It probably doesn't. But, for these 'big business' types, it's probably like trading shares in the stock market. In other words, it is all one big game for them. They don't care about the world and its inhabitants. The truth is stark and brutal, isn't it!lookingforitallthetime said:
Oil patch going nuclear?
- Thread starter slowpoke
- Start date
Global warming is likely to become such a severe problem in both China and India that I'm hopeful they'll both see the necessity of quickly curbing their emissions as much as possible. Pollution is already such a huge problem for many parts of China that they simply don't have enough environmental latitude to let it deteriorate much more than it has already.basketcase said:
Now China and India have undertaken a joint study about the effects of global warming on glaciers in the Himalayas:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6201399.stm
..."Melted ice
The BBC's Mark Dummett in Delhi says that scientists and mountaineers from the two countries are now planning to head for the source of two rivers, the Sutlej and the Brahmaputra.
These flow from the mountains of Tibet, and along with the Ganges and Indus rivers, provide water to millions of people in the plains of north India and its neighbouring countries.
The expedition's organisers are worried that global warming is melting the glaciers that sustain them.
In the short term, this could cause flooding as the rivers swell with melted ice.
But later if the glaciers disappear, the rivers might too, for part of each year.
The Director of the Indian Mountaineering Foundation, which is leading the Indian side of the expedition, HPS Ahluwalia, said that the melting of the ice sheets and the glaciers is "a crisis in the Himalayas"."..
So all these economists, climatologists, environmentalists, industrialists, oil industry execturives, politicians and experts on sustainable energy, etc. are completely misguided. This cycle of events you've described is pretty much inevitable so all the best minds from the 166 countries that have signed and ratified Kyoto are simply uninformed?enduser1 said:
The environmentalists and climatologists can create the public opinion that something like Kyoto is needed, but the politicians are ultimately the ones to make it a reality.slowpoke said:
The politicians in this case are probably bending to public opinion.
The whole thing was news to me when the Libs signed up in 2002. Back then, they weren't capitalizing on public opinion about global warming because most Canadians didn't know the first thing about it. That's one of the reasons I think the Liberals were genuinely concerned about global warming when they signed Kyoto. There was almost no public concern or consensus about climate change at that time so there wasn't a lot to be gained, politically. But the Libs did a lot of consulting with the provinces and industrial groups, feasibility studies to see how much it was expected to cost etc so they must have had some reason to go to such great lenghts. To me, it seems like real leadership to get out in front of these issues before they become obvious to everyone.lookingforitallthetime said:
Kyoto was negotiated in the late 90's. Just because you were out of the loop, doesn't mean most Canadians wereslowpoke said:
I believe opinion polls at the time of Canada's ratification in 2002 were in the area of 70% support (but I admit I'm not sure about this figure). You may consider this leadership but I would be more inclined to call it followship.
Leadership is opposing the Kyoto Protocol in the face of these polls.
One of the key characteristics of being a good leader is getting your ass elected. Harper had no chance of getting elected if he supported Kyoto. Harper's power base of support is from Alberta where Kyoto was NEVER popular. So let's dispense with all this crap about opposing Kyoto in the face of these polls. Harper had NO CHOICE. If he'd supported Kyoto, he was toast. It's that simple.lookingforitallthetime said:Kyoto was negotiated in the late 90's. Just because you were out of the loop, doesn't mean most Canadians were
I believe opinion polls at the time of Canada's ratification in 2002 were in the area of 70% support (but I admit I'm not sure about this figure). You may consider this leadership but I would be more inclined to call it followship.
Leadership is opposing the Kyoto Protocol in the face of these polls.
Spoken like a true Liberal.slowpoke said:
I have bad news for you, Harper gets votes in Alberta no matter what he does. Besides, I believe the more Canadians learn about Kyoto the more they will find it a farce.slowpoke said:
Spoken like a realist. WTF good is being a brilliant leader if you're hanging around waiting for the next election before you get to do any leading? Seriously. The world is full of people who woulda coulda shouda but didn't.lookingforitallthetime said:
I've got news for you..... Harper's Albertan CPOC gang would've dumped ANYONE who supported Kyoto in the last election. Klein would have personally attacked Harper like a drunken pit bull and big oil would have probably had him politically assassinated. He'd still be looking for a job....
