Ambrose "learning", maybe softening on Kyoto

[slowpoke]

Interesting article about possible changes in Ambrose's position on Kyoto. She must have been reading my posts (I wish)! Also, I've been looking at a few recent articles about Kyoto and why the poorer countries like India and China weren't given emission targets like the more developed countries. The rationale behind giving less developed countries a pass until about 2012 is that they didn't cause the global warming crisis in the first place. So it isn't their mess to clean up.

That isn't really such an unreasonable position when you look at the levels of fossil fuel consumption in the developed west compared to the likes of China and India. In the grand scheme of things, cars and western style consumerism have only come to India and China very recently. The ozone layer had already been depleted by many decades of cheap gas, widespread use of coal etc., and it was the industrialized west who'd caused most of that damage. So why should China or India now pay the price for our negligence? We've grown rich on cheap gas and unrestricted emissions while they've remained poor and contributed nowhere near as much to this problem. I'm no expert on emissions but all those bicycles and rickshaws probably didn't do anywhere near the harm that we did with our air conditioned V8s. They have billions of hungry mouths to feed. We already have far too much for our own good. So what's wrong with the west taking a greater share of the responsibility for solving this problem? Seems only fair IMHO.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...19/Kyoto_ambrose_061119/20061119?hub=Politics

Hints emerge Tories' stance on Kyoto in flux
Updated Sun. Nov. 19 2006 11:37 PM ET

Canadian Press

NAIROBI, Kenya -- Amid the controversy that surrounded Environment Minister Rona Ambrose at last week's UN Climate Conference, little notice was given to a number of surprising hints that her position on Kyoto Protocol may be changing.

Among the hints, scattered in comments and interviews throughout the conference:

Ambrose indicated strong interest in the European Union's experiment in international emissions trading, a program which she has in the past described as a failure. Her officials say there are plans for a Canada-EU workshop on the topic as early as next month.

She didn't rule out use of the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM, under which industrial countries can earn emissions credits by financing clean technology projects in developing countries. She said Canada would have to assess its domestic situation before making a decision. In the past she has been highly critical of the CDM, suggesting it is little more than a recipe for corruption and wasted money.

Ambrose did not protest the fact that big developing countries like Brazil, China and India still lack emissions-cutting targets. Like the United States, she has in the past complained repeatedly about the lack of quantitative commitments by developing countries, portraying this as a deep flaw in the treaty.

Asked about the issue at the close of the conference, she said the treaty is evolving, and "every step to show the protocol's a success lays the foundation for opportunities for other countries to consider joining."

Asked whether she was changing her mind about Kyoto, Ambrose made an ambiguous reply, saying she was "learning." ....

 

[euripides]

Whether or not she changes her mind, even if she does have a mind of her own, will mean nothing ,as these Alliance Ministers are nothing but lapdogs for the robotic Mr Harper. They do only his bidding and we are all getting a dose of his strange, simple and disastrous approach to the world.

 

[frasier]

Seems to me that the US approach is more honest(we can debatte the merit of it).
The US has said no to Kyoto from the get go. Canada has said yes. Arguable recent standards passed on the stae level surpass Kyoto requirements..i.e. California.

 

[slowpoke]

Whether or not she changes her mind, even if she does have a mind of her own, will mean nothing ,as these Alliance Ministers are nothing but lapdogs for the robotic Mr Harper. They do only his bidding and we are all getting a dose of his strange, simple and disastrous approach to the world.

My biggest beef with Harper has been this wimpy clean air act and his failure to address the problem of global warming. I've been trying to give him the benefit of the doubt on most issues which means I'm not going to prejudge him for his Alliance / Reform roots. I'll just wait until he actually does something I can't tolerate. Like gun control but that's another issue. I'd be happy to be wrong about him so I'll wait and see. Like I have a choice!

If Ambrose is slowly backing away from her previous position on Kyoto and if she is doing this with Harper's blessing, it would be an indirect admission that they were wrong. I have no problem with people who can admit they were wrong. It is called learning on the job - happens all the time. I think they now realize they've really screwed the pooch on the environment so maybe they're trying to give us the impression that they are bowing to pressure from the Kyotophiles at the UN and opposition MPs like Jack Layton etc. This way they can save face by making it look like they're flexible and consultative etc.

