Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Recap:
Oil production causes pollution.
Oil consumption causes pollution.
Oil production industry in Alberta has increased substantially since 1990, technology reducing individual emissions for these plants has also been implemented. The result is, given the same number of plants in 1990, there would be a lot less pollution now.

However, there are way more plants, and almost all of them are using very modern technology (as you said yourself, this allows for more profits).

So then Kyoto enters the picture. We suddenly have to get back to 1990 levels, despite way more plants.

The only way to get to that level is to shut stuff down. That is fact.

Wrong.


Edit:
The Canadian government wants changes to the way credits are assigned for the existance of "carbon sinks." Canada, with its extensive forests, would receive credits immediately that would help us achieve the pollution targets.

As well, Canada can obtain credits for selling pollution control technology to lesser developed nations.

From the CBC:
"Canada has also been pushing for changes to get credit for green space, called "carbon sinks," in an effort to hit its emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol. The plan would win Canada points for the way forests and agriculture absorb greenhouse gases. Canada also expects credit for working with developing countries to nurture carbon sinks and by promoting emission reduction technologies. "


Canada could also achieve the pollution targets by increasing the use of environmentally friendly vehicles, such as cars fueled by natural gas.

Reducing the use of electricity would also create pollution savings.

Encouraging businesses to switch to more environmentally friendly technology would also reduce pollution.

As I have said before, this is not a black/white issue.

Asher makes the mistake of assuming that the Kyoto agreement requires Alberta alone to reduce pollution when in fact it would be a nation-wide effort.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
I would love to see what Canada proposes to do to force Alberta to abide by the policy. What're they
gonna do, withhold equalization payments?

Have you never heard of the rule of law? If Alberta refuses to implement the agreement then the province could be taken to court. If the SCC ruled against the province then it would be forced to comply.

I'm surprised Asher still hasn't figured out the equalization payment system. He still doesn't realize that Alberta receives federal money through this system.

[notyoueither]

The problem Tingkai, is that Alberta's pollution is by and large a product of producing energy.

Natural gas may be clean to burn, but let me assure you, it is not clean to produce no matter what technology you use. BTW, to burn it, we need to produce it. They don't haul that stuff across oceans in tankers.

[Dinner]

Kyoto is a lose lose situation for developing countries. Not only will their economies be damaged but, since developing countries won't have there emissions capped at all, global emissions will continue to grow out of control. The only thing that will be different is that industrial manufacturing will occur in developing countries with poor enviromental protections instead of rich countries with excellent environmental protections.

In other words the developed countries will lose jobs but world Co2 emissions will not go down by one bit.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The problem Tingkai, is that Alberta's pollution is by and large a product of producing energy.

Natural gas may be clean to burn, but let me assure you, it is not clean to produce no matter what technology you use. BTW, to burn it, we need to produce it. They don't haul that stuff across oceans in tankers.

Sure, but if we can reduce GHGs in other areas then we may not have to require the natural gas industry to reduce its pollution levels.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Kyoto is a lose lose situation for developing countries. Not only will their economies be damaged but, since developing countries won't have there emissions capped at all, global emissions will continue to grow out of control. The only thing that will be different is that industrial manufacturing will occur in developing countries with poor enviromental protections instead of rich countries with excellent environmental protections.

In other words the developed countries will lose jobs but world Co2 emissions will not go down by one bit.

Your comments don't make sense. You start by claiming that economies in the developing world will be damaged (although you provide no reason for this), then you say manufacturing jobs will move to developing countries and then you say these developing countries will lose jobs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Wrong.

The Kyoto agreement provides credits towards pollution for the existance of "pollution sinks." Canada, with its extensive forests, would receive credits immediately that would help us achieve the pollution targets.

Really? So we're suddenly getting credit for all of the "clean energy" products we have like natural gas?



I haven't kept up on it yet, but have we gotten credit for our clean burning gases that we've been lobbying for? Last time I had heard they weren't accepted.

