global warming. It doesn't matter where in the world we reduce the CO2 as long as we reduce them.

But then, why does Canada have to seek ways to reduce CO2 emissions but Russia, for example, does not? Who drew the line?

That's one critical flaw in Kyoto. Canada agreed to reduce its CO2 emissions by 6% (from 1990 levels). Russia agreed to do the same, except in 1990, Soviet emissions were estimated to be very high. Russia now is well below its 1990 emission level simply because its industrial base doesn't work as well. (I frankly think it didn't work well in Soviet times either but Kyoto is based on official statistics.)

----

Few people will appreciate this nuance and most will simply hear that we are sending in billions to Russia and say that's crazy.

Although it's more costly, a Kyoto II will probably have to reduce GHG emissions on a country by country basis, while allowing bilateral agreements.

[jdobbin]

Another scientist says CO2 global warming is crap.

Anyone with a clue knows Russia signed in hopes of filling their pockets.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

It would help if this person had a research paper on the subject. He doesn't. And his claim for global cooling to start happening soon can also not be verified because he doesn't have research to back it up.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007...ames_the_s.html

[B. Max]

It would help if this person had a research paper on the subject. He doesn't. And his claim for global cooling to start happening soon can also not be verified because he doesn't have research to back it up.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007...ames_the_s.html

How do you know what he's got.

[jdobbin]

How do you know what he's got.

I just did a journal search online. You can do the same yourself and you will see the same results: 0.

[Saturn]

That's one critical flaw in Kyoto. Canada agreed to reduce its CO2 emissions by 6% (from 1990 levels). Russia agreed to do the same, except in 1990, Soviet emissions were estimated to be very high.

Soviet emissions in 1990 (which were "estimated to be very high") were still lower than Canada's. Now cut the crap. Canada doesn't look good any way you slice it.

[Saturn]

Another scientist says CO2 global warming is crap.

Anyone with a clue knows Russia signed in hopes of filling their pockets.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

Total bullshit. You obviously have no clue. Russia has more oil and natural gas and carbon in every other form than we do. They don't like Kyoto either and they won't be filling their pockets with anything because they will have hard time meeting their Kyoto targets too. Their oil and gas industry is strong and influential and they are fighting Kyoto just like ours is. Of course there are Russian scientists who claim that global warming is not happening. The Russian oil and gas industry have plenty of money to fund "research".

[geoffrey]

Total bullshit. You obviously have no clue. Russia has more oil and natural gas and carbon in every other form than we do.

Alberta alone has more oil than anywhere but Saudi Arabia (possibly Venezeula):

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Canada

[August1991]

Good quote:

China, India and the U.S. -- none of them restricted by Kyoto -- are planning to build more than 850 new coal-fired energy plants over the next few years. China alone is planning 562. (Burning coal emits more greenhouse gas, linked to global warming, than oil or natural gas, the world's two other major fossil fuels.)

Two years ago, the respected Christian Science Monitor (CSM) did an in-depth analysis of the implications of this planned coal-fired plant construction in China, India and the U.S. It estimated these 850 plants will put five times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than Kyoto is designed to remove, even if every other country, including Canada, miraculously hits its Kyoto target.

Link

[Riverwind]

Soviet emissions in 1990 were still lower than Canada's. Now cut the crap. Canada doesn't look good any way you slice it.

The Russian economy went into a tail spin after 1990. This had the side effect of dramatically reducing emissions because economic activity simply stopped. Russian economic activity has since recovered and GHGs have since risen dramatically, however, the arbitrary choice of 1990 as the Kyoto target date means Russia can meet its Kyoto targets without doing any work or making any sacrifices. If 1995 was choosen as a target date then Russia would not be able to meet the Kyoto targets and would likely have never signed onto the protocol in the first place.

The arbitrary choice of 1990 as the target date give Russia an unfair advantage compared to all other countries and that is one of the biggest reasons why meeting Kyoto targets by purchasing credits from Russia or other east block countries is a waste of money. That said, I would not be opposed to spending money helping people in other countries deal with the consequences of climate change - I just object to buying emission credits to meet arbitrary targets.

