PM Harper responds to UN Global warming Report

[Who's Doing What?]

Link

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday that Canada "must act" to curb global warming after a newly released UN report claims humans are "very likely" the cause of the problem.

"The problem is enormous. It's large, it's long-term and there are no quick fixes to this," Harper told reporters in Ottawa.

Funny I thought Global Warming didn't exist....

Oh well, atleast there is going to be something finally done about it, instead of just denying its existance.

Baird said the Conservatives will be moving forward on two fronts.

"The biggest action we can take is to begin to regulate industrial greenhouse gas emissions," he said. "We also want to, at the same time, deal with this huge challenge of greenhouse gassing and the immediate threat of air pollution, smog and air quality in Canada."

I wonder how the regulating of industrial emissions will affect the oil sands?

[margrace]

Oh the Tar Sands will be exempt, that is all Mr. Harpers buddies and he could never affect them.

[Catchme]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday that Canada "must act" to curb global warming after a newly released UN report claims humans are "very likely" the cause of the problem.

"The problem is enormous. It's large, it's long-term and there are no quick fixes to this," Harper told reporters in Ottawa.

Funny I thought Global Warming didn't exist....

Oh well, at least there is going to be something finally done about it, instead of just denying its existance.

Baird said the Conservatives will be moving forward on two fronts.

"The biggest action we can take is to begin to regulate industrial greenhouse gas emissions," he said. "We also want to, at the same time, deal with this huge challenge of greenhouse gassing and the immediate threat of air pollution, smog and air quality in Canada."

I wonder how the regulating of industrial emissions will affect the oil sands?

They are not going to regulate the oil sands at all, Layton asked twice about this in QP today, and they ignored it.

This "greening" of the CPC is ALL rhetoric, and smoke and mirrors.

[geoffrey]

Oh the Tar Sands will be exempt, that is all Mr. Harpers buddies and he could never affect them.

How is that any different than the auto industry's pollution exemption and lax treatment under the Liberals.

The big difference is that the oil sands is creating jobs, moving Easterners off welfare and providing economic growth to an economy very close to collapse outside of Alberta. Without the oil sands, Canada would be in serious trouble economically and financially right now. You cannot possibly run surpluses, with the ridiculous level of social programs we have, without Alberta money. It's not possible.

So I'd be careful before condemning the oil sands. They are the future for all Canadians, it may be all we have left at this rate.

[Who's Doing What?]

Oh the Tar Sands will be exempt, that is all Mr. Harpers buddies and he could never affect them.

How is that any different than the auto industry's pollution exemption and lax treatment under the Liberals.

The big difference is that the oil sands is creating jobs, moving Easterners off welfare and providing economic growth to an economy very close to collapse outside of Alberta. Without the oil sands, Canada would be in serious trouble economically and financially right now. You cannot possibly run surpluses, with the ridiculous level of social programs we have, without Alberta money. It's not possible.

So I'd be careful before condemning the oil sands. They are the future for all Canadians, it may be all we have left at this rate.

All I'm saying with concern to the oil sands is that even though they do generate enormous revenue, are they not one of the biggest industrial emission poluters in the country?

If Harper is going to hit them with new emission standards that means added cost, ergo less revenue.

It just seems to me that Harper is taking his conservative base in Alberta for granted.

[geoffrey]

All I'm saying with concern to the oil sands is that even though they do generate enormous revenue, are they not one of the biggest industrial emission poluters in the country?

Something to consider in terms of oil production.

It's not like factories in Quebec or Ontario that produce finished goods. The oil in Alberta, is used by Quebec and Ontario to produce their finished goods (well, actually it's not really, but oil is used there, and our oil used elsewhere).

So really when you look at it, the emissions caused by the production of oil should be divided up amongst it's users, not it's extractors. Just like burning oil causes CO2, taking it out of the ground does too. So Alberta's emissions used in oil production should be transfered to manufacturing centres that burn the oil IMO.

That being said, Alberta's real issue with GHG emissions is our coal generators. Take a look at some of these Mammoths:

Sundance: Generates 2200MW of power, monsterous plant... burns 1000 tons of coal per hour. I can't find any other fossil fuel generation facility in North America with that much output in terms of power or emissions.

but TransAlta, the GHG leader in Canada, is making improvements:

Genesee 3: This one will have the emissions of a nat. gas facility. Pretty impressive for a 450MW coal plant.

One big issue is the inefficency of Alberta's transmission grid, which is in the summer often overloaded causing some major line loss. Some future development with the 500kV project between Edmonton and Calgary and strengthening interconnections with BC should improve the efficiency and reduce the amount of electricity lost in transmission.

