If you haven't noticed, Canada allows free speech - we don't all have the same opinions on everything.onthebottom said:
Some bash the USA over Kyoto, others think that Canada should pull out of Kyoto.
Ambrose "learning", maybe softening on Kyoto
- Thread starter slowpoke
- Start date
Some bash the USA over Kyoto, others think that Canada should pull out of Kyoto.johnhenrygalt said:
They sure did control their population.
Since males are deemed to be more valuable then females, a lot of female babies, were drowned.
Way to control the population!!!
Ironically, now there is a shortage of females..geez I wonder why.
John,johnhenrygalt said:
It's existed for years. I spoke directly with a Canadian Gov't official 5 yrs ago about the product we were hoping to introduce. He told me a product already existed that doubled fuel capacity. In other words, doubled your mileage. It didn't have the properties our product had ( eliminating over 80% of the chemicals that come directly out of your exhaust ). But it did exist. He told me the biggest obstacle I would have, and I quote, " The largest lobby group in Ottawa is the Oil and Petroleum Industry " and " It's going to be very difficult to get anyone in Ottawa to approve this ( our product ). So a product does exist. But getting our politicians and industry to sign up to the program is the problem.
BS
Agreed. The time for moral hand wringing is long gone. But that cuts both ways. We also can't dwell too much on the fairness issue re: China or India's targets. It isn't about fairness. We don't have any high horses to sit on anyway. We have to be practical and we have to lead by example. India and China at least have signed Kyoto and will probably try to contain their emissions with or without targets. They can still be influenced by scienctific evidence because they will suffer just as much as we will if they don't control emissions. The targets aren't everything. It is really about emissions.Asterix said:
What worries most people about China is their plans to build so many coal fired generating stations but this might not be as bad as we fear because there is at least some hope that clean coal technology will cut down on the pollution and enable them to contain most of the carbon emissions. There is a huge supply of coal available which should be a big incentive to find ways to burn it cleanly.
Also, we have to consider that China was going to have to build those plants with or without Kyoto. All we can do is help them to do it as cleanly as possible and to start cleaning up our own act while we're at it.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...-for-clean-coal/2006/11/19/1163871272574.html
$50 million state grant a win for 'clean' coal
Email Print Normal font Large font Rod Myer
November 20, 2006
Advertisement
AdvertisementTHE Victorian Government has pledged $50 million to fund yet another clean coal technology in the Latrobe Valley.
This time the grant has been made to HRL, an Australian-owned group spun out of the old State Electricity Commission that has proprietary coal-drying technology.
In 1995 HRL raised $100 million from private investors to help develop a 10-megawatt plant trialling its technology.
The latest Government grant is earmarked to help build a $750 million, 400-megawatt pilot plant, a joint venture with Chinese power giant Harbin Power. Construction is expected to start late in 2007 and be completed two years later.
HRL chief executive Gordon Carter said the project would "deliver lower greenhouse emissions at a lower power cost than any other existing coal-fired power technology in Australia".
"This is an opportunity to position Victoria as the centre of excellence for clean brown coal power technology and gasification in the world," he said.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/1997/tl_tampa.html
Florida Clean Coal Plant Showcases Clean, Efficient Power for 21st Century
Energy Secretary O'Leary Says New Plant Will "Help Redefine the World's Use of Coal"
Lakeland, FL - The U.S. electric utility industry today took a major step into the next millennium of clean, high-efficiency electricity from coal with the dedication in Florida of one of the world's cleanest and most advanced coal power plants.
Dedication of the new clean coal technology plant at Tampa Electric Company's Polk Power Station near Lakeland, FL, took place on the closing day of the Department of Energy's week-long Clean Coal Technology Conference in nearby Tampa. With the theme of "Powering the Next Millennium," the international conference attracted more than 400 of the world's experts in high-technology clean coal technology processes.
