Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto

[Asher]

I find it completely amazing the supporters of Kyoto continually fall back on the trite "you don't care, you just don't care" while ignoring the realities that while the individual country's pollution will decrease, it's only because the production has been moved out of that country to developing nations or other industrialized nations not under Kyoto's scope.

I thought it was such a simple concept, but it appears most people here never looked at it from a business's point of view.

[chequita guevara]

It would require a second industrial revolution to raise the Third World to the level of the 1st world emissions.

[Asher]

Not the production though.
Think about it, che...

[notyoueither]

chegitz, the fear is that the burden of Kyoto will fall most heavily on the energy producing provinces and Ontario.

I am unclear as to how exactly they plan on reaching the goals. I'm not against it until I know how they plan on skinning that cat.

However, if implementation means throttling the two parts of the Canadian economy that are going well, Ontario and Alberta, I can't agree with it.

If Alberta is severely effected, I can guess how most people around here will react. We don't consume the products of our petrochemical industry, we produce it. Any plan based on throttling production will place an inordinate burden on a few industries in a few regions.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It would require a second industrial revolution to raise the Third World to the level of the 1st world emissions.

You mean like the one that's been going on in S and SE Asia for 30 years now?

[Asher]

I think that's the problem, nye. The federal government hasn't told everyone how they plan to implement it, but they're going to ratify it and think about it later...

I can't think of any way for them to implement it without screwing over Alberta and to a lesser extent Ontario. But Tingkai apparently thinks there's a very cheap magic device that will drastically cut emissions down to 1990 levels while not affecting production...

[notyoueither]

Actually Asher, I doubt Chretien will get this past the Ontario caucus without outlining exactly how the goals will be achieved. If he does, I'm more than a bit worried for this democracy.

[Asher]

If he does get it past the Ontario caucus, guess whose expense it will be at?

Hint: Probably the region that doesn't vote Liberal.

Someone's got to front the economic damage of the treaty, there's no way around it.

[notyoueither]

Then start the clock.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
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.

So the Albertan oil industry is not using any machinery older than 1990? Sure.

And the technology for pollution control suddenly stopped developing in 1990? Sure.

Originally posted by Asher
There is a definite and obvious lack of consumption needed, and what's more for Alberta -- a lack of production.

This is classic oil industry propaganda. The problem now is there is no enough oil being produced because there is not enough demand for oil.

Originally posted by Asher
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.

And Chretien has no plans to step down.

Originally posted by Asher
Having a bunch of low level ministers meeting...

Why am I not surprised that an oil industry boy thinks that environment ministers are low level.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
So the Albertan oil industry is not using any machinery older than 1990? Sure.

And the technology for pollution control suddenly stopped developing in 1990? Sure.

It has, but you seem to think it works so REMARKABLY well that it'll reduce emissions substantially.

Let me be the first to tell you you really do have no clue what you're talking about, and I'd also like for you to stop even trying to use this argument until you link to some reputable sites saying we can implement Kyoto without affecting production.

Perhaps some blueprints on this magical device you keep talking about to reduce emissions would be good too. You could make trillions of dollars off of this magical thing.

And Chretien has no plans to step down.

The only reason he announced his plan to step down was so he could stay in another year...

Why am I not surprised that an oil industry boy thinks that environment ministers are low level.

Why am I not surprised that you can't read anything right?
ALL ministers are low level. I don't even know WHY you said that comment, because the meeting also involved ENERGY ministers.

Do go on and tell us all about this magical technology which will reduce emissions drastically without touching Alberta's economy. Do go on an tell us why a business would not just develop production in other countries not under Kyoto since there's an abundance of oil there as well?
Do go on and tell us where you get your information that even the old plants in Alberta haven't been upgraded.

These are all interesting assertions you've made and you've yet to substantiate a single one of them.

There are benefits for oil producers too for increasing efficiency. The more efficient your plants are, the less energy you use to make the new energy, the less it costs to produce this energy, and you've also got newer machinery which is less likely to fail altogether. Most plants (at least for a few companies that I know about) do continually upgrade their machinery and plants...

[Tingkai]

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

Sometimes I do get tired of explain basic economics to Asher.

Try to understand this simple concept. If governments strengthen pollution control laws then this will lead to the increased consumption of pollution control devices, whether for businesses or for personal use. As a result, more jobs are created because a new market has developed. Simple really.

Originally posted by Asher
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?

The obvious answer would be devices that decrease the amount of pollution emitted. Or how about switching to natural gas. Hong Kong, for example, now requires all of its taxis to be powered by LPG. This has helped reduced pollution caused by diesel-powered vehicles.

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

Again, you fail to look at the big picture. An initial wealth transfer from the developed world to the under-developed world is actually beneficial to the entire global economy. As economies grow in the under-developed world, new markets are created for goods from the developed world. This creates a virtuous circle where economic growth in the economically developing world leads to economic growth in economically developed world, which in turn leads to more investment going from "north>south" as you put it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
I find it completely amazing the supporters of Kyoto continually fall back on the trite "you don't care, you just don't care" while ignoring the realities that while the individual country's pollution will decrease, it's only because the production has been moved out of that country to developing nations or other industrialized nations not under Kyoto's scope.

I thought it was such a simple concept, but it appears most people here never looked at it from a business's point of view.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Economic growth in places like China has not resulted in the impoverishment of developed countries nor has it led to an increase in pollution from countries like China.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Sometimes I do get tired of explain basic economics to Asher.

Try to understand this simple concept. If governments strengthen pollution control laws then this will lead to the increased consumption of pollution control devices, whether for businesses or for personal use. As a result, more jobs are created because a new market has developed. Simple really.

That's great! Then we can expect no taxes on production then.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
It has, but you seem to think it works so REMARKABLY well that it'll reduce emissions substantially.

The Kyoto agreement is designed as an initial, small first step that will begin a voyage of a thousand miles. Whether it requires substantiall reductions is subjective.

Since you claim that Kyoto will destroy the Albertan economy, how about posting some proof from an unbaised source.

Originally posted by Asher
ALL ministers are low level. I don't even know WHY you said that comment, because the meeting also involved ENERGY ministers.

You really don't know anything about parliamentary government. Backbenchers have low levels of influence. The opposition has a low level of influence. Cabinet ministers have a lot of influence.

Originally posted by Asher
Do go on and tell us all about this magical technology which will reduce emissions drastically without touching Alberta's economy. Do go on an tell us why a business would not just develop production in other countries not under Kyoto since there's an abundance of oil there as well?

Jesus, now I have to explain the oil industry to Asher.

There is a simple thing called transportation costs. Enough said.

Originally posted by Asher
Do go on and tell us where you get your information that even the old plants in Alberta haven't been upgraded.

You're the one making the claim that Albertan oil industry only uses the most up-to-date equipment and that none of the plants are older than 1990. It is up to you to provide proof of the claim. I am merely doubting your propaganda.