The folly of Kyoto - Great Read

mediaguy

Active member
Nov 29, 2002
479
82
28
Right here. But wish I was there!
Editorial in the Feb 10/07 National Post.
The Liberals have got us going down a scarry road!
===========================================
The folly of Kyoto

Pablo Rodriguez, a Liberal MP from Quebec, has a private member's bill proceeding through the House of Commons that the backing of all three opposition parties. If it passes, as appears likely, the resultant Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act would require Ottawa to honour Canada's Kyoto commitments and reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions by more than a third over just the next five years.

Working Canadians and taxpayers had better hope Mr. Rodriguez's legislation fails, because there are only two ways to achieve his goal by 2012, both unpalatable. Either the federal government could force a radical change in Canadians' lifestyles -- restricting automobile use, limiting electrical consumption and shutting down industries employing hundreds of thousands of workers, thereby sending our economy into a tailspin -- or it could send tens of billions of tax dollars abroad to buy "carbon credits" from developing and underdeveloped nations.

Mr. Rodriguez, his Liberal caucus mates and environmentalists are reassuring Canadians that the emissions targets imposed by the new bill could be achieved with very little pain for ordinary Canadians. But that is a pipe dream. There is no magic new technology on the horizon that would enable a nation of 32 million to cut hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide output in five short years -- no hydrogen cars, no emissions-free smelters, no solar-powered 18- wheelers. In order to reach our Kyoto targets at this late date, Canada would have to shutter all its coal-fired power plants, plus all its auto plants and Alberta's oilsands. In the late 1990s, the Liberals' own economic forecasts projected 450,000 lost jobs from such reductions.

Mr. Rodriguez's bill is naive in the extreme. It would consign us all to freezing together in the unemployed darkness. And despite all this sacrifice, it wouldn't even do any good against global warming.

The Kyoto accords were more about symbolism than substance. None of the large developing nations -- China, India, Indonesia or Brazil -- is covered by its strictures. Not only do they not have to scale back their emissions under Kyoto, they are not even required to hold them constant. Their emissions may grow without penalty.

Russia and the former Soviet bloc states, which are covered by Kyoto, have since been exempted from its emission targets. Which means the only countries to which the reductions apply are Western industrial nations. And even if they all managed to cripple their economies to meet their limits, their actions would serve to delay the warming expected in the next century by only four years.

The other option is for Ottawa to buy emissions credits from other countries, notably Russia. (Russia has unused emissions room because since 1990, Kyoto's baseline, a lot of the country's old, dirty Soviet-era power and manufacturing plants have been closed.) This, though, is just a feel-good accounting trick whose only purpose would be allowing Canada to assert technical bragging rights about meeting its Kyoto targets -- it wouldn't result in preventing a single molecule of actual carbon dioxide from being emitted.

Canada has already spend about $1-billion buying up Russia's unused emissions room. To meet Mr. Rodriguez's targets, it would have to spend another $20-billion to $60-billion. As well as being a complete waste of money from the point of view of Canadian taxpayers, consider where the cash would be going: the authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin -- which is helping to protect Iran's nuclear program at the UN, turning Chechnya into scorched earth, bullying its European neighbours and rolling back domestic civil liberties to the Cazarist era -- would become Canada's biggest foreign aid recipient, larger than all others combined.

We have a question: If it were so easy to cut Canada's carbon dioxide output by nearly 35% -- the reduction needed to honour our Kyoto commitments -- why didn't the Liberals bring forward legislation when they were in government that obliged them to do so? The answer: Because it can't be done except by devastating the national economy.

The Liberals were in charge of the Kyoto file for over eight years. During that time, our greenhouse gas emissions went from 12% above 1990 levels to more than 30% above. From 1998 onward, the Liberals spent over $6-billion on environmental initiatives. But as former environment commissioner Johanne Gelinas said in her final report last fall, much of that money could not be accounted for, and none of the spending produced any measurable improvement in Canada's emissions. The Liberals -- including then-environment minister Stephane Dion -- could never figure out a way to reduce emissions, or even slow their growth.

Now for crass political gain, the opposition parties seem set to saddle the Tories with Pablo Rodriguez's pie-in-the-sky bill, and perhaps start a recession in the process. When the next election comes, voters should remember who set Canada down this road.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,520
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
The fact yo can buy unused carbon credits shows the real function of the accord. To punish the west for being profitable.
 
Mar 19, 2006
8,767
0
0
papasmerf said:
The fact yo can buy unused carbon credits shows the real function of the accord. To punish the west for being profitable.
It also demonstrates the real function of the accord has very little to do with cleaning up the environment.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,882
186
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Trading pollution credits is an economically valid way of getting the most pollution reduction for the least cost (the idea is that those who can clean up their act cheaper will do so, create excess savings and sell those to countries that with higher costs).