[Saturn]

Soviet emissions in 1990 were still lower than Canada's. Now cut the crap. Canada doesn't look good any way you slice it.

The Russian economy went into a tail spin after 1990. This had the side effect of dramatically reducing emissions because economic activity simply stopped. Russian economic activity has since recovered and GHGs have since risen dramatically, however, the arbitrary choice of 1990 as the Kyoto target date means Russia can meet its Kyoto targets without doing any work or making any sacrifices. If 1995 was choosen as a target date then Russia would not be able to meet the Kyoto targets and would likely have never signed onto the protocol in the first place.

The arbitrary choice of 1990 as the target date give Russia an unfair advantage compared to all other countries and that is one of the biggest reasons why meeting Kyoto targets by purchasing credits from Russia or other east block countries is a waste of money. That said, I would not be opposed to spending money helping people in other countries deal with the consequences of climate change - I just object to buying emission credits to meet arbitrary targets.

That makes sense. The soviet economy went into a tailspin so the baseline date is bad - it gives Russia an unfair advantage. So we ought to wait for Canada's economy to drop 30% and then set the date. That's just plain ridiculous. Maybe we ought to wait for every other country to experience economic meltdown and set the date over and over again.

Reality Check: Russia's target is just below our own. So Canada got the unfair advantage here.

Reality Check: Canada has the highest target of all countries in the Kyoto accord. Canada got an unfair advantage. Stop whining! Arbitrary arguments picking on this country or that one don't cut it.

[Keepitsimple]

Let's keep going on the original question - do you agree with sending billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to foreign countries to make up for Canada's shortfall in meeting Kyoto targets - instead of investing that money right here in Canada to further our own GHG reductions? This goes to the essence of Kyoto - if you cannot support this approach, then you cannot support Kyoto. Kyoto, as presented by opposition parties and the media is an all-or-nothing scenario - black or white - for it or against it. It's unfortunate that it has become so polarized and politicized - but it's a fact. Rona Ambrose made a speech in Nairobi back in November. Following is the "embarrassment to Canada", it carries a lot of sincerity and truth if one can put aside the dogma of Kyoto. One can only hope.

CONCLUSION

As we gather here, we are as ministers obligated to take stock of the challenges facing us, through article 3.9, article 9, and the convention dialogue.

As we do this, we must ask ourselves "what has worked" and "what has not worked" under the protocol to date.

There are some who fear that by admitting certain things are not working we are in effect abandoning Kyoto. On the contrary, I would challenge each of us to recognize that we are abandoning our protocol obligations if we do not acknowledge that we must make improvements.

Our debate needs to be one of constructive dialogue - centered on real policy discussions, not cynicism and political expediency.

Ultimately we will not achieve success by denying the shortcomings of our past approach.

Rather, success lies in an open, honest and constructive assessment of where we stand today, and a determined effort to identify how we can collectively move forward to find a truly global solution to combat climate change.

In Canada, climate change is the subject of vigorous debate – as it is throughout the world. In our Parliament, our government seeks open and constructive dialogue and welcomes every overture of collaboration.

We seek and offer the same in the international community.

[Saturn]

Good quote:

China, India and the U.S. -- none of them restricted by Kyoto -- are planning to build more than 850 new coal-fired energy plants over the next few years. China alone is planning 562. (Burning coal emits more greenhouse gas, linked to global warming, than oil or natural gas, the world's two other major fossil fuels.)

Hello! Who buys the Chinese and Indian crap produced with coal electricity? We do! If you don't want China and India building coal plants, don't buy their junk!

[Saturn]

Let's keep going on the original question - do you agree with sending billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to foreign countries to make up for Canada's shortfall in meeting Kyoto targets - instead of investing that money right here in Canada to further our own GHG reductions? This goes to the essence of Kyoto - if you cannot support this approach, then you cannot support Kyoto. Kyoto, as presented by opposition parties and the media is an all-or-nothing scenario - black or white - for it or against it. It's unfortunate that it has become so polarized and politicized - but it's a fact. Rona Ambrose made a speech in Nairobi back in November. Following is the "embarrassment to Canada", it carries a lot of sincerity and truth if one can put aside the dogma of Kyoto. One can only hope.

