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

[Asher]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Funny, I didn;t meant to be condescending the fist time, but when I'm forced to repeat the exact same post twice because you didn;t read it the first time, it is hard to leave condescension out...

...

I do hope you see the connection, or rather lack of connection here. The Kyoto doesn't give a rats ass about how much fossil fuel you export. It is the consumer who pays, that is it.

Why don't you read the thread and play a game of "connect the ideas expressed to the poster", then ask yourself why the hell you're telling me this.

I never talked anything about exporting fossil fuels and counting towards Kyoto, I'm talking about how Kyoto doesn't count the natural gas we export as a clean burning gas. Different issues completely.

Now, would world demand drop, and consequently Albertas production? Well, hopefully. But again, using this as an argument reduces to "I'd rather make a buck now than save the earth".

The concept that worries everyone here isn't the lack of demand, it's the idea that the production is simply going to move. And it's true.

[blackice]

Nothing new here Asher has called everyone every name in the book, kids.

Ok Asher if you can answer this with some sort of maturity....what happened to the all canada plan to reduce pollution KILL"EM klien agree to several years back?

Second your points are completely mute because once again you have no idea what the koyoto agreement is about, none obviously.

You have not read it obviously or you would know more than you type.

Third Taki is right read the KILL"EM klien again, I really think your brainwashed.

Canada has many choices under koyoto killing the oil industry is not even close to one of them grab a grip.

Opec has no intention of reducing the cost of oil one, two for every hostile move these opec nations represent oil goes up in price hello you there? So tell me how can tis stop oil production, pure bs.

KILL"EM klien is a fool and could give a rat's as$ about you or you kids ok you bother's kids.

You ignore the facts already presented to you to harp the master puppet tripe, with no real concept of the protocal or reality.

Ok insult away it makes for humorus reading anyway...

Now feed on this:

As of January 1999, U.S. generating capacity at electric utilities was 687 gigawatts (GW). U.S. power demand continues to increase rapidly, with EIA forecasting 1.8% average annual growth in electricity sales through 2020. This increase will require a significant addition in generating capacity, as many as 1,300 new power plants may be needed over the next 20 years. if recent trends continue, it is likely that the vast majority of new plants will be natural-gas-fired, with oil accounting for less than 1% of power generation by 2020.

Now would if that has anything to do with new tar sands being stopped? Big pictures allude you Asher because your limited to belief and alberta news...

KILL"EM klien has two things in mind, election and pension. Look at the polls man very few albertans think as you do. Must be your closeness to the industry and money? What do you think?

Sources please for India and China both producing less than 2% of GHG emissions each please

Covered last time you ignored it why post it again.

Is Canada using more energy for heating per capita than say, Sweden, Norway, Finland, or Iceland?

Canada ranks fourth per population Finland 8th the rest are not even in the top ten.

Now 90% of alberta's electrical power comes from coal, instead of whining why not just change it to natural gas powered? Ontario is doing just that, whithout the whinning. Since the coal power generation is one huge percent of the ghg emissions seems like a smart investment for the people of alberta with the billions thier oil has made them.

Since the tar sands are one of the worlds largest polluters I think thier whinning is greed based and they could give one iota of your health. Let them rot or find a non polluting cheaper way to produce.
LESS ENERGY TO PRODUCE MEANS MORE PROFITS they have been doing it for years. Now they have to do it with less pollution poor babies.

It could cost Alberta

No facts here just assuptions

Every Albertan will face increased prices for energy related products.

In other words we as your government will not pad the hit with a reduction in taxes and or rebates for YOUR OIL, because we care....

higher prices, higher taxes and a devastated economy.

Remeber it could cost this and screw you it's your resources but we will not spread it around to the people.

negative impact on programs and services.

So Instead of taking even 2% gnp of the profits we make for you to add to your services, screw you...

Look Asher read the damn thing it is based on maybe's this you call facts?
This thing is designed to scare the hell out of people like you that have not read the protocal and have no clue.

But keep going it's humorous...ignorance is bliss KILL"EM klien counts on it....

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Nothing new here Asher has called everyone every name in the book, kids.