The fact that China and India are not participating makes the whole thing a bit absurd though......

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,882
186
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
mediaguy said:
Editorial in the Feb 10/07 National Post.
The Liberals have got us going down a scarry road!
===========================================
The folly of Kyoto

Pablo Rodriguez, a Liberal MP from Quebec, has a private member's bill proceeding through the House of Commons that the backing of all three opposition parties. If it passes, as appears likely, the resultant Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act would require Ottawa to honour Canada's Kyoto commitments and reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions by more than a third over just the next five years.

Working Canadians and taxpayers had better hope Mr. Rodriguez's legislation fails, because there are only two ways to achieve his goal by 2012, both unpalatable. Either the federal government could force a radical change in Canadians' lifestyles -- restricting automobile use, limiting electrical consumption and shutting down industries employing hundreds of thousands of workers, thereby sending our economy into a tailspin -- or it could send tens of billions of tax dollars abroad to buy "carbon credits" from developing and underdeveloped nations.

Mr. Rodriguez, his Liberal caucus mates and environmentalists are reassuring Canadians that the emissions targets imposed by the new bill could be achieved with very little pain for ordinary Canadians. But that is a pipe dream. There is no magic new technology on the horizon that would enable a nation of 32 million to cut hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide output in five short years -- no hydrogen cars, no emissions-free smelters, no solar-powered 18- wheelers. In order to reach our Kyoto targets at this late date, Canada would have to shutter all its coal-fired power plants, plus all its auto plants and Alberta's oilsands. In the late 1990s, the Liberals' own economic forecasts projected 450,000 lost jobs from such reductions.

Mr. Rodriguez's bill is naive in the extreme. It would consign us all to freezing together in the unemployed darkness. And despite all this sacrifice, it wouldn't even do any good against global warming.

The Kyoto accords were more about symbolism than substance. None of the large developing nations -- China, India, Indonesia or Brazil -- is covered by its strictures. Not only do they not have to scale back their emissions under Kyoto, they are not even required to hold them constant. Their emissions may grow without penalty.

Russia and the former Soviet bloc states, which are covered by Kyoto, have since been exempted from its emission targets. Which means the only countries to which the reductions apply are Western industrial nations. And even if they all managed to cripple their economies to meet their limits, their actions would serve to delay the warming expected in the next century by only four years.

The other option is for Ottawa to buy emissions credits from other countries, notably Russia. (Russia has unused emissions room because since 1990, Kyoto's baseline, a lot of the country's old, dirty Soviet-era power and manufacturing plants have been closed.) This, though, is just a feel-good accounting trick whose only purpose would be allowing Canada to assert technical bragging rights about meeting its Kyoto targets -- it wouldn't result in preventing a single molecule of actual carbon dioxide from being emitted.

Canada has already spend about $1-billion buying up Russia's unused emissions room. To meet Mr. Rodriguez's targets, it would have to spend another $20-billion to $60-billion. As well as being a complete waste of money from the point of view of Canadian taxpayers, consider where the cash would be going: the authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin -- which is helping to protect Iran's nuclear program at the UN, turning Chechnya into scorched earth, bullying its European neighbours and rolling back domestic civil liberties to the Cazarist era -- would become Canada's biggest foreign aid recipient, larger than all others combined.

We have a question: If it were so easy to cut Canada's carbon dioxide output by nearly 35% -- the reduction needed to honour our Kyoto commitments -- why didn't the Liberals bring forward legislation when they were in government that obliged them to do so? The answer: Because it can't be done except by devastating the national economy.

The Liberals were in charge of the Kyoto file for over eight years. During that time, our greenhouse gas emissions went from 12% above 1990 levels to more than 30% above. From 1998 onward, the Liberals spent over $6-billion on environmental initiatives. But as former environment commissioner Johanne Gelinas said in her final report last fall, much of that money could not be accounted for, and none of the spending produced any measurable improvement in Canada's emissions. The Liberals -- including then-environment minister Stephane Dion -- could never figure out a way to reduce emissions, or even slow their growth.

Now for crass political gain, the opposition parties seem set to saddle the Tories with Pablo Rodriguez's pie-in-the-sky bill, and perhaps start a recession in the process. When the next election comes, voters should remember who set Canada down this road.
Would be interesting if this passes....

OTB
 
Mar 19, 2006
8,767
0
0
onthebottom said:
The fact that China and India are not participating makes the whole thing a bit absurd though......