If you pollute, you must pay. Pollution should not be free. Given that Canadian polluters will not be faced with penalties internally, then paying our hard earned tax dollars to others ought to give us a push to put pressure on our polluters to pollute less and to pollute less as individuals. Obviously, it's not the best way to do it but if it's not this way, we'll never do it. So, yes, Kyoto is the best we have.

[August1991]

Hello! Who buys the Chinese and Indian crap produced with coal electricity? We do! If you don't want China and India building coal plants, don't buy their junk!

So North America is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around us?

That's an extremely self-centred opinion. You have ignored all the people in the rest of the world, the Chinese and Indians included.

Do you really believe that if we didn't buy Chinese stuff, the Chinese economy would immediately stop? And what of India?

Sorry, there's more to the world than North America and the Chinese are not merely drones producing stuff for North Americans. China and India are developing rapidly because individual Chinese and Indians want a better life for themselves.

At present, the Chinese are building one coal generating electric station every week. Five new stations emit the equivalent CO2 as what Canada has agreed to cut under Kyoto (cuts that Canada is nowhere near meeting).

I note all this because Kyoto imposes no restrictions on India or China. Don't get me wrong, Saturn. I agree that global warming is a potential and serious problem. But Kyoto is not the solution.

Let's keep going on the original question - do you agree with sending billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to foreign countries to make up for Canada's shortfall in meeting Kyoto targets - instead of investing that money right here in Canada to further our own GHG reductions?

Absolutely. It does not matter where in the world we reduce CO2 emissions. It's a global problem.

If it cost $1 billion to reduce emissions in Canada by X amount, but only $500 million to reduce emissions by the same X amount elsewhere in the world, then it it would be foolish and costly to do it here. We want the biggest bang for the buck.

And Keepitsimple, if you quote another text, provide a link or at least indicate that it's not your writing. People have been banned from this forum for what you did above.

[sharkman]

If you pollute, you must pay. Pollution should not be free. Given that Canadian polluters will not be faced with penalties internally, then paying our hard earned tax dollars to others ought to give us a push to put pressure on our polluters to pollute less and to pollute less as individuals. Obviously, it's not the best way to do it but if it's not this way, we'll never do it. So, yes, Kyoto is the best we have.

Nonsense. China won't be paying, (as well as others that have been mentioned) and they are going to be polluting far more than anyone else. On top of their coal fired plants, it is a fact that I linked to on another thread that they will be building 15 nuclear fired plants in the next several years. Further, you mentioned that all those buying Chinese crap should stop and this would stop coal plant production. Wrong again. It's too late for that since the Chinese population of over 1 billion will be buying their own products.

Given that Canada is already on the forefront of restricting pollution, our behaviour should be rewarded, not penalized with having to buy pollution credits.

[fellowtraveller]

Russia had many smokestack, heavy industrial operations go belly up at the most convenient time- when Kyoto targets were set. These industries will never be restarted, and are a terrific source of GHG credit for the country. Canada may buy these credits, but the reality is that GHG gas emissions will not be reduced at all. It simply transfers a few billion from Canada to Russia, both countries produce the same or more GHG. I need somebody to explain the upside to that, aside from the obvious fiscal benefit to Russia and the increase in smugness to some folks in Canada that somehow feel that something noble has been accomplished.

