Propaganda or Informative? Alberta's campaign on the Kyoto Protocol

[Asher]

http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/display.cfm?ID=1

Is it propaganda or is it informative?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that KrazyHorse, Tingkai, et. al will all say it's propaganda.

I especially like this chart:


The TV ads can be viewed here:

http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/media/2002_09_climatechange_tv1.ram

http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/media/2002_09_climatechange_tv2.ram

http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/media/2002_09_climatechange_tv2.ram

Newspaper ad:

http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/media/kyoto_ad_why_opposed.pdf

Brochure being distributed:

http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/documents/tab.pdf

[notyoueither]

emission targets could make oil sands projects uneconomical to continue

petroleum producers and other industries will have to purchase credits from countries not using their allotment

Those are the killers. Why are the producers bearing the brunt? Why not the consumers?

Oh, right. Europe doesn't produce much oil. Russian emissions have declined significantly since the end of the USSR. No problems. Carry on.

[Asher]

Yep. And:

Canada is a small contributor (2%), but will pay heavily because of fossil fuel-based natural resource production.

Estimates are that economic risk to Canada will be four times that of the European Economic Community and 10 times that of Japan.

[Tingkai]

Let's see, a one-side view of Kyoto produced by a government that relies on oil revenue. Let me guess: Asher thinks this an objective and balanced analysis of Kyoto.

[notyoueither]

Uncle Jean relies on oil revenues too Tingkai. He's just too stupid to know it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Let's see, a one-side view of Kyoto produced by a government that relies on oil revenue. Let me guess: Asher thinks this an objective and balanced analysis of Kyoto.

Nope, but I see it as a lot of realities and facts and figures that follow logically.

The Federal Government of Canada has been shoving this one-sided "it won't hurt us" bull down our throats forever, it's about time we heard the other side of the story.

Can't wait for an opinion poll on Kyoto in Alberta in 1 month.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
petroleum producers and other industries will have to purchase credits from countries not using their allotment

Those are the killers. Why are the producers bearing the brunt? Why not the consumers?

The idea of selling pollution rights has been around for decades. Economists believe that it is the best method for dealing with the problem that pollution is not part of the standard marketplace operations.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

Nope, but I see it as a lot of realities and facts and figures that follow logically.

And of course, the Alberta government provides both sides of the story.

[notyoueither]

Right. Hammer a few to meet the needs of the many. Sounds like something a few 'economists' I've heard of would come up with.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
And of course, the Alberta government provides both sides of the story.

I'd love to see where you think I said that, because you've said it twice now and I've never said it.

In fact I've implied the direct opposite, by saying the Alberta government is providing the other side of the story.

Try try try it again.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


And of course, the Alberta government provides both sides of the story.

... and Jean has been balanced and forthright with specifics?

[Flubber]

AS usual, I find myself somewhere between the positions of Asher and his main opponents.

I see the Alberta media blitz as partly informative and partly propoganda. On the one hand, the Alberta government has pretty much admitted that many of their statistics are based on not much at all. But this balances the feds position which essentially seems to be " don't worry . . . be happy"

So perhaps the best characterization is " useful propoganda"

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Right. Hammer a few to meet the needs of the many. Sounds like something a few 'economists' I've heard of would come up with.

The concept is quite simple.

The idea of selling "pollution rights" is designed to create a free market in an area where the market does not exist. Companies then have a choice. They may choose to invest in technology that cuts their pollution, or they purchase "pollution rights" from the marketplace. Companies also have incentive to reduce their pollution levels below the required amount. They can then sell "pollution rights" in the marketplace.

Under standard market operations there is no economic cost for creating pollution. In fact, there can be disincentives. If a factory produces a lot of pollution, this has not effect on demand for its product because most consumers will not know that the factory produces a lot of pollution. In the short term, installing pollution controls can create high costs that eat into profits. The controls may create higher efficiencies, but the benefits of these improves will only be seen in the long-run. If a company believes that no one else is investing money into pollution controls then it won't want to make such an investment.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
... and Jean has been balanced and forthright with specifics?

I think both sides will be putting out propaganda to support their positions. Anyone who thinks that either government will distribute objective information is sadly naive.

[Asher]

The controls may create higher efficiencies, but the benefits of these improves will only be seen in the long-run. If a company believes that no one else is investing money into pollution controls then it won't want to make such an investment.

On what basis do you think technology will magically leapfrog forward to the tune of reducing our emissions to 1990 levels without hurting anything, even taking into account how much our industrial capacity has increased since 1990?

The answer is "out of your ass".