Ok Asher if you can answer this with some sort of maturity....what happened to the all canada plan to reduce pollution KILL"EM klien agree to several years back?

I have no idea what you're talking about but I'll assume you'll tell me with a bunch of overly verbose links?

Second your points are completely mute

The term is moot, baby.

because once again you have no idea what the koyoto agreement is about, none obviously.

You mean it's not about reducing porn in the classroom?

Opec has no intention of reducing the cost of oil

Hey cool, brownie points for you for stating the bloody obvious for no reason.

two for every hostile move these opec nations represent oil goes up in price hello you there?

You're racking up the points today!

So tell me how can tis stop oil production, pure bs.

Um. It's simple really. I don't see what you don't get -- I'm not talking about my speculations, I'm telling you point blank WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITHOUT A DOUBT. The major US oil companies looking to further develop the Alberta oilsands are putting the project on indefinite hold if Kyoto passes due to uncertainty around how the federal government is eventually going to come down on those oil companies. Instead they're going to develop some offshore sites off the coast of Australia. This is not speculation, this is pure unadulterated fact.

Now would if that has anything to do with new tar sands being stopped? Big pictures allude you Asher because your limited to belief and alberta news...

I don't know why you're having problems dealing with the basic fact, but you're always full of surprising. If Kyoto passes, the tarsand development is restricted to what's been done in Athabasca only. The future projects will be shelved for a later date in favor of Australian coast projects.

Covered last time you ignored it why post it again.

Bull****, post the figures NOW. There's no way in hell China produces less than 2% of the world's GHGs, same with India.

Now 90% of alberta's electrical power comes from coal, instead of whining why not just change it to natural gas powered?

Because the natural gas is mostly being sent to the western US to fund stuff there? It's not like we have extra natural gas sitting around.

Ontario is doing just that, whithout the whinning.

Ontario isn't selling its natural gas for huge profits elsewhere. Don't you get it? Alberta still primarily burns coal since it's abundant here, and we can sell our natural gas for far higher. The natural gas we send away reduces pollution elsewhere anyway. Think of the big picture.

No facts here just assuptions

Fact: At the very least, if Kyoto passes, upfront 26,000 jobs will be lost (or rather not created) and billions of dollars of investment will be lost as the big oil companies develop elsewhere first.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
I have no idea, what is your point?

Glonkie, perhaps you should learn something about energy efficiency before you argue? It could only help you know.

Originally posted by Asher

Everyone uses natural gas here for heating -- you got a better idea smartass?

You miss the point entirely. It is not about the sort of fuel you use but rather, let me repeat it for the n^th time: energy efficiency. Maybe, say, turn the thermostat to 18°centigrade and wear thicker clothes? What about better insulation, double paned glasses, and using solar energy for some things?

Originally posted by Asher
Shoo. I will never understand why you would bother reading a Canadian thread.

Do you have stealth country turned on again?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Glonkie, perhaps you should learn something about energy efficiency before you argue? It could only help you know.

So in your world someone who doesn't know how much energy per capita Finland uses for heating is someone who doesn't know a thing about energy efficiency...thanks man.

You miss the point entirely. It is not about the sort of fuel you use but rather, let me repeat it for the n^th time: energy efficiency. Maybe, say, turn the thermostat to 18°centigrade and wear thicker clothes? What about better insulation, double paned glasses, and using solar energy for some things?

Double paned glass? Better insulation? What a NOVEL CONCEPT. That we already do.
Solar energy we dont' really do, it's not really viable in Alberta. We do, however, have Wind power. The LRT is 100% wind-powered now, and for a premium through Enmax (a local power vendor -- yes it's privatized here), you can get Wind power to your house as well.

[Asher]

More information on Wind power in the Calgary area (available since 1998): http://www.enmax.com/Energy/Resident...ax/default.htm

And how the C-Train is 100% emission free with Wind power (1st of its kind in North America): http://www.calgarytransit.com/enviro...de_d_wind.html

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Yes, and I've never said they were the same thing. Do you realize that even in 1990 the levels were "too high"? Of course you do. This allows for MASSIVE DAMAGE TO OUR WORLD! The only logical solution is to ditch all forms of energy and go back to the stoneage.

Do I really have to explain this to you Asher? I guess I do.