Asher makes the mistake of assuming that the Kyoto agreement requires Alberta alone to reduce pollution when in fact it would be a nation-wide effort.

Oh, what a way to put it. The province that will be hit first, and hit hardest, will be Alberta. That much is obvious from looking at the mainstay of the Alberta economy.

Have you never heard of the rule of law? If Alberta refuses to implement the agreement then the province could be taken to court. If the SCC ruled against the province then it would be forced to comply.

Ohhh, court, that'll force us to put 40,000-50,000 people out of a job in the oil industry, not to mention the trickle-down damage of a piss poor economy.

Alberta endured a similar policy that looks like it'll deal similar damages -- why the hell do you think the province would put up with that bull**** again?

Alberta's been getting a raw deal now federally for quite a while, the excuse that for two years we received minimal funding from equalization payments is wearing thin.

Force Alberta to do Kyoto, and I don't think Alberta will stay.

I'm surprised Asher still hasn't figured out the equalization payment system. He still doesn't realize that Alberta receives federal money through this system.

Or perhaps you and blackice should look up what a net contribution is.

I understand Alberta both sends and receives money from the equalization system (which is a pretty stupid way of doing it, but hey...), but the fact remains Alberta sends more than it receives.

If Ottawa threatens to cut funding, Alberta threatens to cease funding equalization payments. Don't put it past us.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Sure, but if we can reduce GHGs in other areas then we may not have to require the natural gas industry to reduce its pollution levels.

That would be great, and then all this gnashing of teeth may be for nought. The talk jocks are crawling on the issue now. Long buried themes like WCC are being mentioned. People are freaked by the Mangler's lack of clarity and focus.

The end game remains the same though. Producing energy is a polluting endeavour. I'd love it if Alberta could industrialise rapidly enough for the petrochemical industry to be nothing important.

Unfortunatley, I am currently sitting in a jurisdiction with more oil than several ME nations including Saudi Arabia.

I don't think the Americans are ever going to leave that alone. I don't know if they should. We who live here want to pump it. If you shut it down, the production will just move somewhere less convenient. And the people inconvenienced will get pissed off.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Really? So we're suddenly getting credit for all of the "clean energy" products we have like natural gas?

You misread what I wrote. Canada would get credit for the existence of huge tracts of forests that offset the effects of GHGs. I don't think there is anything in the agreement about the use of natural gas.

Originally posted by Asher
Oh, what a way to put it. The province that will be hit first, and hit hardest, will be Alberta. That much is obvious from looking at the mainstay of the Alberta economy.

Pure assumption on your part.

Alberta may not be effected at all if consumers switch from gasoline to LPG. Demand for natural gas would likely increase as a result of the agreement and that would benefit Alberta.

Originally posted by Asher
Alberta endured a similar policy that looks like it'll deal similar damages -- why the hell do you think the province would put up with that bull**** again?

If the court ruled against the province then Alberta would be forced to follow suit. Any attempt by the government to ignore a judicial agreement would severely damage Alberta's reputation in the eyes of investors.

Put another way, do you know of any Canadian government that has refused to obey an SCC ruling?

Originally posted by Asher
Force Alberta to do Kyoto, and I don't think Alberta will stay.

Yeah, I can hear the rallying cry: "We demand the right to pollute as much as we want."

Originally posted by Asher
If Ottawa threatens to cut funding, Alberta threatens to cease funding equalization payments. Don't put it past us.

Money for equalization payments comes from taxpayers (through federal income taxes), not provincial governments. As such, Alberta could not threaten to cease funding these payments.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Pure assumption on your part.

Alberta may not be effected at all if consumers switch from gasoline to LPG. Demand for natural gas would likely increase as a result of the agreement and that would benefit Alberta.

We're not getting credit for our natural gas exports under Kyoto, Tingkai. They don't recognize it as a "clean gas". Therein lies the problem!

