Apolitical Staples

I don’t want to let them off the hook, but short of going to war with both China and the U.S. it is doubtful we can get them to change their minds in the short term (they have powerful vested interests lined up against it) . But(you just knew that was coming), just because the big emitters are not in the tent, at this moment, it is no reason to burn the tent down. They will come around eventually and then will buy alternative energy technology off from us.

Kyoto was an econonmic agreement, pure and simple. It has done absolutely nothing for the world-wide environment, and it will never do anything for the macro environment of this planet no matter how long it was continued in it’s current format. I’m not sure if Ambrose/Harper have the right idea, or any idea for that matter; but at least they are bringing the flawed deal out into the light of day so the world can take another look at it.

After watching Rona I think everyone should watch another CTV interview from the day before with Elizabeth May (the next leader of the Green Party). You won’t like what she has to say or how she says it.

I also noted on your previous post Greg, but it is more suitable to this post that:

Rona complains on CTV that Brazil doesn’t want to make cuts in the future.

Emissions per capita in Brazil: 1.8 tonnes and has gone up about 28% since 1990. Canada: 22 tonnes and has gone up about 28% since 1990.

Elizabeth also makes some comments during her interview about progress that Brazil is making with ethanol fuel from sugar cane.

I don’t know why this link is so long, but I hope it works.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate/!ctvVideo/CTVNews/kyotodocuments060520/20060520/?hub=CTVNewsAt11&videolinkhigh=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/05/20/ctvvideologger2218kbps200605201148149432.wmv&videolinklow=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/05/20/ctvvideologger245kbps200605201148151918.wmv&clipstart=00:01:25.08&clipend=00:04:46.28&clipcaption=CTV%20Newsnet:%20Environmentalist%20Elizabeth%20May&clipid=ctvnews.20060520.00146000-00146018-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=

Greg, am I the only one who thinks this echoes softwood but with each of us on the other side ;)

Yes, I watched it Trevor. She makes an interesting candidate for leader of the Greens - however she will move them towards their European counterparts and away from where Harris was taking them. I am not sure that Canada needs another left wing party though.

And you know I will object to per capita again. If you use per capita you are treating Kyoto as an economic agreement not an environmental one. Maybe your cool with that though.

Greg, am I the only one who thinks this echoes softwood but with each of us on the other side ;)

There is some truth to that, although in both cases, our government gave up on negotiations way too soon. ;)

Ok then.

She is complaining about a country (Brazil) in which emissions have increased from 301,599,000 metric tons of CO2 in 1998 to 313,757,000 in 2002 for an increase of about 12,000,000 tons in 4 years.

Versus a country (Canada) in which emissions have increased from 440,946,000 metric tons of CO2 in 1998 to 517,157,000 in 2002 for an increase of about 77,000,000 tons in 4 years or almost 6.5 times as much.

I should mention that both Brazil and Canada have increased their emissions by about the same amount over the years 1990 through 2002 (the last year I can get data for).

However, Brazil’s emissions went up predominantly during the initial years and since then emissions have increased less and less each year. Only increasing by about 830,000 in 2002. Canada has gone the opposite direction increasing our emissions at a higher and higer rate. Including 38,000,000 in 2002 alone.

Sorry, one more thing. While Brazil did not have the hottest economy in that period from 1998 - 2002, they did still have growth. 1999 0.8% increase in GDP, 4.5% in 2000, 1.4% in 2001 and 1.5% in 2002. (not as much as Canada, but close to US growth in the same time period 4.5% in 1999; 3.7% in 2000; 0.8% in 2001; 1.6% in 2002)

When did we start talking about Brazil? ;)

I saw the same QP interview and you’re missing the point,Jane Taber was easier on Liberals when they told overt lies right to the camera and yet Jane interupts Ambrose to clarify some eupheminism.

The Liberal plan was to sit on their hands and then buy Pollution credits to meet the targets, but the failed Election exposed Kyoto as a shame and misguided attempt to appear “Green”.

We all share the same air, and you can’t prove that the poisons spewed from volcano eruptions don’t add to the pollution on Earth. The NDP is pro-labour and pro-automobile , so lets see Layton just try to shut down the auto business and stop sending our pollution makers outside of canada.

Roger,

—you’re missing the point,Jane Taber was easier on Liberals when they told overt lies right to the camera and yet Jane interupts Ambrose to clarify some eupheminism.—

Yes, I assume Jane was was harder on Ambrose than on the Liberals (although I never watched her interview Liberals on Kyoto). But, personally I wish that she was harder on both of them.

—The Liberal plan was to sit on their hands and then buy Pollution credits to meet the targets, but the failed Election exposed Kyoto as a shame and misguided attempt to appear “Green”.—

The election did not expose Kyoto. It exposed the Liberals, who did nothing, while saying that they were Green.

