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

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Asher, you still don't get it.

All of the suggestion you made can be used to meet the Kyoto agreement targets.

I'm sure they can. But there's no guarantee they can, and in fact they likely won't.

If you acknowledge that these pollution control methods exist, and that they are economically viable then must be able to admit that we can work towards the Kyoto goals without destroying the economy.

THOSE would be. And I support them fully.
I do NOT support ratifying Kyoto because it FORCES us to meet those quotas under the treaty. Chances are what I mentioned above won't do it, and foreign investors don't like the risk of it, and they reduce investment. It's really simple.

If you REALLY think doing what I mentioned will help us reach Kyoto -- why don't we do it anyway? We don't NEED to sign Kyoto, I really don't give a flying **** what Japan thinks about us because we refused to sign it but met it anyway. In fact I don't think anyone would care, aside from the European countries who'd be pissed off that we don't buy credits from them.

Prove it or stop talking.

Common sense says it can't. You're the one that wants to introduce radical legislation to do it, you prove it'll do it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Common sense says it can't.

Oh well, how can you argue with that brilliant comment?

If this was 1900, you'd be saying "common sense says men can't fly."
If this was 1950, you'd be saying "common sense says we can't put man into space."
If this was 1965, you'd be saying "common sense says we can't land on the moon."

You claim that it is impossible to achieve the Kyoto targets. Prove it or admit the fact that you don't know whether it is possible.

Originally posted by Asher
If you REALLY think doing what I mentioned will help us reach Kyoto -- why don't we do it anyway? We don't NEED to sign Kyoto, I really don't give a flying **** what Japan thinks about us because we refused to sign it but met it anyway.

This is why you're a waste of time. You don't even understand the agreement. Your comments indicate you think the Japanese created this agreement and then went around trying to find people to sign it.

And then there are your contradictions.

You say that Kyoto doesn't force Canada to comply and then you say it does.

You say we shouldn't sign Kyoto because we'll be the only ones to do it, and then you say we should create a made-in-Canada pollution control plan that obviously we would be the only ones to implement.

You claim that attempts to reduce pollution will scare away investors and reduce Canada's competitiveness, and then you admit that we can reduce pollution without destorying the economy.

You claim that we can only slow down pollution growth, but not reduce it, and then you claim we can reduce it.



Before you respond to this message, try to:
1) read and understand the Kyoto agreement;
2) read and understand why the Alberta plan allows more pollution;
3) make an attempt to eliminate the contradictions in your arguments;
4) admit all of the misinformation you have posted here; and
5) open your mind and accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Originally posted by Asher
They won't bring us to 1990 levels.

Prove it or stop talking.

You are in favour of introducing radical legislation. The onus is on you and Jean to show how the legislation will be implemented and the targets met.

When Jean explains exactly how he plans on going about this thing, then you can shush Asher. Not before.

Oh I forgot, he likely sinks on this issue. I still can't see the Ontario caucus going along with a nebulous plan that could devestate the economy of the entire country if done wrong.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Oh well, how can you argue with that brilliant comment?

Well now that we're in agreement...

You claim that it is impossible to achieve the Kyoto targets. Prove it or admit the fact that you don't know whether it is possible.

NOT LIKELY != IMPOSSIBLE
You're the one that's supporting legislation that would change the current situation, the burden of proof is on you. Think, Tingkai, think.

This is why you're a waste of time.

So you're a masochist, then?

You don't even understand the agreement. Your comments indicate you think the Japanese created this agreement and then went around trying to find people to sign it.

I have no idea what you're smoking, but I think you're using too much of it now. You've constantly used strawmen and red herrings and you don't get bored of it, even when they're not effective. I'm not biting, you know better.

You say that Kyoto doesn't force Canada to comply and then you say it does.

Another strawman.
No one can force Canada to comply to Kyoto.
But certain idiots want to do it for the "glory of the nation" (in the eyes of others) so we're not "shamed". That'd be you, and Chretien's party.