If the court ruled against the province then Alberta would be forced to follow suit. Any attempt by the government to ignore a judicial agreement would severely damage Alberta's reputation in the eyes of investors.

How so? Investors in Alberta are primarily oil-based investors. The only thing damaging Alberta's reputation in the eyes of investors is Chretien's insistence that we'll implement Kyoto. A fierce refusal to implement Kyoto will tarnish Alberta's reputation HOW with those investors?

Put another way, do you know of any Canadian government that has refused to obey an SCC ruling?

No, but do you know of any Canadian Government that has implemented Kyoto?

Yeah, I can hear the rallying cry: "We demand the right to pollute as much as we want."

Why do you conveniently ignore Ralph Klein's pollution reduction proposal instead of Kyoto? It's like you seriously don't know it exists, or you don't want to believe it does...

Money for equalization payments comes from taxpayers (through federal income taxes), not provincial governments. As such, Alberta could not threaten to cease funding these payments.

Most of the money for equalization payments from Alberta come from a slice of Alberta's resource revenue from oil, Tingkai. In fact it's a fairly large majority of Alberta's contribution...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't think the Americans are ever going to leave that alone. I don't know if they should. We who live here want to pump it. If you shut it down, the production will just move somewhere less convenient. And the people inconvenienced will get pissed off.

True, but we are talking about a finite resource. If production continues at its current pace we run out of the oil in X years. If production decreases then the oil industry will exist for a longer period.

Of course, how oil should be taken out of the ground is a question for Albertans. My point is that a decrease in production does not result in an absolute loss, but rather defers the benefits to a later date.

IIRC, Norway is now facing the problem of its oil supplies running out. Their economy will go through a massive upheaval.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
True, but we are talking about a finite resource. If production continues at its current pace we run out of the oil in X years. If production decreases then the oil industry will exist for a longer period.

Is this supposed to rationalize ANYTHING?! LOL.

[notyoueither]

Uhhhmmm.. Tingkai...

Have you ever heard of a tax revolt? It is possible the way Customs and Revenue have structured things.

Every employee is given a form to fill out. That form determines what column of deductions are used for federal tax withheld by the employer. All people have to do is claim the column for crippled, blind people with 10 dependants and all of a sudden the Fed ain't getting much money.

Instant revolution.

[Asher]

BTW, current estimates have put the Canadian damage tally due to Kyoto at CA$30-CA$40 billion and 450,000 jobs.

Admitedly this is a "worst case" scenerio that Canada is one of the only countries to implement it. But it is the only country in the western hemisphere, and our largest trade partners have not implemented it, which means that makes up the largest chunk of our loss anyway due to businesses moving...

But still you keep going on acting like it's no big deal?

Doesn't make you wonder just how extensive the costs will be that the Canadian Government itself still hasn't released damage estimates? How much do you want to bet it'll occur AFTER Chretien ratifies it, at which point he'll be on his way out of office and will say "What's done is done!".

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
We're not getting credit for our natural gas exports under Kyoto, Tingkai. They don't recognize it as a "clean gas". Therein lies the problem!

So now this is the only problem.

Intra-national and international agreements are never perfect. There is always compromise. This is no reason to get rid of the entire thing.

Originally posted by Asher
How so?

Investors prefer places where governments obey the rule of law, unless of course the governments can be bribed.

You're always telling us that the Albertan economy is becoming more diversified, but now, all you care about is protecting one industry.

Instead of saying that you need to protect the wealthy oil companies, Albertans should be looking to develop new industries.

Originally posted by Asher
Why do you conveniently ignore Ralph Klein's pollution reduction proposal instead of Kyoto

You mean the one where he admits the oil industry can improve its pollution controls?

Originally posted by Asher
Most of the money for equalization payments from Alberta come from a slice of Alberta's resource revenue from oil, Tingkai. In fact it's a fairly large majority of Alberta's contribution...

Equalization payments come from the federal governments coffers. To say that most of the money comes Alberta's resource revenues is simply incorrect.