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

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

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?

One quick example. Hybrid cars did not exist in 1990 (or at least were not sold to the public). These cars decrease production of greenhouse gases.

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, the hit on cost of producing gas is highest when that gas is going to a canadian consumer. When we export, the hit should be taken by importing country (if a signatory) or not at all (if not a signatory).

[Asher]

I'm also going to be attending a seminar thing by Bob Page, a VP at TransAlta and former dean of Environmental Development Studies at the UofC after my lectures on wednesday. It's on Kyoto's impact on Canada.

And Microsoft is coming to speak to us on thursday with free pizza + pop + software!

LIFE IS GOOD! LIBERAL-BASHING AND MICROSOFT ALL IN ONE WEEK! Orgasmic.

[KrazyHorse]

LIFE IS GOOD! LIBERAL-BASHING AND MICROSOFT ALL IN ONE WEEK! Orgasmic

You're starting to sound frighteningly like Zylka (in tone, if not in content)

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Since you've read the plan, you're able to discuss point by point WHY Kyoto is better than this plan, and address SPECIFIC points of the Alberta plan which are bad.

Asher: we have talked about this dozens of times, but you refuse to pull your head out of your butt and listen. Instead, you continue to state incorrect information.

So what is the point of telling the same things over and over again when you just can't get it.

For instance, the Alberta plan does not require the reduction of pollution. It actually allows more pollution to be created because it measures pollution on a GNP basis. As long as GNP continues to grow, which of course it always will in the long-term, more pollution can be produced.

Simply put, the Alberta plan will not lead to less pollution.

But of course, you won't be able to understand that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
You're starting to sound frighteningly like Zylka (in tone, if not in content)

Two bisexual bipolar college kids from Calgary, is it that surprising?

Asher: we have talked about this dozens of times, but you refuse to pull your head out of your butt and listen. Instead, you continue to state incorrect information.

So what is the point of telling the same things over and over again when you just can't get it.

For instance, the Alberta plan does not require the reduction of pollution. It actually allows more pollution to be created because it measures pollution on a GNP basis. As long as GNP continues to grow, which of course it always will in the long-term, more pollution can be produced.

Simply put, the Alberta plan will not lead to less pollution.

But of course, you won't be able to understand that.

I appreciate your rhetoric filled post, but next time if you'd be so kind please address the question with specific answers, rather than "it sucks, I don't like it" in an overly wordy college-essay like way.

In what ways doesn't Alberta's plan require pollution reduction, for instance?

[Asher]

Alright Tingkai, you've got 7 hours to make a detailed post and change my mind. Don't cop out, I won't love you anymore.

Go!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
And? Aren't most of the emissions produced by the consumption of a litre of gas the result of the end-user's burning? The oil companies should not be docked for the emissions from Canadian gas that US citizens burn, just for the emissions they cause by producing.

The point is that our oil and gas producing competitors around the world will not be bound. We will. We will inflate the cost of oil from Alberta and the Maritimes.

The world will not pay our price just because we are being nice guys and signing Kyoto. They will buy from all the other exporting producers who are not bound, that is how supply, demand, and costs work.

BTW, producing petrochemicals is a very dirty business. Gas burns clean, it stinks to high h*ll when it's being brought out of the ground.

[notyoueither]

Oil is not much cleaner, and the oil sands are not clean at all.

[Tingkai]

Asher: We know that no matter what anyone tells you, you'll never change you'll never change your mind.

Look at your response to my previous point. You completely ignored what was said.

Tell you what. Read through the Albertan "plan" and then find the problems yourself. You obviously haven't given it much serious thought.

[KrazyHorse]

So? This boils down to the argument that we shouldn't sign unless everybod else signs. If we take a hit, we take a hit. Somebody has to be first to stop pissing in the common pool.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Asher: We know that no matter what anyone tells you, you'll never change you'll never change your mind.

Look at your response to my previous point. You completely ignored what was said.

Tell you what. Read through the Albertan "plan" and then find the problems yourself. You obviously haven't given it much serious thought.

C O P O U T !

DETAILS TINGKAI

Must you look up that word? How long's it been since you've lived in Canada anyway?

A blind assertion about tying pollution to GNP doesn't say anything ,but you seem to think it does.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
In other words, the hit on cost of producing gas is highest when that gas is going to a canadian consumer. When we export, the hit should be taken by importing country (if a signatory) or not at all (if not a signatory).

That's not how Kyoto is set up.

[KrazyHorse]

Never mind that if Euro nations are at all consistent they'll be adding tariffs to noncompliant nations' oil...which puts us at a net advantage since market forces (hah...I hate that term) will (hopefully) have driven down the net emissions/litre produced for Canadian oil, while other oil is still dirty...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
So? This boils down to the argument that we shouldn't sign unless everybod else signs. If we take a hit, we take a hit. Somebody has to be first to stop pissing in the common pool.

We shouldn't sign until most of the other polluters sign. They are not signing. I do not see why Canada should tilt at this windmill at this time under these terms.