Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto

[Tingkai]

Re: Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto

Originally posted by Asher
I think it also says a lot about just how much power Chretien has when all he has to do is "ask" parliament to do something and they will do it, since the party he's the leader of controls parliament. Too much power, I say, too much power! I'd like to see a parliament full of independent minds who won't blindly vote for whatever their Fuhrer says, but hey, that's me...

The Kyoto agreement is supported by the Progressive Conservatives, NDP, BQ and the Liberals. The only party opposing it are the loony tune Canadian Alliance.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Overseas doing peackeeping.

Anyways, UR said "Feds will just withdraw the army."

Most of them got back a couple weeks ago, Tingkai.

I knew what UR said, but I assume he thought they were all overseas (like you did, apparently), and meant bringing them in to control the province.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto

Originally posted by Tingkai
The Kyoto agreement is supported by the Progressive Conservatives, NDP, BQ and the Liberals. The only party opposing it are the loony tune Canadian Alliance.

Oh, please.
The PCs, NDPs, and BQ are such minority partiess they shouldn't be included in a list of who is for and against it. And of course BQ is in favor of it, Hydropower is their energy industry. The NDPs are socialist and the Liberals are headed by a lame duck who wants to have a "legacy".

The party in charge (Liberals) are in favor for it, the official opposition (CA) are not.

Further, the Liberals have clearly displayed a complete lack of research for the matter and just want to plough through.

Are they really this stupid?

All of the large petroleum producing nations haven't signed it, except for now maybe Canada. There's plenty of oil outside of Canada in countries not under Kyoto for producers can get their oil, why would they continue exploring Canada for oil when they know they're going to be under a treaty which ties their hands behind their backs?

It's economic suicide for the energy industry.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
You seem to be under the impression that it doesn't have anything to do with resource consumption? Kyoto is about restricting the use of these resources to the point of reducing pollution.

Think about it for a while, Tingkai.

This may be too difficult for you to understand, but pollution can be controlled by reducing emissions without changing consumption.

As well, nowhere do I say that Kyoto does not affect resource consumption.

But we all know that Asher would prefer the good ol'days when people drove inefficient gas guzzling cars and trucks, the days when there were no pollution controls.

Originally posted by Asher
Not quite, Tingkai darling. Energy and environmental ministers meeting isn't what Alberta wants, we want all of the Premiers to sit down at a table and talk about this, and ask why Ottawa refuses to do some real research on possible economic effects.

No, what the Alberta government wants is no pollution controls. It wants to dictate the international agreements signed by Canada.

Originally posted by Asher
The Prime Minister isn't lifting a finger. You're trying to act as if all of his subordinates meeting with the Premier's subordinates somewhat consistutes a sitdown meeting where the premiers and prime minister can all discuss the issue.

Very good. There is indeed a difference between a meeting of ministers and a meeting between the Prime Minister and Premiers, but the difference is simply who is in attendence.

The environment ministers are quite capable of talking about Kyoto and transmitting the concerns back to their respective governments.

The Globe story mentions that the implementation plan was revised following public consultation.

The Albertan government is grasping for straws and lying.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Most of them got back a couple weeks ago, Tingkai.

I think you are mistaken. Canada still has most of its army based overseas doing peacekeeping work. Perhaps you are thinking about the Afghanistan contingent, a small portion of the Canadian peacekeeping effort.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
This may be too difficult for you to understand, but pollution can be controlled by reducing emissions without changing consumption.

Classic. This is almost good enough for my sig.
You do realize that the energy industry already uses effective pollution control techniques? Almost all of the plants in Alberta are modern and have low pollution compared to other countries. The problem is since 1990 we've greatly expanded in the QUANTITY of these plants, and thus emissions have risen. To reduce those, you must somehow do some magic to reduce emission on existing factories or you must shut some down.

But we all know that Asher would prefer the good ol'days when people drove inefficient gas guzzling cars and trucks, the days when there were no pollution controls.

I've never said anything about that. I'm talking about signing a treaty whose only purpose is to drive away the energy industry from Canada into the other major oil-producing nations not affected by it.

No, what the Alberta government wants is no pollution controls.

This is blatantly false, many times now Klein has come out in favor of alternative pollution controls. Kyoto isn't the only way to do it.

Very good. There is indeed a difference between a meeting of ministers and a meeting between the Prime Minister and Premiers, but the difference is simply who is in attendence.

That's right. Ministers are told by the prime minister what to do, they want to be Good Little Boys so they can keep their post and get the public spotlight on them.

The Albertan government is grasping for straws and lying.

Sounds like you are, Tingkai. The Alberta government never lied, not once have the province's premiers sat down with the PM to discuss it -- you take a quote out of context and then accuse others of lying.

Very, very typical.

[Tingkai]

Re: Re: Re: Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto

Originally posted by Asher
All of the large petroleum producing nations haven't signed it, except for now maybe Canada. There's plenty of oil outside of Canada in countries not under Kyoto for producers can get their oil, why would they continue exploring Canada for oil when they know they're going to be under a treaty which ties their hands behind their backs?

It's economic suicide for the energy industry.

Business always claims that any pollution control will kill their industry. It hasn't happened yet, and in fact, pollution control laws have led to more efficient machines and the growth of a new industry.

The treaty does not "tie their hands behind their back." It simply requires them to reduce the amount of pollution they produce.

I suppose you want a world where industry is allowed to pollute no matter what the cost to the public.

We know that the reason you object to Kyoto is that it "might" reduce oil profits and that "might" make your family a bit poorer. You want money, regardless of the cost to the environment.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto

Originally posted by Tingkai
Business always claims that any pollution control will kill their industry. It hasn't happened yet, and in fact, pollution control laws have led to more efficient machines and the growth of a new industry.