Outgoing Secretary of Energy Hazel R. O'Leary, who keynoted the final session of the conference earlier in the day, congratulated Tampa Electric Company and TECO Power Service Corporation for the successful startup of a facility she said "will help redefine the world's use of coal."
Speaking at the dedication, O'Leary said "With this technology, we can show the world how to use its wealth of coal to power economic growth without endangering the environment. It will herald a new era for clean energy from coal."
The 250-megawatt power facility uses an advanced technology called "integrated gasification combined cycle." Much cleaner than conventional coal-burning boilers, the technology first turns coal into a gas, then filters out acid-rain and smog-causing impurities.
The technology is also more efficient at generating electricity from coal, operating at efficiencies approaching 40% compared to conventional power plants which are about 33 percent efficient. Higher efficiencies mean that fuel is conserved and greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide are held to a minimum. A more efficient plant also keeps costs to consumers as low as possible.
Well then here we have one of the biggest paradoxes of so-called "environmental protection legislation". In the absence of regulation requiring products to be "approved" by government bureaucrats (and I don't doubt the power of the oil lobby), the product would have been on the market for years already.Big Sleazy said:
I wasn't aware that a government approval was required before marketing a fuel additive.
The one-child policy has had terrible consequences. One of the challenges China faces is what to do with the millions of young men who won't be able to find life-long mates. I understand India has a similar imbalance, creating a potentially explosive situation in Asia.frasier said:
Well, there is what we might hope they will do, and the reality of what they are doing. Last year alone China built 117 coal burning plants, roughly one every three days, most with outdated parts and technology. The Chinese government has steadily defered upgrading or installing modern polutions controls as not being cost effective. To make these plants even at all efficient would effectively mean tearing them down and starting over. Some cities are so polluted than resemble something out of Dickens, especially in the Northen Provinces in cities like Datong where the air gets so thick that people drive during the day with their lights on. In addition many of these plants, at least a third, are massive. One plant goes on line every ten days somewhere in China that has enough energy to power all the households in a city the size of San Diego or Houston. The huge level of greenhouse gases and sulfer that will be spewed into the atmosphere in the coming decades by China is unfortunately a forgone conclusion.slowpoke said:
Maybe the rest of the world should be looking at penalties on Chinese imports or even sanctions. But you can only do that if your own house is in order. Soon one of us will stumble across the latest carbon emission numbers but my sense is that the US, with only about 1/3 of China's pop'n, is STILL the champ when it comes to emissions. So the question becomes: Why exactly are we moaning about China? If Bushco had signed up for some Kyoto targets, he'd at least be seen as pointed in the right direction but he can't even say that. Looks like we're fucked. Makes me glad to be old.Asterix said:
Moaning? I'm merely pointing out where the most significant and overwhelming contribution to greenhouse gases will come from in the near future. As I said the IEA has predicted that China will pass the US by 2009, and likely account for more emissions than all industrial countries combined in two decades, unless they completely reverse course. From 2005 to 2012 they will have built at least 500 coal plants, the great majority from old parts and outdated technology willingly sold to them by countries that can no longer use them, such as the US. That we are complicit is obvious, but unless China agrees to tear down what they are currently building and start over, which won't happen, the amount of pollution they emit will be many times what was considered possible even back a few years. Given their recent track record in dealing with environmental issues, I'm not real optimistic.slowpoke said:
OK so maybe "moaning" is not the right word. And you're right that something will soon have to be done about China or they'll destroy what we haven't already destroyed. But no matter how bad China is expected to become in the next few years, it doesn't mean Canada and the US should be turning their backs on Kyoto. I think of Kyoto as a co-operative approach to a very serious threat by the majority of civilized countries. It took so long to get Kyoto that it may be the last chance for a co-operative solution. If Kyoto falls apart, it would be hard to imagine anything emerging to replace it anytime soon.Asterix said:
The fact that China has signed Kyoto but has no immediate targets doesn't necessarily mean that China has immunity from other types of sanctions outside of Kyoto. If China ignores repeated warnings and entreaties from the rest of the world and continues on its current path, the WTO, the EU and even the UN could eventually slap trade restrictions and sanctions on China for gross environmental negligence. If the US joined Kyoto, that would isolate India and China even more. Right now, it would be hard to penalize China without also penalizing the US. Having the US ignoring the problem and not co-operating with the Kyoto countries seriously undermines Kyoto and gives China a perfect excuse to carry on as usual.