Another candidate for Kyoto near-fraud is Germany. Their 1990 baseline includes all the moribund smokestack industry from the former East Germany. Closed factories are a great aid in achieving their Kyotot targets at little or no cost.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's an added thought - if we truly care about the environment, we should thank the stars that the Conservatives are in power...and here's why. If the Liberals had remained in power, the CBC and our leftist media would have continued to give them a free ride. Oh, they would have had a few complaints but for the most part, they would line up behind whatever promises the Liberals made and defend most of their actions. You need only reflect back on Stephan Dion's 17 months as Environment Minister and the Liberals overall environment progress to understand how truthful this is. They did next to nothing and yet were not taken to task in any meaningful way - and even in retrospect, the media is sparing in their criticism of Liberal inaction. With the Conservatives in power, there is undying fire and brimstone coming from all quarters. Harper boots Ambrose and appoints Baird - it's a political ploy. Harper decides to meet with Arnie the Governator to get a better idea of the hows and whys of California's green plans - John Bennett of Climate Action says he should stop meeting and start doing - it goes on and on, day after day. So all this pressure - which is really a paranoid reflex action to villify Harper and the Conservatives - is actually good for the environment. So if you want action - pray that the Liberals do not get re-elected.

[August1991]

Russia had many smokestack, heavy industrial operations go belly up at the most convenient time- when Kyoto targets were set. These industries will never be restarted, and are a terrific source of GHG credit for the country. Canada may buy these credits, but the reality is that GHG gas emissions will not be reduced at all.

The principle that we should pay to reduce GHG emissions at lowest cost wherever they occur in the world should not be confused with Kyoto's baseline year of 1990.

Why was 1990 chosen? Well, gee. Think about it. In 1997, when Kyoto targets were negotiated, Germany and Russia knew exactly what it meant to choose 1990 as a baseline year. (Excluding China and India and almost all underdeveloped countries made it easy for them to agree to Kyoto.) In the case of Russia, it's particularly galling because the 1990 numbers are entirely based on fictitious official statistics. (Under Kyoto, each country was supposed to make its own inventory of its 1990 GHG emissions. The UN has never verified these numbers.)

The US has always noted these flaws and the chance of the US Congress ratifying Kyoto was basically zilch.

Nevertheless, the principle of Kyoto and the idea of trading emissions rights is perfectly sound. In the long run, it is the only way we will ever properly solve this problem. In the meantime however, I think we'll need a Kyoto II with sensible national targets.

[fellowtraveller]

Russia had many smokestack, heavy industrial operations go belly up at the most convenient time- when Kyoto targets were set. These industries will never be restarted, and are a terrific source of GHG credit for the country. Canada may buy these credits, but the reality is that GHG gas emissions will not be reduced at all.

The principle that we should pay to reduce GHG emissions at lowest cost wherever they occur in the world should not be confused with Kyoto's baseline year of 1990.

Why was 1990 chosen? Well, gee. Think about it. In 1997, when Kyoto targets were negotiated, Germany and Russia knew exactly what it meant to choose 1990 as a baseline year. (Excluding China and India and almost all underdeveloped countries made it easy for them to agree to Kyoto.) In the case of Russia, it's particularly galling because the 1990 numbers are entirely based on fictitious official statistics. (Under Kyoto, each country was supposed to make its own inventory of its 1990 GHG emissions. The UN has never verified these numbers.)

The US has always noted these flaws and the chance of the US Congress ratifying Kyoto was basically zilch.

Nevertheless, the principle of Kyoto and the idea of trading emissions rights is perfectly sound. In the long run, it is the only way we will ever properly solve this problem. In the meantime however, I think we'll need a Kyoto II with sensible national targets.

Ah, an answer to my prayers, somebody who can now explain why sending several billion Canadian dollars to Russia, for zero overall reduction in GHG is a good thing for our planet.

Go ahead.

[Wilber]

If it cost $1 billion to reduce emissions in Canada by X amount, but only $500 million to reduce emissions by the same X amount elsewhere in the world, then it it would be foolish and costly to do it here. We want the biggest bang for the buck.

I still don't see how handing another government money is going to reduce emissions. Is there any kind of guaranty that the money will be used only for reducing that country's emissions or is it just a way for rich countries to do nothing about their own while looking like they are doing something?

As stated, countries like Russia and Germany look good under Kyoto because large segments of their industrial economy have gone in the tank since 1990 because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain. I don't think that is a model we want to imitate.