Do you agree with Kyoto - or not?

[Saturn]

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

Canadians are the 3rd worst polluters in the world. The Chinese are far behind producing only one-seventh as much pollution. WTF are you talking about when you say that were are on the forefront of restricting pollution? We are on the foreftront of polluting, not of restricting pollution.

[Saturn]

You people are totally full of it! It's unbelievable that you can make up so much crap, repeat it like a broken record and expect someone else to believe it.

Let's keep it simple, so that you can process the facts:

1. Canada is the third worst GHG polluter in the world! (behind Saudi Arabia and the US)

2. Both the Russians and the Chinese (and the Indians and everyone else you are complaing about) pollute less than we do.

3. Russia will have trouble meeting its Kyoto targets (which are lower than ours btw), so our money will not be going to Russia.

4. Our money will not be going to India or China either, because they are not part of the Kyoto protocol (they will most likely join us in 2012).

5. Since Canada is the third worst polluter in the world and has the highest target under Kyoto, you ought to shut up and stop whining about other countries getting better deals because in reality we got the best deal.

[JerrySeinfeld]

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

Canadians are the 3rd worst polluters in the world. The Chinese are far behind producing only one-seventh as much pollution. WTF are you talking about when you say that were are on the forefront of restricting pollution? We are on the foreftront of polluting, not of restricting pollution.

Are you saying China as a country produces less CO2 than Canada? Cite?

[madmax]

Where do you stand on this issue?

You are about 12 years and a ratification late.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Where do you stand on this issue?

You are about 12 years and a ratification late.

Isn't "Kyoto" the Japanese word for "continued pollution combined with massive wealth transfer to third world"?

[madmax]

if you want action - pray that the Liberals do not get re-elected.

I think we have already had a taste of Liberal Action on the environment. Talk is cheap. Delay has proven to be expensive.

[madmax]

Isn't "Kyoto" the Japanese word for "continued pollution combined with massive wealth transfer to third world"?

Only if one wants to take the easy route. Obviously American Industry is lusting over the idea, Since they are all going to China on mass. There is nothing wrong with taking care of our own environment here, to meet Kyoto targets.

You might wonder why the Liberals were choosing the easy way out?

[geoffrey]

It's actually impossible to meet Kyoto targets without making Canada 3rd world.

We need more time, 50 years is completely reasonable in timeframe to have reductions complete. That doesn't mean do nothing for 50 years, it's a little bit here and there that would ensure Canada is a leader internationally while maintaining our industrial growth and strength.

[Saturn]

It's actually impossible to meet Kyoto targets without making Canada 3rd world.

We need more time, 50 years is completely reasonable in timeframe to have reductions complete. That doesn't mean do nothing for 50 years, it's a little bit here and there that would ensure Canada is a leader internationally while maintaining our industrial growth and strength.

Is Norway third world? Northern country, lots of oil, and only 2/3 of the GHGs. Most of Europe produces 1/2 as much GHGs as Canada and how many European countries are 3rd world?

[hiti]

The technology in a lot of areas already exists. It's the will to spend the money up front that isn't there and to reduce emissions. This needs to be regulated with time-line and time-frames for cutting emissions. Tax incentives such as tax credits for clean plants and tax penalties for dirty emitters would help. Canada could then easily meet the Kyoto targets.

Some of the technology out there:

Joffre Plant

Nova Chemicals

Solar Energy

Using C02 for oil and gas extraction

Waste Management and Recycling

[Riverwind]

1. Canada is the third worst GHG polluter in the world! (behind Saudi Arabia and the US)

Rubish. Per capita emission statistics mean nothing - the only thing that means something are total emissions and Canada's total emissions are much less than India or the Chinese. Furthermore, the additional emissions dumped into the atmosphere by the extra 100 million people that China and India add to the world population each year will cause a larger increase in GHGs emissions that any reduction that Canada could possible hope to achieve.

3. Russia will have trouble meeting its Kyoto targets (which are lower than ours btw), so our money will not be going to Russia.

The Russians did not have to do anything to meet their targets because of the ridiculously arbitrary selection of 1990 as the target date. The Russians would have never signed the deal if they thought they needed to make sacrifices. Futhermore, since Russia is about the only country that has credits to sell that means our money will go to Russia.

5. Since Canada is the third worst polluter in the world and has the highest target under Kyoto, you ought to shut up and stop whining about other countries getting better deals because in reality we got the best deal.