Another angle. I just stumbled across this article claiming China is on the verge of a green revolution because pollution is getting out of hand. Maybe the situation is getting so bad, they'll be forced to back off. Also China is helping India and Pakistan with nuclear power generation projects so India may also be getting some clean energy soon.Asterix said:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2007478.ece
....."But China is on a major drive to boost renewable energies and cut pollution - for sound financial and political reasons. Oil is too expensive and the government wants alternative energies to reduce China's dependence on it. People in the highly polluted cities often complain that their children have nowhere to go to escape the bad air, and that they are worried about what all this will mean for their health.
Farmers have rioted and held demonstrations over pollution damaging their crops, making environmental hazards a potential source of political instability, something the ruling Communist Party refuses to tolerate.
China's top environmental watchdog, the State Environment Protection Administration (Sepa), said in September that pollution cost China £34bn in 2004, about 3 per cent of the GDP that year. In true pragmatic style, Chinese leaders introduced laws this year that set a goal of doubling the use of alternative sources of energy. By 2020, 15 per cent of China's energy needs will be met from renewable sources, with the amount of green power produced rising to 10 gigawatts by 2010 and 30 gigawatts by 2020."...
More hope for China
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=SP197210&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-6
China sees tackling climate change as urgent-Stern
Fri 1 Dec 2006 11:16:15 GMT
(Adds World Bank comments, paragraphs 5-9 and 19)
By Alan Wheatley, China Economics Editor
BEIJING, Dec 1 (Reuters) - China's leaders recognise that tackling climate change is urgent and that reducing greenhouse gases does not mean slamming the brakes on growth, the author of an acclaimed report on global warming said on Friday.
At a news conference to outline a study he presented to the British government in October, former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern disputed the premise of several questions that China was not doing enough to address global warming.
"There is a sense of urgency in China," Stern, head of the British government's economic service, said. "It's important to recognise that China is moving, and moving quite quickly."
Other Western diplomats and environmental experts are less impressed, however, and privately fret that China's leadership does not regard measures to tackle global warming as a priority.
The World Bank is worried that the amount of energy China uses per unit of output has been rising since 2001, reversing a 20-year decline in so-called energy intensity.
With coal-fired stations providing over 80 percent of China's electricity supply, China is on course to overtake the United States by 2009 as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases that warm the planet.
"If that continues, that means more pollution," Bert Hofman, the chief economist in the World Bank's Beijing office, told a banking conference on Friday.
Back in 2001, the bank estimated that 700,000 Chinese died prematurely each year because of pollution, which it said translated into a loss of 5-8 percent of national output.
"One of the big drivers of that pollution is energy," Hofman said. "For China, pollution means major losses and damage at home."
Stern, though, said China deserved credit as one of the few countries where forest cover had increased and for energy-saving commitments in the ruling Communist Party's plan for 2006-2010.
"China is not waiting. China is moving ahead," he said. "I don't think there's any question of waiting for others."
MELTING GLACIERS
Stern's review said timely measures to curb greenhouse gases, and so avoid the worst impact of climate change, could cost as little as 1 percent of global gross domestic product a year.
But failure to act promptly would spell environmental disaster and cost the equivalent of 5 percent of world economic output each year, now and forever.
For China, global warming would exacerbate droughts in the north and floods in the south, in part because of the melting of Himalayan glaciers, Stern said.
He said the focus of his meetings in China had been very practical. Officials wanted to explore the transfer of technology and help with financing to clean up its coal-fired power plants.
