Apolitical Staples

It just proves what I have felt for a long time. The CPC does not consider global warming a threat. I just wish they had the guts to admit it openly. I would respect Harper more if he came out and said: “You know, I think global warming is bullshit and we aren’t going to do anything about it.” He won’t do that of course because he would be chased from power. He will do what the Liberals did, say he is doing something, when he is doing nothing.

Sinister Greg, you are totally wrong in disregarding intensity. Consider washing machines as an example. Let’s imagine that Canadian companies, when they manufacture a washing machine, release x grams of CO2. Let’s make the plausible assumption that Chinese companies, when they make a washing machine, emit 2x grams. If we close down washing machine manufacturing in Canada and buy them from China, our emissions have gone down, but total world emissions (which is what matters) have gone up. Is that helpful? On the production side (ie, industry), we should think intensity. On the consumer side, we should think total emissions.

The truly bizarre thing about this discussion is simply that Dion’s LFE plan was based on….intensity targets.

If you make a car that emits 10 percent less CO2 but produce 50 percent more cars, your total emissions have gone up even though your intensity has gone down. That is the fatal flaw of intensity. Harper knows this. He is not stupid. So why propose a solution that will not work? Because he does not consider it to be a real environmental problem, only a marketing one.

Because he is a politician. He has to worry about more things than Kyoto like the economy. If he imposses the limits that would be necessary to meet the targets he would get turfed out of office in a time measured in months not years.

Greg wrote: He has to worry about more things than Kyoto like the economy.

Then he should say so openly. He should say “I care more about the economy than global warming because global warming is just a theory”. At least people would not be confused about where he stands.

Will you accept it if he says he is concerned about both?

The oil sands production is expanding too fast anyway. So any negative effect from the implementation of Kyoto would actually be beneficial for Alberta whose hot economy is now causing more problems than the province can handle.

Besides that, conservatives constantly dismiss the positive economic growth that the implementation of measures to reduce ghgs will provide. So the excuse that Harper has to be concerned about the economy doesn’t wash; not even from an Albertacentric point of view.

Will you accept it if he says he is concerned about both?

Of course, but intensity is a dead end because it sacrifices completely the goal of reducing greenhouse gases. Robert’s last point is a good one. There are all kinds of economic benefits to creating the new technologies required to reduce emissions. Why import technology from Europe when we can be a world leader?

The problem with the economic benefits is they will not be enough to meet Kyoto targets in the time allotted (by 2012). The implementation of measures to reduce green house gasses (other than water vapour) should have been started in 1998 if not earlier, just like the opposition was clamouring for. Then we would have had a chance to reduce our emissions instead of just watching them increase.

John M Reynolds

“He should say “I care more about the economy than global warming because global warming is just a theory”

You’re putting words in his mouth. Of course you knew that.

I think the proposition that a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would destroy or severely harm the economy is not a thoroughly proven theory. On the other hand, neither is the idea that we can have a major global impact on weather systems by making a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that will be statistically insignificant, even with herculean efforts. Time to wake up and mitigate, if possible.

Hey I got an idea, we do Kyoto, we pull out the oil and sell it, we make pollution and then we take the profit and give it all to India, China and Russia? Good idea eh? That will help the pollution in the world go down.

“If you want to say that global warming is a fact, then firstly show data that is reasonable that actually supports that argument. Really big problem there because such data does not exist.” http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1104/6.html#000076

To my socialist friends out there, there’s a bit of a problem with your premise:

Even if we completely shut down the economy, at a terrible price to all Canadians, our effect on “global warming” would be practically nothing. Our total contribution to emissions (just consider China, Brazil’s and India’s emmissions alone) is negligible.

In the end, it’s all about making ourselves feel good about ourselves, with no practical effect.

There are all kinds of economic benefits to creating the new technologies required to reduce emissions

There are all kinds of economic benefits to what we are currently doing. You guys are peddling a variant of the Broken Window fallacy. Instead of just supposing that a net positive economic growth must result, why don’t you prove it? Then we can dispense with the elements of doubt and faith.

Then he should say so openly. He should say “I care more about the economy than global warming because global warming is just a theory”.

Intensity targets are a rough proxy for per-person emission caps; ultimately the targets do reduce the emissions produced in the course of providing all the wants of people while allowing for the possibility that standards of living of individuals can be raised. Importantly, there is no de facto imposed ceiling on total economic activity.

