Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto

[Richelieu]

Hey Asher : are you guys going to separate?

[DinoDoc]

I hope so. The US could use another large source of domestic oil.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I hope so. The US could use another large source of domestic oil.

Yeah but you'll also get Asher. Think it's worth it ?

[St Leo]

Why are you assuming that an independent Alberta would join the US? I admit that the wacko ratio in Alberta is similar to the one in the US, but it could do quite well on its own or in cahoots with BC.

[Giancarlo]

You people point out all of these major projects the PRC is undertaking but you forget to point out that +75% of their power is from coal!

[blackice]

Which is being phased out because it is 1. A limited resource and 2. It pollutes way too much.

The Chinese realize this, if you have done any reading so far you would not have made the comment.

[Asher]

Originally posted by St Leo
Why are you assuming that an independent Alberta would join the US? I admit that the wacko ratio in Alberta is similar to the one in the US, but it could do quite well on its own or in cahoots with BC.

Because Alberta wouldn't get its own currency, most likely adopting the US currency.

I think the most likely occurance is, upon separation from Canada, would be to become a US Territory.

Richelieu: They're getting me in 3 years anyway when I move back there.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by blackice
Which is being phased out because it is 1. A limited resource

Is it really that limited? China itself has large amounts of it.

The Chinese realize this, if you have done any reading so far you would not have made the comment.

Oh really? The Chinese I bet would want to take the road on which makes the most money, and being coal is the cheapest of all energies. Even if the Chinese are trying they have a very long way to go and current progress is minimal at best.

From CIA Factbook:

fossil fuel: 79.82%

hydro: 18.98%

nuclear: 1.2%

other: 0.01% (1999)

Progress indeed made in Hydroelectric but there is a very long way to go.

[blackice]

Cia fact book is dated and a lot has changed since, maybe lot's but it is nonrenewable. That does not bode well with the Chinese for the future. Hey China is spending billions what's your country spending?
China views it as long term money saved how does your country view it?
China looks at it as a new industry worth exploiting how does your country view it?

There are better examples than China that's a dead issue.

[Giancarlo]

The CIA factbook isn't that much dated at all.

My country's energy use:

fossil fuel: 57.71%

hydro: 12.1%

nuclear: 28.28%

other: 1.91% (1999)

Turns out my country's nuclear power program is bigger than I thought perhaps bigger now than it was in 1999.

[blackice]

1999? dated.

Several energy programs and several billions of dollars have been spent since.
They have already reduced GHG's down 2.7 from thier 1990 amounts.

What has your country done?

[pchang]

Originally posted by Tingkai


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.

China's pollution levels have increased dramatically over the last 2 decades.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by blackice
1999? dated.

No.

Several energy programs and several billions of dollars have been spent since.

Uh huh.

What has your country done?

Why the heck do you keep asking that? I gave you the damn answer.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I would not worry about, like the rest of the crooked goverments, they are just going to give the treaty requirments lip service.

[blackice]

Fez Uh huh.

The statistic that combines energy and economic statistics is called "energy intensity" -- the amount of energy consumed per unit of economic output. More goods and services produced using less energy means lower, thus better, energy intensity.

So if you produce a product with less energy=cost how can that be a loss? The oil industry will just have to continue to find cheaper ways to make it work. This is not new they have been working at ways to make it cheaper thus more profits for some time now.
The problem is the solutions in part have been pollution causing ones. Now it's time they did it with some respect of man kind.

In fact then you could produce more products for the same intensity.
Seems this is the thinking in China, should be every where.

Any rate try this link:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/achinagg.asp

Many more echo this one.

http://www.infoexport.gc.ca/docs/cn_chhktap02-5f-e.htm

Guangdong Province, the economic engine of South China, is spending 2.5% of its GDP on environmental protection, launching the Clear Water Program and the Blue Sky Program to improve quality of life in the province. It also offers many incentives to promote participation of the private sector. Beijing, as host of the 2008 Olympics, has promised a massive infrastructure program and a cleaner environment, with a focus on cleaner air. Under current plans, prior to 2008, water treatment rate will reach 90%, safe garbage disposal will reach 98% and the usage of natural gas will increase 4 or 5 times over 2000 levels. Shanghai, as commercial centre of China, is also spending increasing amounts of money on environmental protection with the objective of having an environment consistent with its aspirations of being an international financial centre.

You would think having the relationship with Chinese provinces like the Klein government has. They would know all this and would have acted a lot sooner to stay competative.