!
Tingkai, nothing like Kyoto has ever been done before.
The LARGEST PRODUCING NATIONS, with lots of spare oil, have not signed something which not only forces us to halt growth in the industry, but CUT BACK to 1990 levels.
Meanwhile the COMPETING NATIONS are NOT under this treaty, and not only will benefit from a naturally increasing demand in the industry, but pick up where the oil coming from Alberta has dropped off.

You're just trading pollution coming from Alberta oil for pollution coming from Ecuadorian oil. What an accomplishment.

The treaty does not "tie their hands behind their back." It simply requires them to reduce the amount of pollution they produce.

It doesn't tie their hands behind their back, it just forces them to abide by all kinds of restrictions which force them to cut back pollution levels to what they were 12 years ago despite a HUGE increase in the industry since then. No, that's not harming them at all...

We know that the reason you object to Kyoto is that it "might" reduce oil profits and that "might" make your family a bit poorer. You want money, regardless of the cost to the environment.

You don't seem to understand the basic business of huge multinational oil companies. When you restrict them here, they're not going to **** around dealing with a government which has a history of screwing with oil companies -- they're going to look at alternate sources to save their bottom line.

[Asher]

Look: I would love if pollution was decreased, but Kyoto isn't the way to do it.

It's a fundamentally flawed treaty which didn't apply to major developing third world nations who are already stealing lots of business from the western world. To add insult to injury, the major oil producing nations in the world have refused to sign it.

There simply isn't going to be any pollution reduction from Canada with a Kyoto, just a migration of businesses and their capital (and jobs) to other nations not under Kyoto.

Keep ignoring that all you want by accusing anyone who opposes Kyoto as being someone who would love the world to shrivel up and die from greenhouse gases, but it only makes you look like a moron.

The reason the Alberta oil industry is booming is because it's nice and convenient for them. There is no shortage of oil elsewhere in the world, and no incentive for large multinational oil companies to continue trying to work in Alberta (or at least expand) because of a treaty. It takes away incentive to work here and raises costs and lowers opportunity, that other countries don't have to deal with.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
The problem is since 1990 we've greatly expanded in the QUANTITY of these plants, and thus emissions have risen. To reduce those, you must somehow do some magic to reduce emission on existing factories or you must shut some down.

This is not an either-or/black-or-white question. There are many ways to reduce pollution.

Originally posted by Asher
I'm talking about signing a treaty whose only purpose is to drive away the energy industry from Canada into the other major oil-producing nations not affected by it.

Yeah, it is an international conspriacy and the "only purpose is to drive away the enerby industry from Canada."

Originally posted by Asher
That's right. Ministers are told by the prime minister what to do, they want to be Good Little Boys so they can keep their post and get the public spotlight on them.

It is truly sad that you do not understand the basic Canadian system of a parliamentary cabinet. No Prime Minister is ever a dictator and any political leader who acts like one will get the boot. Canadian political history has ample examples of this.

Originally posted by Asher
The Alberta government never lied, not once have the province's premiers sat down with the PM to discuss it -- you take a quote out of context and then accuse others of lying.

Albertan government: "We were never consulted."
Ottawa: "We've talked about this a lot at federal-provincial meetings."
Albertan government: "Those discussions don't count because it was a discussion, not a consultation. In order to have a consultation, you have to specifically say that we are having a consultation. You can't just meet with us and talk about it. That's not fair."

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
This is not an either-or/black-or-white question. There are many ways to reduce pollution.

Do tell, Tingkai. How will all of these modern plants built after 1990 drastically reduce pollution? Alberta's production levels have more than doubled since 1990. There is no magic device which cuts the pollution associated with oil. There is a definite and obvious lack of consumption needed, and what's more for Alberta -- a lack of production.

Yeah, it is an international conspriacy and the "only purpose is to drive away the enerby industry from Canada."

No, it's just an international ****up of a treaty composed by treehuggers rather than someone with a clue about economics.

It is truly sad that you do not understand the basic Canadian system of a parliamentary cabinet. No Prime Minister is every a dictator and any political leader who acts like one will get the boot.

Funny how you even try to say this. 69% of Canada believes the Liberals are corrupt, Chretien fired Paul Martin (who had enormous approval ratings) because he was talking about running against him, and Chretien's "friends" own the largest newspaper chain in Canada who fired columnists who criticized him.

Albertan government: "We were never consulted."
Ottawa: "We've talked about this a lot at federal-provincial meetings."
Albertan government: "Those discussions don't count because it was a discussion, not a consultation. In order to have a consultation, you have to specifically say that we are having a consultation. You can't just meet with us and talk about it. That's not fair."

Keep digging, Tingkai, the more quotes you take out of context the better...

You know as well as I do that ministers are simply pawns. Having a bunch of low level ministers meeting and talking about it doesn't do everyone much good when Chretien is blindly obsessed with having a "legacy".

[Asher]

Tingkai, your whole argument breaks down on one very simple premise:

You seriously insist we can reduce pollution to 1990 levels without affecting consumption (and thereby production).

This fails on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

If you don't reduce consumption, how would you reduce pollution? By making engines more EFFICIENT? If you make them more efficient, don't they require less fuel? Wouldn't this not lower consumption?

I would agree that more efficiency is good, but signing Kyoto isn't going to make it magically happen.

It's just a large wealth transfer. But instead of being a West->East wealth transfer, this time it's North->South.

[notyoueither]

Well, if the feds can figure out how to implement Kyoto without penalising production, then more power to them.

If they have to fall back on punative measures for Alberta based on production, I'd say either that gets overturned by the courts or confederation may well have begun the final countdown as far as Alberta is concerned.

[Asher]

I fully agree with NYE.

[chequita guevara]

Hmm, no planet, no economy. Seems simple enough.