OTB
........and a colossal waste of time if you factor in China is constructing over 500 new coal burning generators over the next year.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,882
186
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
lookingforitallthetime said:
........and a colossal waste of time if you factor in China is constructing over 500 new coal burning generators over the next year.
Brings "finger in dam" imagery to mind doesn't it.

OTB
 

maxweber

Active member
Oct 12, 2005
1,296
1
36
I've seen commentaries short on practical alternatives -- but this one takes the cake. Why don't we just replace the beaver with the ostrich, and be done with it?

MW
 
Mar 19, 2006
8,767
0
0
maxweber said:
I've seen commentaries short on practical alternatives -- but this one takes the cake. Why don't we just replace the beaver with the ostrich, and be done with it?

MW
Doing nothing may not be a pratical alternative to Kyoto, but it accomplishes the same thing while saving the tax payer a lot of money.

It seems you wish to replace the beaver with a jackass.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,882
186
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
enduser1 said:
Let us hope that it is just political posturing. For arguement's sake lets say they do implement it. It will cause a constitutional crisis and the break up of Canada. Why?

Because the Canadian constitution gives all natural resources and property and civil rights over to the provinces. Guess what? Forcing any province to alter its natural resource or energy policy is beyond the ability of the Federal government. The Feds can't do it. They know this.

Also the main source of industry in Canada is Ontario with just under fifty percent of the nations economy. The brunt of the closures of industries will be in Ontario.

So now you have an army of unemployed, homeless pissed off people, who are angry. You have Alberta refusing to shut down its industries joining with Quebec saying enough of this bullshit, we are separating. Don't forget Queec was just made a nation. As a nation Quebec can refuse to abide by any Federal Treaty. Why not Alberta or BC too? Kyoto has the real possibility of being the straw that breaks Canada's back.

EU
Again we'd like to extend Statehood to the Province of Alberta...... no other Provences need apply.

:D

OTB
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
That National Post article is beginning to look like a helluva good reason NOT to ever pay any attention to the National Post. Take this questionable statement for example:

....'Canada has already spend about $1-billion buying up Russia's unused emissions room. To meet Mr. Rodriguez's targets, it would have to spend another $20-billion to $60-billion. As well as being a complete waste of money from the point of view of Canadian taxpayers, consider where the cash would be going: the authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin -- which is helping to protect Iran's nuclear program at the UN, turning Chechnya into scorched earth, bullying its European neighbours and rolling back domestic civil liberties to the Cazarist era -- would become Canada's biggest foreign aid recipient, larger than all others combined.'....

My LOAD-O'-SHIT sensors went off the scale when I read that. I've been trying to google up anything that would support the author's claim that we've already spent one $Billion on carbon credits from Russia. Guess what? I couldn't find a thing. Anyone else out there who can find ANY kind of backup for these claims? I'm still not saying this is unfounded. But this is the first I've heard of it. And I am also saying we'd probably have heard all about it - many times - from Stephen Harper if it had actually happened. To save me a lot of time looking for this needle in a haystack, I invite all of you to find a credible link to support this. Thanks in advance!
 

Dancerfan

Oldtimer
Dec 22, 2001
936
2
18
70
slowpoke said:
That National Post article is beginning to look like a helluva good reason NOT to ever pay any attention to the National Post !
So i guess we should only believe what we see in the Star,or any other leftie "we know whats best for you" publications?
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
Dancerfan said:
So i guess we should only believe what we see in the Star,or any other leftie "we know whats best for you" publications?
Umm...You can believe whatever you want to believe. Personally, I like to question what I read and I don't trust publications that have such a heavy bias that they actually fabricate stories to support their views. There's a difference between editorial bias and flat out lying. I prefer the Globe and Mail of all the Toronto newspapers. Having said that, I doubt that the Star would have lied about something like 1 $Billion spent on credits if it didn't happen.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
enduser1 said:
Hi Slowpke,

That Russia claim is horsehit. It was under Prime Minister Martin that Canada purchased one billion in credits from an assortment of African nations in return for debt relief. It was in response to Bono's pressure for Canada to do something, anything in Africa.

National Post like Faux News in the USA are doing a great social disservice by reporting fake news. I guess that they don't quite grasp that the New York Times was seriously and IMHO permenantly damaged with its fake News stories.

Its amazing when you listen to scientists talk about global warming. They all say very confidently that "Glow ball warming is real", (and then there is a hesitation followed by) "and it is caused by man". The story of global warming on Mars and Jupiter and Triton and Pluto!!!! is not getting out.