—We all share the same air, and you can’t prove that the poisons spewed from volcano eruptions don’t add to the pollution on Earth.—

I think that it has been proven that volcano eruptions do add to the pollution of the earth. Thousands of years ago the earth had the opportunity to clean it self up after the occassional volcano, now it can’t because humans are already polluting more than it can deal with.

—The NDP is pro-labour and pro-automobile—

Yes, all the mainstream parties are environmentally irresponsible. We see that on both the Federal and Provincial level. There are many reasons why so many Canadians are disillusioned with our political system. The environment is one of those reasons.

—so lets see Layton just try to shut down the auto business and stop sending our pollution makers outside of canada.—

I don’t think that you will see Layton push for better auto standards. So far he has done little in promoting environmental policy and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Canada should be following the policy that California is using for lowering emissions from vehicles:

“California approves world’s toughest vehicle emissions rules” http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-25-calif-rule_x.htm

Rumor has it that Governor Schwarzengger is currently pushing to make their emissions standards even tougher again.

Instead of saying, “I think we should do this or do that”, why not just come out and say it: “I think that government should force you to do this or that”. Doesn’t sound as nice does it? But that’s what you’re really saying.

If you want to walk to work or heat your house with maple sugar ethanol then be my guest. Me, I’ll just comfort myself with the fact that the billions of trees on Canada’s crown land, of which I am a part owner, absorb far more CO2 than Canadians could ever possibly produce with their measly cars and power plants, and David Suzuki be damned.

Lowell Green had a climatologist on the radio the other day. Among many other things, he said that while global temperature readings have gone up slightly in the last 100 years, almost all of that increase happened from 1900-1950, whereas since carbon emissions really took off in the last 50 years, the temperature has been virtually stable. And he also said that there is nowhere near enough data to say whether or not the entire atmosphere is getting warmer, since among other things the chicken littles have not determined how much of their supposed “climate change” is the result of urban heat-islands developing around the cities where most weather stations are located.

I could go on, but would it do any good? The armchair climate commissars have already made up their minds. It’s so easy to whip up fear with a few words and images, and so hard to restore calmness and reason once panic has taken hold.

Against stupidity the gods themselves strive in vain.

—Instead of saying, “I think we should do this or do that”, why not just come out and say it: “I think that government should force you to do this or that”. Doesn’t sound as nice does it? But that’s what you’re really saying.—

How about saying that the government should make it more affordable for people to drive very efficient vehicles and less affordable for people to drive very inefficient vehicles. Or does that infringe on my right to pollute the planet as much as want?

—If you want to walk to work or heat your house with maple sugar ethanol then be my guest.—

What about driving a hybrid car which produces far less emissions and will continue to be efficient in the future. What about making the public transit more efficient as well. Or would people object if the bus they ride is not spewing out toxins? How about allowing people to choose which type of heat source they wish to use for their house? Right now 99.9% can’t choose between renuable and non-renueable resources. Or is giving people a choice too much government interference for you? How much has the government subsidized oil and gas?

—Me, I’ll just comfort myself with the fact that the billions of trees on Canada’s crown land, of which I am a part owner, absorb far more CO2 than Canadians could ever possibly produce with their measly cars and power plants, and David Suzuki be damned.—

I guess you can comfort yourself with that lie, but the bottom line is that mature forests (which Canada has) are basically CO2 neutral, with almost as much decay releasing CO2 into the atmosphere as the forest is pulling out. Growing forests are a great carbon sink, mature forests are not.

—he said that while global temperature readings have gone up slightly in the last 100 years, almost all of that increase happened from 1900-1950—

Well, I guess that settles it. Some random scientist said it so… If you do any research you can easily find that the temperature rose about 0.1C between 1900 and 1950 and then increased about 0.5C between 1950 and 2000. But if I were you I wouldn’t do any research. It seems like a better idea to just trust one scientist you heard on the radio, vs checking to see what the majority of scientists think.

—And he also said that there is nowhere near enough data to say whether or not the entire atmosphere is getting warmer,—

We will always be gathering more data, that is what Science does. I suspect that there will never be enough data for a lot of people.

—since among other things the chicken littles have not determined how much of their supposed “climate change” is the result of urban heat-islands developing around the cities where most weather stations are located.—

When calculating temperature increases scientists are very careful to take into account “heat-islands.” Trust me, if you have thought of it, they have too and it is not very hard to remove the variation caused by heat islands.

—I could go on, but would it do any good? The armchair climate commissars have already made up their minds.—

I could say the exact same thing.