I once heard that enough electricity to supply 150,000 homes is lost on the Edmonton to Calgary corridor daily. That's about 50MW of generation that could be saved right there.

[Fortunata]

IF Steve gets a majority next election the "green" will go on the back burner; he'll just do enough so he can say they are working on it. This flip flop of his will placate many who take what superficialities the government deigns to feed them and believes it because it's too much effort to find out what is happening for themselves. Then we've got the deniers among us who revere Steve and make excuses for him no matter what he does.

But all that being said, I'm glad Steve is doing even only as much as he is. It beats what he has done for the last year.

[jdobbin]

Funny I thought Global Warming didn't exist....

Oh well, atleast there is going to be something finally done about it, instead of just denying its existance.

There are still some here who think it doesn't exist. I think Harper realizes though that those people will vote for him anyways so if he wants to pick up votes elsewhere, He can't act like he doesn't believe the science.

[jdobbin]

How is that any different than the auto industry's pollution exemption and lax treatment under the Liberals.

The big difference is that the oil sands is creating jobs, moving Easterners off welfare and providing economic growth to an economy very close to collapse outside of Alberta. Without the oil sands, Canada would be in serious trouble economically and financially right now. You cannot possibly run surpluses, with the ridiculous level of social programs we have, without Alberta money. It's not possible.

So I'd be careful before condemning the oil sands. They are the future for all Canadians, it may be all we have left at this rate.

It isn't any different.

Don't forget how many jobs are created by the auto industry as well. For North American car manufacturers, Canada has been one of the only bright sides when it comes to the auto industry.

Nevertheless, the voluntary emissions standards are not working and with California setting the standard, Canada had better get on board.

As far as the oil industry, I don't think Harper can afford to exclude them completely from all this.

[Electric Monk]

Here's a link to the summary of the report. Link

[fellowtraveller]

The oil sands plants burn huge amounts of natural gas, which is a major source of greenhouse gases. Perhaps there will be enough impetus to go nuclear, which is beginning to look inevitable. Natural gas should be reserved for heating homes.

As an Albertan, I would have to insist that the high capital and operating costs of nuclear energy be borne by the oil companies.

[Hydraboss]

I don"t know why this is such a problem. Want a "carbon tax" in Alberta because that will cure global warming? Okay, get after it. Put two taxes on if you want.

It's all very simple (use your own units of measure/price):

Alberta sells oil at $65.00 CAD per barrel (I know, this changes daily) right now + $0.00 per barrel carbon tax.

Canadians pay approx $0.849 per liter for regular unleaded.

(insert carbon tax here)

Alberta now sells oil at $130.00 CAD per barrel + $19.50 CAD per barrel (15%) carbon tax (this price only applies to oil sold in Canada, not the US).

Canadians will now pay $1.88 per liter for regular unleaded. Albertans receive $1.03 per liter rebate from the provincial government, and therefore only pay net $0.85 per liter.

The ROC now gets their carbon tax that makes the world a better place. They also get to pay over 200% increase for gasoline. Albertans agree to pay the extra $0.001 per liter in the name of combatting global warming.

Problem solved.

Anyone wanna hear my idea for home heating fuel (which we don't really use here in Alberta)????

[Catchme]

Oh the Tar Sands will be exempt, that is all Mr. Harpers buddies and he could never affect them.

Canada would be in serious trouble economically and financially right now. You cannot possibly run surpluses, with the ridiculous level of social programs we have, without Alberta money. It's not possible.

So I'd be careful before condemning the oil sands. They are the future for all Canadians, it may be all we have left at this rate.

I would be careful about overstating the importance of AB to Canada. It actually plays a very small part of the tota Canadian GDP. AB would be hurt most certainly, how hard Canada would be hit is up for discussion.

Oct/Nov 2006 amounts in millions

All GDP industries 1,100,657

Oil and gas 40, 381

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/gdps04a.htm

And that is the entire oil and gas sectors in Canada and not just AB's and what is AB's portion of that sector? 12% or there about?

Canada only gets a small portion of AB's portion of that amount, in royalties, it would not seriously impact the RoC.

[Who's Doing What?]

So really when you look at it, the emissions caused by the production of oil should be divided up amongst it's users, not it's extractors. Just like burning oil causes CO2, taking it out of the ground does too. So Alberta's emissions used in oil production should be transfered to manufacturing centres that burn the oil IMO.

