Saturn Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 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." WTF are you talking about? You want ownership? You figure you should own twice as much of the atmosphere than a Norwegian or a Russian guy should and 10 times more than a Chinese guy should. And then you whine that you didn't get enough. Shut up! The only fair way to define ownership is to divide it equally among the earth's population. You already got far more than just about everybody else out there. So shut up and be thankful for it. Geez, whiny retards! Nothing's ever good enough for you. You make me want to puke! Quote
Riverwind Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 No matter how you slice it, Canada's emissions are roughly double that of European countries and Russia.Once again you abuse statistics. The correct numbers for total GHG emissions are here.United States 24.3 % European Union 15.3 % China 14.5 % Russia 5.9 % India 5.1 % Japan 5.0 % Germany 3.3 % United Kingdom 2.3 % Canada 2.1 % As you can see Russia and India emit 2.5 times the emissions of Canada. China emits 7 times the amount. No matter how you slice it Canada is not a big GHG contributor. Any reduction that we achieve will be swamped by the increases in GHGs coming from countries like China and India. That is why it makes no sense for Canada to make big sacrifices to meet Kyoto targets if our neighbor and biggest trading partner is not willing to do the same. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Saturn Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 No matter how you slice it, Canada's emissions are roughly double that of European countries and Russia.Once again you abuse statistics. The correct numbers for total GHG emissions are here.United States 24.3 % European Union 15.3 % China 14.5 % Russia 5.9 % India 5.1 % Japan 5.0 % Germany 3.3 % United Kingdom 2.3 % Canada 2.1 % As you can see Russia and India emit 2.5 times the emissions of Canada. China emits 7 times the amount. No matter how you slice it Canada is not a big GHG contributor. Any reduction that we achieve will be swamped by the increases in GHGs coming from countries like China and India. That is why it makes no sense for Canada to make big sacrifices to meet Kyoto targets if our neighbor and biggest trading partner is not willing to do the same. Dumb! Quote
Riverwind Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 As you can see Russia and India emit 2.5 times the emissions of Canada. China emits 7 times the amount.Dumb!The numbers speak for themselves. The atmosphere only cares about total GHG emissions - per capita emissions don't mean much. Especially when you consider that a large chunk of our GHGs are emitted so we can export products that the world needs like oil. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
jbg Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 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. 1990 was hardly arbitrary. It is a baseline year that is grievously unfair to the US, Canada and Australia, since that was a recession year for us. By contrast, Europe was at a peak, and immediately after end of 1990 Germany was re-unified, closing many factories in the former East Germany. Similarly, without subsidies, many factories in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic closed, placing Europe immediately well under the 1990 baseline. Also, some countries have base years other than 1990. Countries with base-years other than 1990 are Hungary (average 1985-1987), Poland (1988) and Slovenia (1986) (link). I cannot believe that those variations give these countries more ambitious targets. If a year such as 2000 were picked as the US's base, it would be a fairer treaty. There's also not a chance in h*ll that European countries would have ratified such a treaty. Further demonstrating Kyoto's cynical nature, a new aluminum smelter then planned, now constructed in Iceland (link) was excluded from Kyoto's coverage. This treaty is cynical and unfair. 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. Imploding half their countries' industrial base is hardly "investing in efficient technologies". Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Saturn Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 By contrast, Europe was at a peak, and immediately after end of 1990 Germany was re-unified, closing many factories in the former East Germany. Similarly, without subsidies, many factories in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic closed, placing Europe immediately well under the 1990 baseline. Also, some countries have base years other than 1990 (link).. I cannot believe that those variations give these countries more ambitious targets. Your bullshit never ends. Europe had a recession in the early 90s, just like North America did. Eastern Europe fell below the 1990 levels because it had a deep and prolonged depression. The earlier years for some eastern european countries were picked because the depression had already started. Depressions don't last forever and picking a date when your economy is 30% down is not representative of a country's economic situation. On top of that those countries hit their peak in the early 80s and by 85-89 their emissions had already gone down substantially. Finally, those countries' emissions were far lower than Canada's throughout the 80s and the 90s, so their targets are far lower than ours anyway. What the hell else do you want? You want them to start whining that they should have targets as high as ours? Quote
jbg Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 Your bullshit never ends. Gerry (the suspended poster I presume you to be), why the personal attack? Europe had a recession in the early 90s, just like North America did. Eastern Europe fell below the 1990 levels because it had a deep and prolonged depression. The earlier years for some eastern european countries were picked because the depression had already started. Depressions don't last forever and picking a date when your economy is 30% down is not representative of a country's economic situation. Ditto the US for 1990. Exactly my point. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Saturn Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 Gerry (the suspended poster I presume you to be), why the personal attack? I don't like spinners and liars. Europe had a recession in the early 90s, just like North America did. Eastern Europe fell below the 1990 levels because it had a deep and prolonged depression. The earlier years for some eastern european countries were picked because the depression had already started. Depressions don't last forever and picking a date when your economy is 30% down is not representative of a country's economic situation. Ditto the US for 1990. Exactly my point. The US didn't lose even 1% of its economic output in 1990. There is no comparison between a slowdown with flat output and a depression where output falls by a third. Your point is bull! Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 No matter how you slice it, Canada's emissions are roughly double that of European countries and Russia. Let's look at the absolute numbers. List of countries by emissions. (metric tonnes)United States 5,844,042 China 3,263,103 Russia 1,432,513 India 1,220.926 Japan 1,203,535 Germany 804,701 UK 543,633 Canada 517,157 Here's the link. Hmmm, by slicing it that way Canada is behind a couple European countries and Russia. The self-evidential nature of your facts are simply wrong and open to interpretation. Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Saturn Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 No matter how you slice it, Canada's emissions are roughly double that of European countries and Russia. Let's look at the absolute numbers. Hmmm, by slicing it that way Canada is behind a couple European countries and Russia. The self-evidential nature of your facts are simply wrong and open to interpretation. And your whole family has as much brains as Bush's dog. Quote
Ricki Bobbi Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 And your whole family has as much brains as Bush's dog. Which one Barney, Spot or Millie? Quote Dion is a verbose, mild-mannered academic with a shaky grasp of English who seems unfit to chair a university department, much less lead a country. Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
jbg Posted January 21, 2007 Report Posted January 21, 2007 Gerry (the suspended poster I presume you to be), why the personal attack? I don't like spinners and liars. And your whole family has as much brains as Bush's dog. I guess you're in a bad mood. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Borg Posted January 22, 2007 Report Posted January 22, 2007 Do you agree with Kyoto - or not? My answer - nope! Only an idiot would send money out of country for an IMAGINARY credit to burn fuel at home. Like that is really going to work anyways. Stupid idea invented by cunning people to move money across borders. I do not care who is the worst and I do not care who is the least polluting influence in this world. What I care about is NOT sending money to other places so I can live my life here. Use that money for this country. Borg Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.