Noting that China would implement an export tax on energy-intensive exports this month, Stern said he believed Beijing had also embraced the idea of using price incentives to encourage the move to a low-carbon economy.
"I think that principle is accepted in China, and I hope that China does go forward with these kinds of policies as part of the story of increasing energy efficiency, of encouraging technology for renewables, carbon capture and storage for coal and so on."
But Beijing still sets prices for diesel, gasoline and electricity -- some of the key generators of greenhouse gases -- which analysts say encourages waste and makes investment in cleaner technology less financially attractive.
Hofman at the World Bank said, "China has the policy tool to decrease energy intensity in its hands: increase prices."
Stern said it was the poorest countries that would suffer most if global warming was not tackled. Far from costing jobs, more efficient use of energy would save money and developing new technologies would be a rich source of growth.
"The idea that you've got to grow first and adjust later is wrong. It's one of the key conclusions of the Stern review and I think it's recognised here in China," he added.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=SP197210&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-6
China sees tackling climate change as urgent-Stern
Fri 1 Dec 2006 11:16:15 GMT
(Adds World Bank comments, paragraphs 5-9 and 19)
By Alan Wheatley, China Economics Editor
BEIJING, Dec 1 (Reuters) - China's leaders recognise that tackling climate change is urgent and that reducing greenhouse gases does not mean slamming the brakes on growth, the author of an acclaimed report on global warming said on Friday.
At a news conference to outline a study he presented to the British government in October, former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern disputed the premise of several questions that China was not doing enough to address global warming.
"There is a sense of urgency in China," Stern, head of the British government's economic service, said. "It's important to recognise that China is moving, and moving quite quickly."
Other Western diplomats and environmental experts are less impressed, however, and privately fret that China's leadership does not regard measures to tackle global warming as a priority.
The World Bank is worried that the amount of energy China uses per unit of output has been rising since 2001, reversing a 20-year decline in so-called energy intensity.
With coal-fired stations providing over 80 percent of China's electricity supply, China is on course to overtake the United States by 2009 as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases that warm the planet.
"If that continues, that means more pollution," Bert Hofman, the chief economist in the World Bank's Beijing office, told a banking conference on Friday.
Back in 2001, the bank estimated that 700,000 Chinese died prematurely each year because of pollution, which it said translated into a loss of 5-8 percent of national output.
"One of the big drivers of that pollution is energy," Hofman said. "For China, pollution means major losses and damage at home."
Stern, though, said China deserved credit as one of the few countries where forest cover had increased and for energy-saving commitments in the ruling Communist Party's plan for 2006-2010.
"China is not waiting. China is moving ahead," he said. "I don't think there's any question of waiting for others."
MELTING GLACIERS
Stern's review said timely measures to curb greenhouse gases, and so avoid the worst impact of climate change, could cost as little as 1 percent of global gross domestic product a year.
But failure to act promptly would spell environmental disaster and cost the equivalent of 5 percent of world economic output each year, now and forever.
For China, global warming would exacerbate droughts in the north and floods in the south, in part because of the melting of Himalayan glaciers, Stern said.
He said the focus of his meetings in China had been very practical. Officials wanted to explore the transfer of technology and help with financing to clean up its coal-fired power plants.
Noting that China would implement an export tax on energy-intensive exports this month, Stern said he believed Beijing had also embraced the idea of using price incentives to encourage the move to a low-carbon economy.
"I think that principle is accepted in China, and I hope that China does go forward with these kinds of policies as part of the story of increasing energy efficiency, of encouraging technology for renewables, carbon capture and storage for coal and so on."
But Beijing still sets prices for diesel, gasoline and electricity -- some of the key generators of greenhouse gases -- which analysts say encourages waste and makes investment in cleaner technology less financially attractive.
Hofman at the World Bank said, "China has the policy tool to decrease energy intensity in its hands: increase prices."
