Canadian parliament backs Kyoto ratification plan

[Asher]

Of the Earth's 190 countries, only 35 have agreed to cut emissions under Kyoto.

Over 65% of the world's total emissions come from countries that do not have Kyoto, and that share will grow while the pollution leaves the Kyoto countries to these countries.

Kyoto won't do a damn thing globally, people who say otherwise are exercising wishful thinking and need to put themselves in the mindset of these businesses that will just move...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


To bad Canada elects parties and not people other wise the people's will might actually be done.

What's that, you say?

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out?

Don't you know it's gonna be
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?

You say you've got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We are doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is, brother, you'll have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You'd better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know it's gonna be
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?

[Kc7mxo]

Heh heh. What to you do when each side of an argument has a poll supporting their belief?

[Spiffor]

Asher : edited my previous post

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
How come the US uses 4 times more oil per capita the Europe (with similar develoment levels ?).

Europe is FAR more densely populated, for one. When people live far away, you need more oil to do things.

It's why Canada uses more oil per capita than the US, which uses more than Europe...

Same thing with water : the US (esp. California) might fear a water shortage, yet they have a waaaaay superior consumption per capita than Europe.

Again, it has to do with population density. California has lots and lots of landscape to water to keep alive and whatnot.

It seems very easy to just compare per-capita use without even looking at the environment, but there's a reason why consumption is higher different regions.

For example, natural gas consumption is far higher in Canada than it is in Africa.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
Of the Earth's 190 countries, only 35 have agreed to cut emissions under Kyoto.

Over 65% of the world's total emissions come from countries that do not have Kyoto, and that share will grow while the pollution leaves the Kyoto countries to these countries.

Kyoto won't do a damn thing globally, people who say otherwise are exercising wishful thinking and need to put themselves in the mindset of these businesses that will just move...

You should know the location of a business isn't only a cost / benefit thing. Many elements are used to determine whether a business is located here or there. Among them : eductation and productivty of the workforce, infrastructures, externalities (incl. pollution) etc. Some businesses will move, namely the most polluting, but most industries will remain in place.
If the US and some of its colonies have pollution reduction laws, then the polluting business won't have any other developed country to move (if most of their business is in Canada, I doubt they all move to Australia ), and undeveloped countries do not offer the same things to industries, except for the right to pollute. I would move my high tech chemical plant to the US, but not in Congo, if I was a Chemics tycoon.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You should know the location of a business isn't only a cost / benefit thing. Many elements are used to determine whether a business is located here or there. Among them : eductation and productivty of the workforce, infrastructures, externalities (incl. pollution) etc.

Well, I'm going to specifically talk about the oil industry since that's the one I know best.

Right now Alberta's in somewhat of an oil boom with international oil companies. We've got huge reserves and the like, and many companies are pouring billions of dollars a month (quite literally) in developing projects like the Alberta Oil Sands. These projects in particular have been affected already -- some future expansions have been canceled in favor of developing in Africa due to Kyoto uncertainty, and the others have been put on indefinite hold.

Now, when oil companies operate out of the country, they tend to import workers to those countries. They put them on compounds and they work, Canadian and Americans, in places like Zimbabwe (I know people who live there working for Exxon right now).

There's lots of places like that for oil companies to go to, and they will go to if Kyoto is in place. There's simply no reason for them to dink around with a government who's going to be riding their ass to reduce pollution even though the whole of Alberta has drastically increased production since 1990.

Kyoto is relocating oil development from Alberta to non-Kyoto countries, even before Kyoto was formally ratified.

It's a very real problem that nobody wants to acknowledge. The transfer of pollution is real...we're not reducing, we're moving. Alberta will be slammed the hardest in the nation due to Kyoto, which is why Alberta strongly opposes it. But Chretien doesn't care, since Alberta doesn't vote for him anyway...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
Europe is FAR more densely populated, for one. When people live far away, you need more oil to do things.

Don't you think it has also to do with the lack of decent mass transit in most cities, with economical choices favorable to oil business, and with the extremly high use of fossil energy to produce electricity ? I understand underpopulated countries require more oil per capita than Europe, but this factor alone is far from explaining why the difference is so huge, and you know it.

Again, it has to do with population density. California has lots and lots of landscape to water to keep alive and whatnot.

Maybe it also has to do with prices of water. I understand the lack of precipitation requires more water taken from rivers, but we could use reason : how come the price of water is much cheaper in California than in France (dunno for Canada) ? How come almost every Californian has a bathtub (at least in all places I visited there) ? And knowing that water shortages are a middle term thread, should really the Californians be gardening their deserts ?

It seems very easy to just compare per-capita use without even looking at the environment, but there's a reason why consumption is higher different regions.

There are plenty of reasons. You named one, which is true, but far from explaining everything. I named other reasons which also partly explain it. But your attitude of saying that the extremely higher pollution per capita in the western Hemisphere is only normal won't help solving the problem, that's for sure.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Don't you think it has also to do with the lack of decent mass transit in most cities, with economical choices favorable to oil business, and with the extremly high use of fossil energy to produce electricity ? I understand underpopulated countries require more oil per capita than Europe, but this factor alone is far from explaining why the difference is so huge, and you know it.

The reason why decent mass transit doesn't exist is because decent mass transit only works well in densely populated areas...