Also, the changes in the US Senate and Congress mean that Harper et al can expect a u-turn on Kyoto from the Americans soon and they don't want Canada to be alone against the world on global warming.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...007&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

...."But what a difference an election can make.

Until the recent U.S. mid-term vote, Inhofe chaired the Senate's environment committee. He adamantly, often rudely, blocked anything that hinted of action to curb climate change.

The election outcome toppled him from that powerful perch.

Democrats now control both the Senate and House of Representatives for the first time since 1994, which means they head the committees. Party leaders say they want aggressive action on climate change. Democrat Barbara Boxer, a Californian who accepts the climate-change science and has called for steep cuts in American emissions, will replace Inhofe.

"He has been marginalized," says John Stanton, of the Washington-based National Environmental Trust.

Inhofe's political demise, U.S. environmentalists say, is one of several signs that offer hope the U.S. might finally commit to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, which now account for 25 per cent of the global total.

Another is evidence that President George W. Bush might be planning a new approach. His aides are floating enough trial balloons to fuel rumours he'll make a significant announcement — some reports predict "an astonishing U-turn" — in his annual State of the Union speech in January.

Since Prime Minister Stephen Harper has followed the Bush script, a change south of the border could influence Canadian policy."...

 

[slowpoke]

Seems to me that the US approach is more honest(we can debatte the merit of it).
The US has said no to Kyoto from the get go. Canada has said yes. Arguable recent standards passed on the stae level surpass Kyoto requirements..i.e. California.

If you mean that it is "honest" for the US to mean "no" when it says "no" to Kyoto, you may be technically correct. But the US releases about 25% of the world's greenhouse gas so it is probably the single greatest contributor to the problem of global warming. It is also one of the least honourable countries on the planet because they have consistently refused to accept any responsibility for the harm their emissions have caused. Canada is a long way behind the US but we are also releasing far more than our share of carbon into the atmosphere.

 

[onthebottom]

If you mean that it is "honest" for the US to mean "no" when it says "no" to Kyoto, you may be technically correct. But the US releases about 25% of the world's greenhouse gas so it is probably the single greatest contributor to the problem of global warming. It is also one of the least honourable countries on the planet because they have consistently refused to accept any responsibility for the harm their emissions have caused. Canada is a long way behind the US but we are also releasing far more than our share of carbon into the atmosphere.

We also produce 25% of world GDP, do you suppose those numbers are correlated......

OTB

 

[slowpoke]

We also produce 25% of world GDP, do you suppose those numbers are correlated......

OTB

No argument about good ol' US production. You guys sure know how to churn out those useless widgits and convert the world's resources into dollar signs and emissions. But WTF good does your precious GDP do for the little guy who's either going to have to move to higher ground in some third world hell hole or for the Africans who will be the hardest hit with even more drought and even higher temperatures. It seems like a lot of us think a few degrees warmer here or there is inconsequential or we just don't want to think about it. But it will be a big deal in areas where God knows how many people are already starving because of drought etc.

I admit that I am no expert on climate but I don't have any doctrinaire irons in the fire either. So I tend to believe the experts when they say Africa is the most vulnerable to global warming. The Africans also seem to be the least likely continent to benefit from the trickle down affects of your US productivity.


http://www.climatehotmap.org/africa.html

"The African continent is a rich mosaic of ecosystems, ranging from the snow and ice fields of Kilimanjaro to tropical rainforests to the Saharan desert.

Although it has the lowest per capita fossil energy use of any major world region, Africa may be the most vulnerable continent to climate change because widespread poverty limits countries� capabilities to adapt.

Signs of a changing climate in Africa have already emerged: spreading disease and melting glaciers in the mountains, warming temperatures in drought-prone areas, and sea-level rise and coral bleaching along the coastlines.'...