You say we shouldn't sign Kyoto because we'll be the only ones to do it, and then you say we should create a made-in-Canada pollution control plan that obviously we would be the only ones to implement.

No, I say we shouldn't sign Kyoto because of the people who DON'T sign it screw us over. It's not worth it to sign an international agreement only agreed to by a small number of nations -- let's do our own thing and reduce pollution on our own terms.

Get off your pathetic little horse about how we MUST DO THIS TOGETHER as a world. It's not happening.

You claim that attempts to reduce pollution will scare away investors and reduce Canada's competitiveness, and then you admit that we can reduce pollution without destorying the economy.

I claim Kyoto will scare away investors and reduce Canada's competitiveness, our own policies will not. They're not the same thing. Kyoto is set up around European countries and Japan as a basis, which are fundamentally different than Canada.

You claim that we can only slow down pollution growth, but not reduce it, and then you claim we can reduce it.

Holy ****, Tingkai...
We can increase efficiency, as I've said before. We can reduce pollution per car, per house, etc. The problem is WE ARE GROWING. And this growth will surely outgrow the pollution efficiency benefits.

THINK THINK THINK THINK THINK THINK

This is how it ALWAYS worked in the past -- why is it different now?

Before you respond to this message, try to:
1) read and understand the Kyoto agreement;
2) read and understand why the Alberta plan allows more pollution;
3) make an attempt to eliminate the contradictions in your arguments;
4) admit all of the misinformation you have posted here; and
5) open your mind and accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

**** you, Tingkai, you haven't a clue what you're even reading for my arguments.

It's SO clear that you're confused about my position.
The possibilites are these:
1) I'm using words that are too large for you
2) You are high on something and not comprehending
3) You are intentionally not comprehending
4) You are actually a Chretien login
5) You just don't like my position so you intentionally try to confuse others with your posts which are full of strawmen and redherrings
6) You employ strawmen and redherrings because it's the only way you can leave the argument thinking you've done something.

Take your pick.

[CyberGnu]

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.

Pray tell, what do you mean with 'clean burning gas'?

When we talk about emissions, we only talk about tons of emitted CO2. Is methane better than oil? It sure is. And why is that?

Hmm, I intended that as a rhetorical question, but maybe it would be better if I left it open.

Asher, why IS methane better than coal?


But none of this addresses the issue. You (and the alberta 'plan') both claims that Canada would be forced to buy emission credits from, say, Russia. You have so far utterly failed to show how that is connected to the production of oil from the tar sands.

Canada would be required to buy credits if Canada wishes to EMIT more CO2 than they did in 1990. But they could increase production a billion times, and it wouldn't make any difference.

[Tingkai]

I point out your contradicting statements and then you try to deny your contradiction by making a contradicting statement.

Which of your statements do you actually believe?

Originally posted by Asher
I do NOT support ratifying Kyoto because it FORCES us to meet those quotas under the treaty.

Originally posted by Asher
No one can force Canada to comply to Kyoto.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
But none of this addresses the issue. You (and the alberta 'plan') both claims that Canada would be forced to buy emission credits from, say, Russia. You have so far utterly failed to show how that is connected to the production of oil from the tar sands.

Canada would be required to buy credits if Canada wishes to EMIT more CO2 than they did in 1990. But they could increase production a billion times, and it wouldn't make any difference.

The oil sands are non polluting? Would you care to come back when you can say something other than through your hat?

http://www.sierralegal.org/newsletters/newsletter30_apr2002.pdf

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You are in favour of introducing radical legislation. The onus is on you and Jean to show how the legislation will be implemented and the targets met.

When Jean explains exactly how he plans on going about this thing, then you can shush Asher. Not before.

Once again, the Kyoto agreement sets specific targets for reducing pollution. Setting targets and stating exactly how we reach those goals can be, and often are done at different times.

When JFK set the goal of going the moon, he didn't have the specific details of how they were going to do it.