Which is why New York has a decent mass transit system. It's why London does.

It's why most US cities don't. There's just way too many places to go and too few people to support it in comparison to large cities like London and New York.

There are plenty of reasons. You named one, which is true, but far from explaining everything. I named other reasons which also partly explain it. But your attitude of saying that the extremely higher pollution per capita in the western Hemisphere is only normal won't help solving the problem, that's for sure.

And neither will Kyoto.

It's very nice to think how nice it would be if we don't pollute, but there are problems with it. Namely, unless everyone shuns most technology, we're not going to magically reduce pollution while our population increases.

[Spiffor]

You still believe pollution will be reduced by magics or reduction of production. Let me give some European examples of atmospheric pollution per capita reduction in the lastest 20 years (only examples I know of)

- Raise of gasoline taxes. In France, a litre of gas is about 1$ now.

- Recycling. Plastics being recycled reduces considerably oil use. Paper recycling allows forests to progress, and have a small effect on athmospheric pollution

- Nuclear energy. In France, 75% of our electricity is nuclear, the rest being hydaulic, alternative. The Germans scrapped their nuclear plants, but hypocritically buy nuclear energy from us.

- Tax cuts and subventions to less energy consuming devices, such as alternative car engines (using natural gas), or gas heat sources. Subventions to building's isolation to lower enrgy required for heat.

- development of alternative energy sources. Windmills are already a significant part of NL's electricity (sure, there's plenty of wind in this small country). However, I agree these sources are far from being economically viable for now, except in very few cases.

- YES, efficient mass transit. I'm living in Stuttgart, which has a very low density for a European 500.000 inhab city, and yet the mass transit system is much better than in the more dense Bordeaux. My point is : except in extremely far fetched cities, you can have an efficient mass transit system if you're ready to invest money in it. Some American cities could have an efficient mass transit system, but obviously decided to have an all-car policy (I'm thinking Los Angleles here).

Are these measures the use of a magic device ? No. They just show some political will. It is not necessary to be a tree hugger to promote them though : limiting oil consumption can drastically reduce a country's dependance to oil exporting countries and to big businesses. It also can rake more money for the state.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You still believe pollution will be reduced by magics or reduction of production.

I believe nothing is going to realistically reduce pollution in North America short of a nonexistant magic device.

Are these measures the use of a magic device ? No. They just show some political will. It is not necessary to be a tree hugger to promote them though : limiting oil consumption can drastically reduce a country's dependance to oil exporting countries and to big businesses. It also can rake more money for the state.

This is all wonderful, again, but the problem is very very simple and negates all of these wonderful theoretics: the consumer is a ***** and likes his SUV, and there's nothing you can do to change it.

Short of a massive cultural overhaul, nothing's going to reduce pollution to 1990 levels unless we cut back production in the countries under Kyoto.

It's so simple but so many people don't get it. They will, in 6 years or so. But they'll find a way to blame businesses for providing consumers what they demand.

Until then, Ottawa will piss off large businesses rather than the average Canadian. Which means there will be more emphasis on *****ing at Alberta oil companies for refining oil in Canada rather than *****ing at consumers for using too much gas.

[Spiffor]

Is SUV a word meaning car ?
In any ways, I don't see how the consumer really hates recycled plastics, non-fossil electricity, non-gas cars etc. The Germans love their cars too, yet the increase of gas prices led simply to the creation of less wasting engines.

[Ned]

Asside from Kyoto, we have a real and pressing problem with traffic in the US. We really need to invest in high speed electric rail in most of our cities to move people long distances rapidly. This would help our traffic problems and also help cut the growth in Greenhouse gasses.

This kind of infrastructure investment to reduce pollution I wholeheartedly support. I oppose, strongly oppose Al Gore's ideas of punitive taxes on energy where he takes those taxes and spends it on his next welfare project.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Developed countries win with Kyoto by providing environmentally friendly technologies to other countries. Whats the problem?

Have you considered that these other countries won't buy this stuff because they don't have to cut their emissions?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
How is the second question a hypothetical question when there has been a domestic solution proposed??

99% of the Canadians wouldn't know what the f*ck the Alberta plan is

I love it when Asher answers his own stupid questions. What's pathetic is that Asher won't be able to figure out how he contradicted himself. (His next post will be a whine about his words being manipulated).

Asher's comment is typical of fringe lunatics. Everyone else is stupid. Only they know the truth. The reality is that Canadians made an intelligent choice for a better tomorrow.

The reality is that Canadians support Kyoto.


74% of Canadian say Kyoto should be implemented.
71% say Kyoto should be implemented, even if it is not perfect, because it is an important first step.

Even a large section of Albertans want to implement Kyoto.


The second question is a red herring. It asks people if they prefer ratifying an existing agreement or would they prefer to have an imaginary better agreement. Of course people would prefer to have a better agreement.

It is like asking people if they prefer Bush, Gore, or would they like a third option. A lot of people may say they would prefer a third option, but that doesn't mean they're going to vote for Ross Perot.

The simple fact is that a vast majority of Canadians support Kyoto. Even after months of propaganda from special interest groups (read oil corporations), Canadians overwhelmingly support implementing Kyoto.

Asher just can't realized when he has lost. He can't accept the fact that wiser heads have prevailed.