This armchair commissar does not have his hand in your pocket, and kindly asks that you keep your cotton pickin’ hand out of his pocket. The subsidies to oil and gas development are an abomination, but at least those industries produce a lot more tax money than they consume.

How about we cut all subsidies to the oil and gas industry and to windmills, electric cars, and ethanol - are you courageous enough to give the people a real choice? Or are you more interested in using government to force them to accept your choices?

—This armchair commissar does not have his hand in your pocket, and kindly asks that you keep your cotton pickin’ hand out of his pocket.—

Well if you are polluting more than I am, then as far as I am concerned you are costing me money. Everyone has to pay for the clean up of pollution. Everyone will have to pay for either the cleanup or the side effects of climate change. Currently individual persons and companies pollute, but the public is the one that pays for the overwhelming majority of the cleanup. Therefore polluting is being heavily subsidized. A system that makes polluters pay for their own pollution would be the only way to take polluters hands out of non-polluters pockets. The idea of taking taxes off of a hybrid car and increasing them on a SUV could be looked at choices being forced upon someone, but in my opinion it is a way of making the SUV driver pick up a little bit more of his pollution tab. You still have the choice in whether or not you buy an SUV or a hybrid car. But I believe that the SUV buyer should be made aware of the hidden costs of his choice that he is asking the rest of us to pay. And he should be paying them, not the rest of us. For years our governments ran fiscal deficits which future generations will have to pay back. In a sense those people were putting their hands in the pockets of the taxpayers of the future. It is no different with pollution and climate change. We are running the tab and someone else is going to have to pay for that. I don’t think that is proper.

—The subsidies to oil and gas development are an abomination, but at least those industries produce a lot more tax money than they consume.—

It was a bucket load of subsidies that got oil and gas off the ground and firmly implanted as the only option. So far wind and solar are developing with very little in the form of subsidies. If I had my choice they would be getting a lot of subsidies. That is the only way to level the playing field and I only think that is appropriate considering what oil and gas got in the past. When the time comes that solar and wind are firmly established than those industries will be paying a lot in taxes. On top of that supporting those industries will establish those companies and allow us to export those technologies and our expertise abroad. It has the potential to be a huge boom for our economy. As for whether or not you like it, I couldn’t care less.

Ambrose may sound reasonable, but only if you care to not at other facts.

The original Kyoto deal was just for developed nations to start reducing emissions, and the other signatories (Such as China, India) would follow in 2012. The problem with the Tories’ made in Canada bit is that it is setting the stage for countries like China to folow our lead and do squat. Our negotiating team in Bonn is right now arguing for the post-2012 Kyoto to use ‘voluntary standards’, or Canada will be leaving Kyoto. Aside from lacking a mandate to do so, this is a severe embarrassment to Canadian citizens, and erodes our international reliability.

What Canada is arguing for are standards so weak as to be meaningless. We were supposed to demonstrate how to lower emissions and still maintain a viable economy. Now we’re simply not trying and admitting defeat. How is just reasonable or useful?

What the Tories are after is to get into lockstep with the US on this, and make a small mint on selling coal and coal burning technology to China. Ambrose has hinted at this, and just take a look at what business Gwyn Morgan has been involved in. This also explains why Ambrose and Harper keep talking about pushing for ‘clean air’: they really mean to be pushing the poorly-named clean coal onto Canada, and probably muclear. (Clean coal simply means polluting the ground with fly ash, instead of the air with heavy metals and toxins. And there’s still all that CO2…)

There is a reason why the AP6 is nicknamed The Coal Pact.

Ambrose is just spinning away. And instead of pushing to turn Canada in to a more efficient user of energy (we are highly inefficient, perhpas the worst in the world), and thus far more competitive globally, she’s instead just pushing the same old grey economy tactics.

As usual, the powers that be in Ottawa are looking at only short-term economic interests, and are screwing my children’s lives over.

I’m deeply skeptical of any suggestion that mankind can render the plannet uninhabitable through any means other than detonating a large number of nuclear weapons in close sucession.

Global warming data is based upon trends which are all within the margin or error of the instruments being used to measure them. And also current temperatures are cooler than they were in the 1500s, which doesn’t suggest that we’re experience as steady increase in climate but merely an upward tick if at all in a cyclical pattern.

It seems far too much to me that the people who believe Kyoto is an immenient threat are mostly a bunch of lefties who hated business and industry and the first place and have simply embraced “climate change” as a convient excuse to continue doing so.

That an Kyoto was a treaty which ignored any number of large polluters, and its ultimate outcome was projected to be preventing an increase in temperature of 0.5 degrees for a five year period. Which when you come right down to it, if you believe that climate change is happening is an insignificant outcome for billions of dollars to be thrown at.

Keep up the great work on your blog. Best wishes WaltDe