 

[onthebottom]

No argument about good ol' US production. You guys sure know how to churn out those useless widgits and convert the world's resources into dollar signs and emissions. But WTF good does your precious GDP do for the little guy who's either going to have to move to higher ground in some third world hell hole or for the Africans who will be the hardest hit with even more drought and even higher temperatures. It seems like a lot of us think a few degrees warmer here or there is inconsequential or we just don't want to think about it. But it will be a big deal in areas where God knows how many people are already starving because of drought etc.

I admit that I am no expert on climate but I don't have any doctrinaire irons in the fire either. So I tend to believe the experts when they say Africa is the most vulnerable to global warming. The Africans also seem to be the least likely continent to benefit from the trickle down affects of your US productivity.


http://www.climatehotmap.org/africa.html

"The African continent is a rich mosaic of ecosystems, ranging from the snow and ice fields of Kilimanjaro to tropical rainforests to the Saharan desert.

Although it has the lowest per capita fossil energy use of any major world region, Africa may be the most vulnerable continent to climate change because widespread poverty limits countries� capabilities to adapt.

Signs of a changing climate in Africa have already emerged: spreading disease and melting glaciers in the mountains, warming temperatures in drought-prone areas, and sea-level rise and coral bleaching along the coastlines.'...

My point was (and it's hard to believe you were so thick as to miss it) that countries produce pollution / consume energy in line with their economic activity. I'm sure you're correct on per capita energy use in Africa, Africa is among the poorest regions in the world.

OTB

 

[slowpoke]

My point was (and it's hard to believe you were so thick as to miss it) that countries produce pollution / consume energy in line with their economic activity. I'm sure you're correct on per capita energy use in Africa, Africa is among the poorest regions in the world.

OTB

You were right to not believe I missed your so-called point. It has always been disturbingly apparent that you equate the level of economic activity in any given country with some kind of God-given entitlement to consume and pollute as much as that economic activity requires. So, for example, it would be completely OK if the US were able to double its production of widgits tomorrow and, simply because they were economically or technically able to ramp up production to such a great extent, the US would automatically be entitled to double its already excessive standard of living and to not give a second thought to the increased environmental damage this extra production inflicted on the other inhabitants of this planet.

Of course I know that countries that have greater economic activity consume more energy and produce more pollution. The point you have routinely been too thick to appreciate is that the US isn't really entitled to inflict suffering on the rest of the planet just because they have the technical, military or economic ability to do so. You can buy all the resources on the planet fair and square and you can convert them into whatever turns you on. But you have no right to inflict any more environmental damage per capita on our planet than any other country. An American doesn't have the right to a larger environmental footprint than anyone else. What is so difficult about this concept?

 

[LancsLad]

My point was (and it's hard to believe you were so thick as to miss it) that countries produce pollution / consume energy in line with their economic activity. I'm sure you're correct on per capita energy use in Africa, Africa is among the poorest regions in the world.

OTB

When the kyoto thing was discussed a few months back this was the argument I made. Sure the US is the leading consumer of energy but if you look at it as units of energy per dollar of value added then there are much worse offenders. Thats the kind of analysis that the limp lefties don't like though.

 

[onthebottom]

You were right to not believe I missed your so-called point. It has always been disturbingly apparent that you equate the level of economic activity in any given country with some kind of God-given entitlement to consume and pollute as much as that economic activity requires. So, for example, it would be completely OK if the US were able to double its production of widgits tomorrow and, simply because they were economically or technically able to ramp up production to such a great extent, the US would automatically be entitled to double its already excessive standard of living and to not give a second thought to the increased environmental damage this extra production inflicted on the other inhabitants of this planet.

Of course I know that countries that have greater economic activity consume more energy and produce more pollution. The point you have routinely been too thick to appreciate is that the US isn't really entitled to inflict suffering on the rest of the planet just because they have the technical, military or economic ability to do so. You can buy all the resources on the planet fair and square and you can convert them into whatever turns you on. But you have no right to inflict any more environmental damage per capita on our planet than any other country. An American doesn't have the right to a larger environmental footprint than anyone else. What is so difficult about this concept?

A sweet and egalitarian perspective, what happens when you turn turn that simplistic lens at yourself? I'm sure you have a standard of living far beyond the per capita average of the world (about $ 9,500) - and I'm equally sure that you're consuming and polluting well beyond your per capita allotment. You selfish bastard.