Rubbish - no country has the same issues with geography, climate and growing population. We can do things to reduce GHGs but making huge sacrifices trying to meet the the Kyoto targets is a waste of time and money.

[Keepitsimple]

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.

Here's the link:

Link is at http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archives/...15/2502949.html

[scribblet]

No!! Why should we buy credits from countries who will continue to pollute. Kyoto is nothing but a socialist agenda of distributing the wealth.

[Wilber]

As CO2 is the chief byproduct of breathing and there are over 40 times more Chinese than Canadians, they produce 40 times more CO2 by just breathing.

[JerrySeinfeld]

As CO2 is the chief byproduct of breathing and there are over 40 times more Chinese than Canadians, they produce 40 times more CO2 by just breathing.

And don't forget India (which will soon be larger than China in population.)

Not only that - but only about 2% of the world's GHG emissions are human made. The bulk comes from the oceans, volcanoes etc.

I'm not sure why the greenies are attacking western industry to fix the "problem".

Should we be talking about teaching billions of Chinese to breathe less, handing out condoms to Indian couples and changing the ocean's chemistry to suit our latest "crisis"?

It would certainly take a bigger bite out of GHGs and might even be cheaper!

[Saturn]

Not only that - but only about 2% of the world's GHG emissions are human made. The bulk comes from the oceans, volcanoes etc.

LOL! I would comment but I can't stop laughing.

[Topaz]

We keep hearing that Koyto can't be reached. Well, if the Feds say they can't do it, then give the money to the provinces and let the provinces do what the Feds won't!!!! We all know without clean air clean, people will get sick and die and IF you don't have your health nothing else matters! Has anyone else noticed that when Rona was Minister the environment was on the bad burner and when Haper finally woke up and saw how serious Canadians are, Baird is acting like they have ALWAYS care about the environment. I, say, alittle to late to say they have always care about the enviroment.

[Wilber]

We keep hearing that Koyto can't be reached. Well, if the Feds say they can't do it, then give the money to the provinces and let the provinces do what the Feds won't!!!! We all know without clean air clean, people will get sick and die and IF you don't have your health nothing else matters! Has anyone else noticed that when Rona was Minister the environment was on the bad burner and when Haper finally woke up and saw how serious Canadians are, Baird is acting like they have ALWAYS care about the environment. I, say, alittle to late to say they have always care about the enviroment.

Kyoto has nothing to do with clean air, it's about reducing CO2 emissions.

[Keepitsimple]

We keep hearing that Koyto can't be reached. Well, if the Feds say they can't do it, then give the money to the provinces and let the provinces do what the Feds won't!!!! We all know without clean air clean, people will get sick and die and IF you don't have your health nothing else matters! Has anyone else noticed that when Rona was Minister the environment was on the bad burner and when Haper finally woke up and saw how serious Canadians are, Baird is acting like they have ALWAYS care about the environment. I, say, alittle to late to say they have always care about the enviroment.

In 1997, Canada, under the previous Liberal government, negotiated our Kyoto target - 6% below GHG levels for 1990 to be reached by 2012. At the time, this was thought to be very agressive and it has proven so for most of the Kyoto signatories. So here we are in 2007, 25% worse than when we started and 30% over our target. If the original goal was aggressive, what insanity would make anyone think that we could even come close to meeting our target? Saying we can even come close by 2012 makes a mockery of the original goal.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It's actually impossible to meet Kyoto targets without making Canada 3rd world.

We need more time, 50 years is completely reasonable in timeframe to have reductions complete. That doesn't mean do nothing for 50 years, it's a little bit here and there that would ensure Canada is a leader internationally while maintaining our industrial growth and strength.

Is Norway third world? Northern country, lots of oil, and only 2/3 of the GHGs. Most of Europe produces 1/2 as much GHGs as Canada and how many European countries are 3rd world?

Give it time, friend - it's happening slowly.

[geoffrey]

It's actually impossible to meet Kyoto targets without making Canada 3rd world.

We need more time, 50 years is completely reasonable in timeframe to have reductions complete. That doesn't mean do nothing for 50 years, it's a little bit here and there that would ensure Canada is a leader internationally while maintaining our industrial growth and strength.

Is Norway third world? Northern country, lots of oil, and only 2/3 of the GHGs. Most of Europe produces 1/2 as much GHGs as Canada and how many European countries are 3rd world?

Do you have any actual evidence of per capita Norway emissions?