Stern said it was the poorest countries that would suffer most if global warming was not tackled. Far from costing jobs, more efficient use of energy would save money and developing new technologies would be a rich source of growth.
"The idea that you've got to grow first and adjust later is wrong. It's one of the key conclusions of the Stern review and I think it's recognised here in China," he added.
#1 ban beans, and #2, get the Lieberals to shut the fark up. That will eliminate a lot of exhaust gasses.Big Sleazy said:
Ello, my name iss Steffan Deon, an I wawnt tu tawk tu yu abowt my tree pillars fur Canada.
First, iss getting back on track tu correct wawt Harper hass dun. I weil try my best tu re instate Kyoto, tu make Canada a leedar in de global invirunment tu reduce eemisiunz. I weil du sumting ryte away, an not wayt tirty yearz.
I wawnt tu make Canada's ekonomee sestainable, an I weil try my best tu wurk wid enurgy an industree tu get univurseteez tu cum up wid ideaz tu cut greenhowz gazez ryte now. Ideaz we can sell ahbroad, an make munee fur Canada. I weil offur tacks braakz fur indeevidualz hu wawnt tu buy ah nu car, tu buy nu fridg, an nu furnass, and rehtrohfit der ohmz. Thiz weil giv de ekonomee a beeg boost.
I wawnt soshawl juztiss fur all Canadienz. I weil try tu make all Canadienz lives bettur. Dis I weil du by cutting eemisiunz, soh awl Canadienz weil be appy peepul, wid storung ekonomee.
Pleez doan't undureztamate me. I weil try my best tu ryte de rungz uf de Cunservative partee. I weil promus de westurn provuncez de muun, cuz I no I can't deeliver. Yu weil be surprized at wawt I can du fur diss cun tree, aftur awl, I'm ah Quebecios, an my mudder iss ah Parisienne.
First, iss getting back on track tu correct wawt Harper hass dun. I weil try my best tu re instate Kyoto, tu make Canada a leedar in de global invirunment tu reduce eemisiunz. I weil du sumting ryte away, an not wayt tirty yearz.
I wawnt tu make Canada's ekonomee sestainable, an I weil try my best tu wurk wid enurgy an industree tu get univurseteez tu cum up wid ideaz tu cut greenhowz gazez ryte now. Ideaz we can sell ahbroad, an make munee fur Canada. I weil offur tacks braakz fur indeevidualz hu wawnt tu buy ah nu car, tu buy nu fridg, an nu furnass, and rehtrohfit der ohmz. Thiz weil giv de ekonomee a beeg boost.
I wawnt soshawl juztiss fur all Canadienz. I weil try tu make all Canadienz lives bettur. Dis I weil du by cutting eemisiunz, soh awl Canadienz weil be appy peepul, wid storung ekonomee.
Pleez doan't undureztamate me. I weil try my best tu ryte de rungz uf de Cunservative partee. I weil promus de westurn provuncez de muun, cuz I no I can't deeliver. Yu weil be surprized at wawt I can du fur diss cun tree, aftur awl, I'm ah Quebecios, an my mudder iss ah Parisienne.
Last edited:
Yeh, I thought it was funny too. Economic sustainabilty won't last for very long. Everyone goes on a buying spree, to upgrade, and then the economy goes for a sh!t, when nobody is spending money.Alexis696969 said:HAHAHAHA
I got caught working overtime for a few months while people bought woodstoves to get off oil back in '84 with the grant from the Feds, then nothing as everybody who was going to buy one had bought theirs. There was a glut in the market, and several businesses that started because of the conversion, had to scramble for something new when the money stopped rolling in.
Similarly the auto dealers are only moving future sales to this month with 0% financing or $5000 plus cashback. Makes for a bleek future when you've reached your peek in sales, and then the drought starts earlier, for a longer period of time. I never took economics in university, but I think I have a better grasp than some of our CEOs and Gov't officials.