Asher claims, and you seem to be suggesting, that the burden of proof is on me to prove that we can reach the desired targets.

The agreement clearly provides a method for doing so. Countries that cannot reach the target by themselves can buy "credits."

In other words, if we find that there is a high economic cost to achieving the targets then we can take the cheaper route of buying credits.

Therefore, the Kyoto targets are obtainable. Either we reach the targets by ourselves or we move partway towards our goal and then buy credits.

Now Asher claims that it is impossible. It's time for him to provide some facts to back up his statement.

[notyoueither]

More reading for you Gnu.

http://www.pcf.ab.ca/quick_answers/Oil_Sands/environmental_effect.asp

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Therefore, the Kyoto targets are obtainable. Either we reach the targets by ourselves or we move partway towards our goal and then buy credits.

Now Asher claims that it is impossible. It's time for him to provide some facts to back up his statement.

Neither Asher nor I have said we could not buy credits. What we have both said is that increased costs, like having to buy credits, may price us out of some markets.

As a resource extraction based economy, we should be very concerned with that.

[notyoueither]

And more for Gnu.

http://indrep.nisto.com/arc/2000/04/suncor.html

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Neither Asher nor I have said we could not buy credits. What we have both said is that increased costs, like having to buy credits, may price us out of some markets.

As a resource extraction based economy, we should be very concerned with that.

WRT Alberta being a resource extraction based economy, that is bound to change in the long-run (and Asher claims it already has changed). The Albertan economy will become more and more service-oriented simply because it is a developed economy. Trying to prop up the demand for oil doesn't make sense.

Equally, I don't think it makes sense to force the oil industry to install more pollution control devices. I haven't seen anything that indicates that this one industry is a major source of pollution.

What we should be targeting is pollution from vehicles, particularly family-owned vehicles.

I would propose:
1) an tax on all cars with gas mileage below 30 mpg;
2) the creation of toll zones for inner cities, similar to what Singapore has done; to reduce traffic in these areas and the congestion it creates;
3) a tax on gas pump prices that increase by 1 cent every six months;
4) Making emission testing of all vehicles mandatory throughout Canada;
5) Persuade insurance companies to get rid of the discount given for insuring a second vehicle;
6) a tax on unnecessary gas-power items, such as lawn mowers and leaf blowers.
7) Eliminating all fuel subsidies.
8) a tax on air travel.
9) tax rebates for vehicles that have gas mileage above 50 mpg.
10) increased subsidies for transit systems.
11) tax rebates for vehicles powered by natural gas and hybrid vehicles.
12) require all taxis to be powered by natural gas.
13) a small tax on electricity targeting home use with increases on an annual basis.

All of these items should be phased in over at least five years to reduce the economic shock.

These are just some of the solutions that we can achieve.

[notyoueither]

I meant all of Canada.

[notyoueither]

Your proposals are nice, but I'll stay out of the cabs, thank you.

The real problem is the amount of bull sh** flying because we do not really know how Jean plans to implement this. Maybe soon it will all be clear and we can bring out the hockey sticks for real.

[CyberGnu]

Well, let's see if I've done the math right. Alberta is currently flaring roughly 1.8 billion m3 of methane per year. This corresponds to 32 million tons of CO2.

(http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/Ces_Web/_d...target=english)

Alberta also produces about 100 million tons of oil, 80% of which is bitumen. 80 million tons of oil corresponds to ~250 million tons of CO2.

However, alberta also produces 154 billion m3 of natural gas, and it is not clear how much of the flaring comes from that production.

alberta also produces quite a bit of coal, which traditionally causes a lot more flaring than oil. I don't know how it relates to tar sands, however.

But let's say half of the flaring comes from tar sand, and we're looking at 16 million tons of CO2, which should then be compared with Canadas total emissions of slightly more than 700 million tons of CO2.



The vast majority of fuel production related CO2 emissions come from heating, particularly in bitumen production. There is no reason to treat this as any different from other export industry, however.