I'd suggest their ocean moderated climate might have something to do with it... and the fact that they don't use cars for long distance transit considering the population is concentrated in an area smaller than Southern Ontario. I wonder how many large domestic flights they have in Norway...

Canada is about what, 20 times the size, maybe 30 times the size. All those forests contribute more as a carbon sink than Norway could ever dream.

[jbg]

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.

The major trader of emission credits is Desmairis/Power Corp., and the Maurice Strong gang. This was always about two things; control, and making those folks wealthy. It is a disgrace.

[Saturn]

Do you have any actual evidence of per capita Norway emissions?

http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/i...variable_ID=466

Searchable Database Results

Climate and Atmosphere -- CO2 Emissions: CO2 emissions per capita (source: WRI)

Units: Metric tons of carbon dioxide per person

Country 2002

Australia 17.29

Canada 16.54

China 2.93

France 6.34

Germany 10.46

India 1.05

Indonesia 1.55

Norway 8.25

Russian Federation 10.55

Spain 7.79

Sweden 5.91

United Kingdom 9.15

United States 19.92

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ions_per_capita

2003

Canada 17.9

Norway 9.9

France 6.2

Russia 10.3

China 3.2

India 1.19

No matter how you slice it, Canada's emissions are roughly double that of European countries and Russia.

Btw, third world countries have 1-5% of our emissions, so in order to end up like a 3rd world country, we'll have to cut our emissions by 95-99%. That's not what we are aiming for. We are aiming for a 20% reduction which will put us more in line with 1st world countries (and our emissions will still be higher than most 1st world countries).

I'd suggest their ocean moderated climate might have something to do with it... and the fact that they don't use cars for long distance transit considering the population is concentrated in an area smaller than Southern Ontario. I wonder how many large domestic flights they have in Norway...

Canada is about what, 20 times the size, maybe 30 times the size. All those forests contribute more as a carbon sink than Norway could ever dream.

You can suggest a tonne of other ridiculous reasons but landmass doesn't double your emissions. The reality is that energy is very cheap in Canada and we waste it like it's free. In addition government and industry policies do not promote energy efficiency, which of course makes little economic sense because there are a lot of savings to be gained from using less energy. Add to that the environmental benefits of using less energy and you are looking at substantial savings now and in the future.

[August1991]

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.

As others have pointed out, Kyoto doesn't require us to send billions to Russia. Kyoto gives us the choice.

The purpose of the exercice is to reduce worldwide GHG emissions from a 1990 baseline, arbitrarily drawn. If one country manages to reduce its emissions, then it means another country can have higher emissions without overall global emissions increasing.

Since Russia is at present below its 1990 emissions level, then other countries can have higher emissions and the world's total output of GHG will still be less than in 1990.

----

TheloniousMonk, Hugo and I and others have debated endlessly in other threads how to define ownership. This debate may have seemed arcane and pointless but it has direct consequences in the real world.

Kyoto cut the proverbial pie and made Russia and Germany and many other countries "rich". They can now sell their big pieces of the pie to us, since our pieces are so small. I frankly think Canada is collateral damage in Kyoto. The negotiations were primarily aimed at the US.

The principle of Kyoto, buying, selling, free markets, is a good one. But before we can buy and sell anything, we have to define ownership. Kyoto gave ownership of the environment to everyone but the US. And then Kyoto said to the US, "You want to use it? Buy it."

[Saturn]

Kyoto cut the proverbial pie and made Russia and Germany and many other countries "rich". They can now sell their big pieces of the pie to us, since our pieces are so small. I frankly think Canada is collateral damage in Kyoto. The negotiations were primarily aimed at the US.

You ought to stop bullshitting. Russia will have a hard time meeting its target and if they end up selling any emissions credits, they will amount to close to nothing. To claim that a country gets rich by experiencing a 40% drop in economic output is ludicrous.

Germany isn't getting rich either because any reductions in emissions there are achieved by investing in efficient technologies and spending money. So the Germans have spent a lot of dough to reduce their emissions and they deserve some financial reward for it.

Kyoto allows countries to choose whether to be environmentally wise or to be environmentally irresponsible. The wise are rewarded for their efforts and the irresponsible are punished for their wastefulness. That's how markets work. You want a car, you have to pay for it. If you give up your car, you get paid for it. That's because there are only so many cars to go around. If you want to pollute more, you pay. If you give up polluting, you get paid for it. That's because there is only so much pollution that our planet can tolerate.

That's the simplest way to put it for the bullshitters here, even though I doubt that they are capable of comprehending even such simple concepts.