And why so focused on widgets? The US economy is 70% services.... all that big box stuff you show disdain for is made overseas.

LOL

OTB

 

[pussylicker]

Almost every news clip show ancient cars sputtering down the street, and motorcycles that burn more oil than gas. That's news clips from Russia, and every third world country. A small number of vehicles, but BIG polluters never the less. How many cows does India have, that produce methane gas? What about Cuba and their '50s cars, or Mexico, or any Central or South American country?

The US is ten times the size of Canada, and almost all of their pollution travels north with the wind currents (gulf stream etc), and CFCs that depleted the ozone over Canada, went up when hot air rises, and cold air descends, so more damage is going to happen over Canada than any other country, so I wouldn't agree with some media reports that per capita, we are the worst offenders. We have a bigger country than the French, with our pop spread over a lot larger area, so we have to drive farther to get somewhere. Whereas the French can fart in one house, and be smelled across the street.

Yes, this global warming is an important issue, but we are getting the dirty end of the stick. Yes North America has a different lifestyle than Europe, but they have done just as much for polluting the air and water as we have. So if France wants to flex it's mouth muscles, I for one will boycott anything made in France.

We should look at the BS of on time deliveries. Why trucks need to run the hwys with "just in time deliveries" is beyond me. That seems like a waste of fuel to start. Who dreamed up the word logistics? Some corporate ashat has made some buzzword, and now a verb has a description that is killing us. Why can't they use more trains to haul products across North America, to reduce the amount of transports would be a start. Oh I forgot about the revolution or evolution of the trucking industry.

Intercity transit is still a joke. To watch newer buses still belch black smoke, and the burn of sulfur in the air. Then you have McGimpys broken energy promises, but that's OK, because soon we will all be out of a job, and homeless. Won't David Miller love that.

 

[slowpoke]

A sweet and egalitarian perspective, what happens when you turn turn that simplistic lens at yourself? I'm sure you have a standard of living far beyond the per capita average of the world (about $ 9,500) - and I'm equally sure that you're consuming and polluting well beyond your per capita allotment. You selfish bastard.

And why so focused on widgets? The US economy is 70% services.... all that big box stuff you show disdain for is made overseas.

LOL

OTB

I'm generalizing when I focus on widgits. From my perspective, it doesn't really matter WTF you make. What matters is what you spew into the air and water etc. And you're correct that I am consuming well beyond the world per capita average. But I've been aware of that for a very long time and I've made a conscious effort to tread as lightly as I can. I'm also anxious to preserve as much of that standard of living as possible by making these inevitable environmental changes now instead of later. Do you really think we can keep ignoring the downside (emissions) of all this success? Don't you think it would be wise to start thinking creatively about how we can maybe do this capitalist thing a bit better than we did yesterday? Just asking....

 

[pussylicker]

Signs of a changing climate in Africa have already emerged: spreading disease and melting glaciers in the mountains, warming temperatures in drought-prone areas, and sea-level rise and coral bleaching along the coastlines.'...

Chalk it all up to over population. Mother Nature will take care of herself, and cleanse herself of humans with more and severe storms.

 

[onthebottom]

I'm generalizing when I focus on widgits. From my perspective, it doesn't really matter WTF you make. What matters is what you spew into the air and water etc. And you're correct that I am consuming well beyond the world per capita average. But I've been aware of that for a very long time and I've made a conscious effort to tread as lightly as I can. I'm also anxious to preserve as much of that standard of living as possible by making these inevitable environmental changes now instead of later. Do you really think we can keep ignoring the downside (emissions) of all this success? Don't you think it would be wise to start thinking creatively about how we can maybe do this capitalist thing a bit better than we did yesterday? Just asking....

Well, since you're back to being reasonable.....

Yes, we need to be as efficient as possible - that means using as little energy to produce wealth as possible and make that energy as pollutant free as possible. We also need to balance this with standard of living concerns. One way to phrase this discussion is how many jobs are you willing to eliminate to get less pollutants? Should India and China (who have 25% of the worlds people) be held to first world standards....