I can understand that the "down the line users" of oil products do indeed produce a lot of GHG's, between factories, cars, and other processing that is done to oil to make products. And I agree that they should be cutting their emissions as much as possible. What I'm talking about are the just the GHG's produced in getting the oil out of the sands and turned into a marketable commodity. I just can't see how it is feasible to give a free pass on the emissions from producing the oil and then turn around and hammer the companies producing GHG's by using and producing oil based products. I think the only real solution is to go from top to bottom with the emissions. No free pass to the oil sands, and no free passes to manufacturers either.

That being said, Alberta's real issue with GHG emissions is our coal generators. Take a look at some of these Mammoths:

Sundance: Generates 2200MW of power, monsterous plant... burns 1000 tons of coal per hour. I can't find any other fossil fuel generation facility in North America with that much output in terms of power or emissions.

but TransAlta, the GHG leader in Canada, is making improvements:

Genesee 3: This one will have the emissions of a nat. gas facility. Pretty impressive for a 450MW coal plant.

Strangly enough for a person concerned for the environment I am actually an advocate of proper clean incineration. I think incineration is a necessary fact of life for our crowded planet. The trick is to do it properly so there is little to no environmental impact. Everyting we need to learn how to safely incinerate coal and waste to produce energy is evident in nature already. All we need to do is copy it.

I would much prefer clean burning power plants to nuclear energy. I shudder when I think of Chernobyl, or the piles of buried waste that are nothing more than environmental timebombs that will come back to haunt our future generations. Speaking of bombs, I think we would be foolish to think that Al Qeada or some other organization hasn't atleast thought of attacking a nuclear power plant. The more of them we put up the more likely there is to be an attempt.

One big issue is the inefficency of Alberta's transmission grid, which is in the summer often overloaded causing some major line loss. Some future development with the 500kV project between Edmonton and Calgary and strengthening interconnections with BC should improve the efficiency and reduce the amount of electricity lost in transmission.

I once heard that enough electricity to supply 150,000 homes is lost on the Edmonton to Calgary corridor daily. That's about 50MW of generation that could be saved right there.

Solving that problem should be a high priority.

[Who's Doing What?]

I don"t know why this is such a problem. Want a "carbon tax" in Alberta because that will cure global warming? Okay, get after it. Put two taxes on if you want.

It's all very simple (use your own units of measure/price):

Alberta sells oil at $65.00 CAD per barrel (I know, this changes daily) right now + $0.00 per barrel carbon tax.

Canadians pay approx $0.849 per liter for regular unleaded.

(insert carbon tax here)

Alberta now sells oil at $130.00 CAD per barrel + $19.50 CAD per barrel (15%) carbon tax (this price only applies to oil sold in Canada, not the US).

Canadians will now pay $1.88 per liter for regular unleaded. Albertans receive $1.03 per liter rebate from the provincial government, and therefore only pay net $0.85 per liter.

The ROC now gets their carbon tax that makes the world a better place. They also get to pay over 200% increase for gasoline. Albertans agree to pay the extra $0.001 per liter in the name of combatting global warming.

Problem solved.

Anyone wanna hear my idea for home heating fuel (which we don't really use here in Alberta)????

A 100% per barrel carbon tax??

Then it's a 15% per barrel Carbon tax, on top of the 100% per barrel carbon tax???

I think you need to slow down and explain this math of yours to us humans.

[margrace]

Oh the Tar Sands will be exempt, that is all Mr. Harpers buddies and he could never affect them.

How is that any different than the auto industry's pollution exemption and lax treatment under the Liberals.

The big difference is that the oil sands is creating jobs, moving Easterners off welfare and providing economic growth to an economy very close to collapse outside of Alberta. Without the oil sands, Canada would be in serious trouble economically and financially right now. You cannot possibly run surpluses, with the ridiculous level of social programs we have, without Alberta money. It's not possible.

So I'd be careful before condemning the oil sands. They are the future for all Canadians, it may be all we have left at this rate.

You are right there, straight into the graveyard. That's your future

[scribblet]

IF Steve gets a majority next election the "green" will go on the back burner; he'll just do enough so he can say they are working on it. This flip flop of his will placate many who take what superficialities the government deigns to feed them and believes it because it's too much effort to find out what is happening for themselves. Then we've got the deniers among us who revere Steve and make excuses for him no matter what he does.

But all that being said, I'm glad Steve is doing even only as much as he is. It beats what he has done for the last year.

I've said before, its not that they don't think it exists, they believe, and I agree, that we can't stop the earth's cycling, the best we can do is slow it down. The earth has always cycled, ice ages, warming etc. and as the population increases so does pollution.

The earth will burn to a cinder eventually, they all do.