Total emission targets are conceptually the equivalent of setting boundaries on the size of the economic “pie” and creating the conditions for what amounts to the zero-sum economic fallacy: we all have to share what is allowed within the imposed ceiling. This has irritating consequences for people living in the developed world and downright miserable consequences for people living in the under- and undeveloped world.

Advocates of total emission targets should openly say, “I live in the developed world and am prepared to make my minor sacrifices for my part and also to see others live in grinding poverty for the foreseeable future.” They should not pretend to be compassionate people, because they are decidedly not.

There is one more thing: an important pair of contrasting behaviours.

Intensity targets promote innovation and progress. There is no shared “resource” (total emissions) for which to compete and thus it is not a decision factor for formulating business strategy. No enterprise can remain viable except by meeting targets.

Total emission targets give industries a finite “resource” which must form part of a business strategy. Some may rationally decide (make a business case) to expend capital in the courts to increase emissions shares rather than investing in emission-reducing technology. Not “all”, but also not “none”.

We should encourage technical innovation, not employment for lawyers.

Sinister Greg, you say: “If you make a car that emits 10 percent less CO2 but produce 50 percent more cars, your total emissions have gone up even though your intensity has gone down.” That is not so. You should have said “if your people buy 50% more cars, …”. If you export the cars and take business away from other manufacturers, who produce cars with greater emissions, then total automotive CO2 has gone down. The number of cars produced in Canada does not significantly affect worldwide demand for cars: it just affects where those cars will be produced.

This plan wont sell to the Canadian public Greg (Staples). It is already being given prominent coverage in the papers that such environental groups as the Sierra Club and the David Suzuki Foundation are panning the “intensity targets” plan as not realistic to combatting greenhouse gas emissions.

Regardless of the disdain conservatives have of environmental groups, someone like David Suzuki is well respected in Canada, and if he and his group and others say this plan will increase greenhouse gases and is nothing more then adopting a US invention of trying to pretend you’re doing something for the environment, the Conservatives will be fighting a losing battle if they think the public is going to buy the Tories plan as some grand equivalent made-in-Canada scheme for Kyoto… when all it really is is a sop to their Big Oil corporate friends and the Premier of Alberta.

As Paul Wells already pointed out, Quebec has already rejected the government’s environmental approach. I wouldnt be surprised if other provinces will soon follow.

we should think intensity

we should think total emissions

we can be a world leader

we would have had a chance to reduce our emissions

we all have to share what is allowed

we should encourage technical innovation

Oh my, what an enthusiastic bunch of central planners we have in this country. Too bad (a) nobody has the same idea of how they would like to spend everyone else’s money, and (b) it never occurs to anyone that they should worry more about “their own” business instead of “our” (i.e. other people’s) business.

But don’t worry! Canada will muddle along just the same. Every politician in Canada will continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths, and will continue to give billions of dollars to some of their friends in order to “fight global warming/pollution/hunger/flatulence” while simultaneously giving billions of dollars to other of their friends (often the same friends) who will use the money to do the exact opposite - such as government-owned and government-subsidized oil wells, auto factories, pork farms, nickel mines, etc. Your taxes will continue to go up, entrepreneurs and professionals will continue to leave the country in droves, wives and children of terrorists and dictators and people with HIV will continue to flock to Canada to replace them (and more), and you will still have your crappy public school system, your health care shambles, and there will be more and more three-way, four-way and five-way boondoggles and corruption scandals involving federal, provincial, municipal and native “self” governments, plus various UN agencies.

Canada in 2026 will be exactly like Canada in 2006 - only more so.

Oh my, David Suzuki says so….well then.

Scott, perhaps you could ask David for an honest answer to this question:

“Having regard to China’s, Russia’s, India’s, Brazil’s, America’s ect. emissions, is there anything Canada could do which would meaninfully reduce global warming?”

The honest answer to that question would reveal that Mr.Suzuki is willing to watch our economy suffer, for the sole purpose of Canada supporting a theory.

That’s why people were OK with the Libs’ “plan”. It didn’t really matter what we did practicality. The interest groups just wanted a “yes” vote to their theories.

Oh my, David Suzuki says so….well then.

Scott, perhaps you could ask David for an honest answer to this question:

“Having regard to China’s, Russia’s, India’s, Brazil’s, America’s ect. emissions, is there anything Canada could do which would meaninfully reduce global warming?”

The honest answer to that question would reveal that Mr.Suzuki is willing to watch our economy suffer, for the sole purpose of Canada supporting a theory.

That’s why people were OK with the Libs’ “plan”. It didn’t really matter what we did practicality. The interest groups just wanted a “yes” vote to their theories.