I especially love those who preach to us about this issue (which I see as a real issue) while they take SUV convoys 500 feet (Al Gore in Caans), own multiple SUVs (John Kerry) and fly private planes (all of them).

If you're limiting your eco footprint, good for you, you just want to be careful about forcing others into your point of view (I strongly suggest you download and watch the "Smug Alert" episode from season 10 of South park.

OTB

 

[johnhenrygalt]

An American doesn't have the right to a larger environmental footprint than anyone else. What is so difficult about this concept?

Part of the environmental "footprint" which I have never seen taken into account is reproduction. In this respect the "West" is doing far more than its part in addressing environmental concerns by reproducing at a pace below population replacement.

If some guy can't keep it in his pants and fathers 8 kids (thereby creating 8 additional "footprints" that the rest of us are being asked to deal with), that's not my problem. It's a pity for the 8 rugrats though who will have to share a much smaller portion of the pie.

Edited to correct grammatical errors.

 

[someone]

Part of the environmental "footprint" which I have never seen taken into account is reproduction. In this respect the "West" is doing far more than its part in addressing environmental concerns by reproducing at a pace below population replacement.

I don't disagree with your basic point. However, if we are talking about the U.S., my understanding is that they are the one Western country that is reproducing at a rate above population replacement level, although at a much lower rate than many individual third world countries, their absolute size means that they are going to be responsible for much of the increase in world population in coming years (one UN ranking puts them at number 4 when it comes to contributions to the world's population).

 

[onthebottom]

I don't disagree with your basic point. However, if we are talking about the U.S., my understanding is that they are the one Western country that is reproducing at a rate above population replacement level, although at a much lower rate than many individual third world countries, their absolute size means that they are going to be responsible for much of the increase in world population in coming years (one UN ranking puts them at number 4 when it comes to contributions to the world's population).

As the US is the worlds 3rd most populous country I guess that's not surprising. The multiplier factor will be that the standard of living is so much higher in the US than other large countries. The top 10 are: China, India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, Nigeria, Japan.

OTB

 

[someone]

As the US is the worlds 3rd most populous country I guess that's not surprising.

Actually, I think it is surprising. Can you name one other developed country with positive population growth before immigration? (even after immigration, a lot have negative population growth). I find it to be a puzzle. I wonder how much of it is due to religion (I’m sure someone has tried to estimate this).

The multiplier factor will be that the standard of living is so much higher in the US than other large countries. The top 10 are: China, India, United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, Nigeria, Japan.

OTB

If by “multiplier factor” you mean the negative effect on the environment, I’m not sure it is necessarily that negative as environmental quality is often what economists call a normal good (you want more of it when your income goes up). Still, I agree that it is not good. BTW, of the countries you listed, I believe that both China and Japan have their population growth rates under control. I’m guessing that Russia is not too bad, but I’m only guessing in the case of Russia.

 

[onthebottom]

Actually, I think it is surprising. Can you name one other developed country with positive population growth before immigration? (even after immigration, a lot have negative population growth). I find it to be a puzzle. I wonder how much of it is due to religion (I’m sure someone has tried to estimate this).

I could come up with a handful of guesses (more religious, richer, larger immigrant population having children, more opportunity.....) but they would just be guesses. I do remember posting a thread about the birth rate for Republicans being higher than Democrats so perhaps as the country becomes more conservative (which has been happening over the last several decades IMO) it becomes more "productive". This will be a structural advantage for the US economy.

If by “multiplier factor” you mean the negative effect on the environment, I’m not sure it is necessarily that negative as environmental quality is often what economists call a normal good (you want more of it when your income goes up). Still, I agree that it is not good. BTW, of the countries you listed, I believe that both China and Japan have their population growth rates under control. I’m guessing that Russia is not too bad, but I’m only guessing in the case of Russia.

Yes, more people have a negative environmental impact and the richer people become the larger their negative environmental impact. If the richest people are growing you have a compounding affect I would think. Look at it another way, we add Canada to our GDP every 2-3 years, thus we likely add that amount of pollution as well. While I do believe we are efficient (pollution / GDP) the raw size makes the US a massive polluter - but not as a % of GDP.

OTB