[Hydraboss]

WDW, here we go...(insert tongue in cheek)

What I am saying is if the ROC wants a 15% carbon tax (just made the number up), then Alberta can say "no problem". We'll just double the price we charge the ROC for a barrel of oil, and you can take 15% of that (which would effectively be a 30% tax on the current price in true dollars). Alberta doubles the price, everyone in Canada pays twice as much at the pump (even more money for the fed's), and then the Alberta govenment refunds money back to ALBERTANS ONLY to effectively bring the price of gas for ALBERTANS back down to today's prices.

Tree-huggers and liberals are now happy because there is a carbon tax (in addition to GST increases, etc), and Albertans are happy because they pay the same for gas and our province gets richer becausse of increased royalties charged on all oil and gas sold to the ROC. The oil producers are happy because although they are being charged a carbon tax, they get to charge the ROC a ridiculous amount for their product; net gain for them.

The only unhappy people will be the poor schmuck's that have to pay double for their gasoline. Keep in mind that Alberta can do this very same thing with natural gas stock used by eastern factories, raw stock for home heating fuel, and everything else that comes out of the ground in this province.

Bring on global warming and carbon taxes. We're ready.

[Catchme]

IF Steve gets a majority next election the "green" will go on the back burner;

But all that being said, I'm glad Steve is doing even only as much as he is. It beats what he has done for the last year.

I've said before, its not that they don't think it exists, they believe, and I agree, that we can't stop the earth's cycling, the best we can do is slow it down. The earth has always cycled, ice ages, warming etc. and as the population increases so does pollution.

The earth will burn to a cinder eventually, they all do.

Studies have shown we are no longer part of the natural cycle, we have artifically accelerated what would take 100's of thousands of years to happen naturally. What do younot see about that?

The red hering of the plant someday burning up, is ridiculous. What is the estimate for that? Oh yes,

several million years.

[Who's Doing What?]

WDW, here we go...(insert tongue in cheek)

What I am saying is if the ROC wants a 15% carbon tax (just made the number up), then Alberta can say "no problem". We'll just double the price we charge the ROC for a barrel of oil, and you can take 15% of that (which would effectively be a 30% tax on the current price in true dollars). Alberta doubles the price, everyone in Canada pays twice as much at the pump (even more money for the fed's), and then the Alberta govenment refunds money back to ALBERTANS ONLY to effectively bring the price of gas for ALBERTANS back down to today's prices.

That scenario is never going to happen. If Alberta wanted to double their price the RoC would get their oil elsewhere. Plain and simple.

Tree-huggers and liberals are now happy because there is a carbon tax (in addition to GST increases, etc),

Where is your increase in GST coming from? You taxing the carbon tax now?

and Albertans are happy because they pay the same for gas and our province gets richer becausse of increased royalties charged on all oil and gas sold to the ROC. The oil producers are happy because although they are being charged a carbon tax, they get to charge the ROC a ridiculous amount for their product; net gain for them.

The only unhappy people will be the poor schmuck's that have to pay double for their gasoline. Keep in mind that Alberta can do this very same thing with natural gas stock used by eastern factories, raw stock for home heating fuel, and everything else that comes out of the ground in this province.

Again your DREAM scenario of Alberta doubling it's oil prices for the RoC will never happen.

Bring on global warming and carbon taxes. We're ready.

Sure you are...

[Keepitsimple]

finally relented and watched "An Inconvenient Truth" this evening. Although I suspected it was an alarmist film, I wanted to actually see it before being critical. I'm not a denyer - we have an issue that we have to respectfully and realistically address and more importantly, adapt to. Putting aside the obvious selectivity and embellishment which I grant is somewhat necessary (in Gore's eyes) to get people's attention, I have one major criticism and one observation:

Criticism: Gore lays an hour of groundwork for his major thrust - that sea levels are likely to rise by 20 feet and there will be hundreds of millions of displaced people around the world. This is not just a passing comment in the film - everything leads up to this "fact". So if you are someone who is just getting your first taste of Global Warming - it's major panic - death and disaster all around. IPCC says that sea levels will likely rise somewhere between 6 - 18 inches over the next 100 years. Again, this is not a minor part of the film - it appears to be the major focus of the film and is so "over the top" that it removes any credibility that could have been established.

Observation: In the film, Gore criticizes Bush Senior for not listening but says nothing at all about Bill Clinton, for whom he served as VP where presumably, he should have been able to make a difference.

If Gore can make a movie last year that says that sea levels are going to rise by 20 feet and then this year, scientists say they are likely to rise by 6-18 inches over the next century - what would you think of Al Gore's credibility? Oh, and why do you think he never mentioned (criticized) Bill Clinton?