Producing less pollution tomorrow is better than producing more pollution.

It's that simple. Yes, we produced a lot of pollution in 1990, but we produced less than we do today. So obviously, if pollution levels drop to 1990 level, we will be better off than if pollution continues to increase.

Originally posted by Asher
What people want to hear is how we're going to reduce pollution without economic impact

Wrong.

A poll done in June found that almost 80 per cent of Canadians supported Kyoto even if it meant a 1 per cent decrease in GDP.

About 70 per cent of Canadians supported Kyoto even if it meant a 5 per cent decrease in GDP. (Ralphie claims Kyoto will cost 5 per cent GDP.)

Clearly, Canadians are willing to pay money and accept lower GDP in return for less pollution.

Originally posted by Asher
No one has denied such a thing.
But the problem is, the use of it rises faster than it becomes more efficient. Basic concept, no?
Cars now pollute FAR less than they did in 1930, but overall pollution is higher.

Come on. Your 1930 comparison is stupid. Look at car ownership between 1980 and 2000. It is increasing, but only because the population is increasing. The car ownership market is relatively mature.

Meanwhile, we have lots of inexpensive cars that achieve high gas mileage.

The problem is we have lots of city idiots buying gas-guzzling SUVs when they don't need them.

A tax on SUVs and higher gas pump prices would lead to people buying more fuel efficient cars and that would reduce air pollution.

As well, mandatory emmissions tests significantly reduce air pollution by forcing people to properly maintain their cars.

There is lot of things that can be done to reduce pollution from vehicles.

Originally posted by Asher
Price elasticity of supply, yes yes, but you're not applying it correctly. That bull**** doesn't work with oil, since it's not a "free market".

No, you're the one who doesn't understand economics.

Oil does not operate on free market principles. As a result there are economic rents. If the government imposes pollution controls that increase production costs then economic rents decline, but oil companies could still make a profit.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Producing less pollution tomorrow is better than producing more pollution.

Yes, and I'd also love to eliminate the murder rate.

Do you not understand that most of the polluting nations in the world did not sign Kyoto, which means for the most part it's simply a pollution transfer?

The odd "good" thing may happen like the increased popularity of hybrid cars, but that can be accomplished WITHOUT Kyoto via government incentive. Think outside of Kyoto, it ain't the only way.

Wrong.

A poll done in June found that almost 80 per cent of Canadians supported Kyoto even if it meant a 1 per cent decrease in GDP.

1 percent being the keyword.
Laughable, totally laughable.

About 70 per cent of Canadians supported Kyoto even if it meant a 5 per cent decrease in GDP. (Ralphie claims Kyoto will cost 5 per cent GDP.)

And guess where that GDP decrease is going to be concentrated? Hint: It's where less than 30% of Canada live.

And provide a link please.

Come on. Your 1930 comparison is stupid. Look at car ownership between 1980 and 2000. It is increasing, but only because the population is increasing. The car ownership market is relatively mature.

What does it matter if population is increasing? You don't care that the production capacity has tremendously increased since 1990, you just want emissions to those levels -- but suddenly you're crying about the population going up since 1930 for car usage? Haha.

A tax on SUVs and higher gas pump prices would lead to people buying more fuel efficient cars and that would reduce air pollution.

And this requires Kyoto how?

As well, mandatory emmissions tests significantly reduce air pollution by forcing people to properly maintain their cars.

And this requires Kyoto how?

There is lot of things that can be done to reduce pollution from vehicles.

And this requires Kyoto how?

No, you're the one who doesn't understand economics.

Oil does not operate on free market principles. As a result there are economic rents. If the government imposes pollution controls that increase production costs then economic rents decline, but oil companies could still make a profit.

And your name is Tingkai. And ________?
No one is arguing oil companies can't make a profit at all. What are you on boy?

The problem is investment will decrease or even halt in energy here. Fact fact fact. It's the whole point of the treaty anyway.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
A summary of what's going to happen, and what Tingkai has conveniently kept ignoring/dismissing:

You definitely have your head up your butt.

Every single point you have mentioned has been proven wrong many times by me and by others.

The only one ignoring things is you Asher.

Originally posted by Asher