A true leader has political courage. Pandering for votes to get elected is not leadership.slowpoke said:
Respectfully, I doubt it.slowpoke said:
I was pretty sure I was right, after all, why else would Ontarion have recently converted coal fired plants to NG.lookingforitallthetime said:
From the Gov, coal has an emission factor of 88.96 kilotonnes of CO2 per petajoule of energy created while natural gas 49.68 (or tonnes metric per tetrajoule or g/MJ I have no idea why the use such weird units)
http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicators/Issues/Climate/Tech_Sup/ccsup01_e.cfm
I think what you are talking about is the ratio of CO2 to CO in a reaction.
And a leader is useless unless they get themselves in a position to lead.
Yes, you were correct. I checked it after I posted. I have to learn to check first.basketcase said:
If a political leader gets himself/herself in the postion strictly by pandering to public opinion, he/she is not really a leader is he/she?basketcase said:
I'm reminded of a story that quotes one of the leaders of the French resistance: "There go my people, I must catch up to them so I can lead them!"
In politics, leadership can sometimes mean going against public opinion. If they're a good leader, they will change public opinion.
Doesn't look like Harper has changed public opinion about climate change so does that mean he's a bad leader? Or maybe just stupid. He's painted himself into a corner so now he'll either flip-flop by addressing climate change like he really means it or he'll take a serious shit-kicking in the next election. He may not be pandering to public opinion but it could also be that he IS pandering to those special interests back in oiltown AB. Most Canadians can see the obvious connection between Harper's reluctance to address our carbon emissions and his western conservative base of support. So I doubt that very many people will see Harper's denial of climate change and do-nothing-until-2025 approach as some kind of heroic struggle against the misguided majority.lookingforitallthetime said:Yes, you were correct. I checked it after I posted. I have to learn to check first.
If a political leader gets himself/herself in the postion strictly by pandering to public opinion, he/she is not really a leader is he/she?
I'm reminded of a story that quotes one of the leaders of the French resistance: "There go my people, I must catch up to them so I can lead them!"
In politics, leadership can sometimes mean going against public opinion. If they're a good leader, they will change public opinion.
For those people who actually look at Harper's plan with a non-partisan eye (something many in here are incapable of), they will know it is not a "do-nothing-until-2025 approach".slowpoke said:
Is it perfect? No.
Is it better than the Kyoto alternative? Yes.
Last edited:
There obviously aren't that many non-partisans out there because Harper's proposal to chat about emission targets for the next 14 - 19 years was one of the most universally unpopular cop outs in recent memory. Assuming that climate change is as serious as most scientists tell us it is, I don't think you are being terribly non-partisan when you so unequivocally pronounce that doing nothing for 14 - 19 years is better than doing Kyoto, warts and all. In the face of an impending threat, doing something to help solve the problem is almost always better than just waiting for it to go away.lookingforitallthetime said:
Your beef with Kyoto seems to be all about your lack of understanding about how the credits work and your fear that China and India will have an unfair advantage because they don't have any targets yet. I don't fully understand the credit mechanism either but I can at least see how quite a few companies would try harder to cut their emissions rather than have to buy credits. I can also see how other companies would benefit by selling credits and that Canada could benefit by developing innovative processes to curb emissions. What I don't see is how you can be so sure that the 14 - 19 years of waiting is so much more beneficial than making a start even if that start (Kyoto or some alternative system of targets and incentives) is less than perfect. I'd like to see all the facts you considered and your methodology for reaching such an impossibly difficult verdict. IMHO, your dislike of the Liberals was probably the magic ingredient.
You keep making the same flawed argument over and over. Perhaps this comes from a fear of letting the facts cloud your judgement.slowpoke said:
If you did a little research on the Clean Air Act, you would realize it's not a "do nothing for 14 - 19 years" plan.
I think I have a better understanding of how Kyoto works than you give me credit for. You on the other hand, have no understanding of the Harper plan and no desire to even examine it, let alone examine it objectively. I may be wrong, but this is apparent to me by the fact your arguments against it are rife with Liberal sound bites.slowpoke said:
I'd be willing to wager I reach my conclusions with less political bias than you do. At least I look at all the facts.slowpoke said:
I don't dislike all Liberals, just the recent crop of leaders the party has spawned. In fact, I've voted Liberal in the past (in support of John Turner) and would have probably voted for Pearson at the time, if I was old enough to vote.
Have you ever voted Conservative?
Yes. I voted for Mike Harris. Once only.lookingforitallthetime said:You keep making the same flawed argument over and over. Perhaps this comes from a fear of letting the facts cloud your judgement.
If you did a little research on the Clean Air Act, you would realize it's not a "do nothing for 14 - 19 years" plan.
I think I have a better understanding of how Kyoto works than you give me credit for. You on the other hand, have no understanding of the Harper plan and no desire to even examine it, let alone examine it objectively. I may be wrong, but this is apparent to me by the fact your arguments against it are rife with Liberal sound bites.