These extreme right wingers are doing a terrible disservice by discrediting those who actually question the second part of the statement: Glow Ball warming is real and "it is caused by man". Google pictures of Mars in 1967 and now in 2007. You will see the polar ice caps are gone. That is fucking serious global warming.

EU
Thanks for contributing to my National Post invitation. You're the only respondent so you win. I was expecting an onslaught of support and a lively debate from all corners but nothing of the sort has happened. So, given this flatulent defence of the National Post, I hereby find them guilty as charged.

Having said that, I'm really trying to see where your Mars climate change thing is going. I see the amazing pictures but not the rationale. I know so little about it that I am forced to simply accept what the vast majority of earthbound scientists have recently published about man's contribution to climate change. I just don't see any reasonable alternative and I accept the risk that they could still be wrong. But even if their assessment is wrong in this particular instance, I still find it difficult to accept the notion that anyone should be allowed to dump such massive quantities of "unnatural" substances into the environment until someone can prove it is harmful. This kind of "wait until you can positively prove it was totally insane" approach will eventually kill us all.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,882
186
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
slowpoke said:
Umm...You can believe whatever you want to believe. Personally, I like to question what I read and I don't trust publications that have such a heavy bias that they actually fabricate stories to support their views. There's a difference between editorial bias and flat out lying. I prefer the Globe and Mail of all the Toronto newspapers. Having said that, I doubt that the Star would have lied about something like 1 $Billion spent on credits if it didn't happen.

I'd suggest you avoid the NY Times.

OTB
 
Mar 19, 2006
8,767
0
0
slowpoke said:
Thanks for contributing to my National Post invitation. You're the only respondent so you win. I was expecting an onslaught of support and a lively debate from all corners but nothing of the sort has happened. So, given this flatulent defence of the National Post, I hereby find them guilty as charged.
Did you really need validation that the National Post was full of shite?
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
lookingforitallthetime said:
Did you really need validation that the National Post was full of shite?
I was aware of the NatPost's right wing agenda but I was surprised that they'd outright fabricate parts of their story. So I half expected to be proven wrong. Now that nobody seems able or willing to provide any evidence to support that story, I am interpreting that as a confirmation that my suspicions were correct. But I don't think being correct about such an obvious lie is any kind of a stretch so it never occurred to me to feel validated over it. My motive was to expose NatPost's lack of journalistic integrity and to correct the erroneous information about the purchase of carbon credits. If you have a problem with that, why don't you spell it out?
 
Mar 19, 2006
8,767
0
0
slowpoke said:
I was aware of the NatPost's right wing agenda but I was surprised that they'd outright fabricate parts of their story.
I don't believe anything I read in any publication anymore. The fact that newspapers have agendas (left wing or right wing) is a sad commentary on the state of journalism today.

My SO has a subscription to the Toronto Star. The front page story on Saturday was about some kid who has 2 teeth and cant get a job???? Front page story! WTF is that?

For the past 3 or 4 days, CNN and every other news channel has been fascinated with the death of Anna Nicole Smith. They even go into great detail about the contents of her fridge. Are you kidding me? Is the death of a grade B celebrity really news at all, let alone worthy of a week long expose?

Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite must be rolling over in their graves.

Let's face it, journalism aint what it used to be.

slowpoke said:
If you have a problem with that, why don't you spell it out?
Read above.
 

slowpoke

New member
Oct 22, 2004
2,899
0
0
Toronto
lookingforitallthetime said:
I don't believe anything I read in any publication anymore. The fact that newspapers have agendas (left wing or right wing) is a sad commentary on the state of journalism today.

My SO has a subscription to the Toronto Star. The front page story on Saturday was about some kid who has 2 teeth and cant get a job???? Front page story! WTF is that?

For the past 3 or 4 days, CNN and every other news channel has been fascinated with the death of Anna Nicole Smith. They even go into great detail about the contents of her fridge. Are you kidding me? Is the death of a grade B celebrity really news at all, let alone worthy of a week long expose?

Edward R Murrow and Walter Cronkite must be rolling over in their graves.

Let's face it, journalism aint what it used to be.



Read above.
I guess I was simply confused by the "validation" thing. I have no problem with "vindicated". But "validated" is sometimes used as one of those psycho-babble buzz words to indicate self worth or ego gratification as in "does little toady feel better now?". I'm definitely getting old & cynical because I thought you were winding me up (again).

I agree that journalistic integrity is testing new lows almost every day. Having said that, I still doubt that the Star or the Globe would have gone as far as to completely fabricate an event that never happened. Opinions, editorial bias and interpretations are all fair game but it is downright dangerous when a major rag starts playing some kind of "long con" game with an unsuspecting public.
 
Toronto Escorts