I'd be willing to wager I reach my conclusions with less political bias than you do. At least I look at all the facts.
I don't dislike all Liberals, just the recent crop of leaders the party has spawned. In fact, I've voted Liberal in the past (in support of John Turner) and would have probably voted for Pearson at the time, if I was old enough to vote.
Have you ever voted Conservative?
I've already made it perfectly clear to you that I am not referring to the other proposals within the clean air act. When I say "do nothing for 14 - 19 years", I am referring only to the absence of greenhouse gas emission targets. Here is the Clean Air Act as outlined by the CBC shortly after it was announced. Note that the auto industry had already committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5.3 megatons by 2010 with Dion when he was environment minister so Harper can't take any credit for that. He just made all his so-called measures mandatory. With respect to greenhouse gas emission targets, what part don't I understand?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/19/clean-act.html#skip300x250
Tory bill aimed at cutting greenhouse gases in half by 2050
Last Updated: Thursday, October 19, 2006 | 1:00 PM ET
CBC News
The Harper government introduced on Thursday a proposed clean air act that would begin regulating smog levels by 2010 and looks to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050.
The bill sets out a number of regulation timetables for industries that emit air pollution and greenhouse gases, including the auto industry and the oil and gas sector.
Environment Minister Rona Ambrose said the days when industry voluntarily complied with set environmental standards "are over."
"From now on, all industry sectors will have mandatory requirements and we will enforce those requirements," she said.
By 2011, there will possibly be a rule to make industry cut more, but the government won't say by how much.
The bill also calls for the reduction of car emissions by 2011 to align Canada with regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The government plans to spend the next four years consulting with industry and the provinces with the aim of developing short-term, medium-term and long-term targets to cut smog emissions.
No hard caps until 2020 or 2025
Under the proposed bill, there would be no hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions until 2020 or 2025, but the government will seek to cut emissions by 45 to 65 per cent by 2050.
Until then, the government will also set "intensity-based" emissions targets.
Intensity-based targets means environmental emissions would be relative to the economic output of various industries. That means even though individual emission limits for each barrel of oil or piece of coal could be lowered, if production increases, the overall amount of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants could grow.
Many environmentalists believe capping greenhouse gas emissions is key to tackling climate change. Critics of intensity-based targets say the approach allows heavily polluting industries, such as Alberta's oilsands, to continue to grow and pollute, while remaining under government-imposed limitations.
Ambrose said any polluter who goes over the regulated targets will be fined, with the money going to an environmental damage fund.
The minister denied that the long-range timetables set out in the act meant the government was not acting immediately to tackle pollution.
She pointed to the Tory transit pass credit which keeps motorists off the road. Another action is making mandatory the auto industry commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles by 5.3 megatons by the year 2010.
Ambrose said industry will have to make significant capital investments, and it takes time to make those changes.
In the coming year, Ambrose said the government will introduce regulations to reduce emissions from motorcycles, outboard engines, all-terrain vehicles and off-road diesel engines.
OK, here are some more facts - from the Sierra Club this time. It is critical of both the Libs and the CPOC.lookingforitallthetime said:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070110/ghg_record_070110/20070115/
..."The $10 billion, eight-year climate change plan -- steered by then-environment minister Stephane Dion -- that the Liberals ultimately tabled received a mixed reaction. Some environmental groups saying it didn't do enough to control industrial emissions.
However, Bennett said it contained some good measures like the EnerGuide retrofitting program, which helped homeowners make their dwellings more energy efficient. The Conservatives cancelled that program.
This past fall, the Conservatives' Clean Air Act was essentially dead on arrival. The bill didn't even mention the Kyoto accord and no opposition party was prepared to support it.
The bill took the unusual step of going to an all-party committee after first reading to see if it can be salvaged.
"The Conservatives threw out the best of what the Liberals did and kept the worst," Bennett said of the Clean Air Act.
Harper still paints Kyoto as unachievable, even after his recent cabinet shuffle and announcement that the environment is now one of his government's top five priorities.
"This country is headed to be 50 percent over its Kyoto target in 2012. We can't tell the Canadian population to heat their home one-third less of the time," Harper said in a CTV Question Period interview broadcast on Jan. 7.
"I thought he was setting me up when he said that," Bennett chuckled, noting that proper retrofitting can help cut a home's energy use by at least a third.
He argues the public sees climate change as a significant problem, wants real leadership on this issue and is ready for it. The prime minister appears to be throwing his hands up and not willing to even try, he said."....
