Canadian parliament backs Kyoto ratification plan

[Giancarlo]

Yeah, sandman, right... maybe you want to take the unemployment rate of the developed world similar to that of Argentina but I like most people don't. If you really mean it... are you ready to have a country powered entirely by nuclear power plants? Well believe it or not, France is like that.

Also saying regardless of the economy is completely ignorant of the future. Go live in a cave. And stop promoting a plan that will jeopardize everybody's future...

[DinoDoc]

I'm more interested in the politics of this anyway

Originally posted by Asher
Not in Canada, DinoDoc.

Canada is, for all intents and purposes, a dictatorship by Jean Chretien.

1) When is he due to retire? I had heard that he was planning on stepping down as leader.

2) Is the Premier of Alberta able to restart his legal oppossition to the plan again since he dropped it? Does that have any chance of success?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Fez
***scrapping the whole point on the German economy in shambles, since it was already way before Kyoto***

How can you replace oil? By promoting nuclear.

What is the problem with that ?

[Asher]

Re: I'm more interested in the politics of this anyway

Originally posted by DinoDoc
1) When is he due to retire? I had heard that he was planning on stepping down as leader.

2003 sometime, IIRC.

2) Is the Premier of Alberta able to restart his legal oppossition to the plan again since he dropped it? Does that have any chance of success?

He'll be able to restart it later, he's going to wait to see how Chretien's successor handles it since this seems like it's mostly Chretien's motivation to make this his "legacy" that it's passing and no one else is nearly as dedicated to it. In fact, if Paul Martin (who is one of the favorites to succeed him) gets in, he may scrap the whole thing. Paul Martin is pretty conservative fiscally, he'll probably see Kyoto for what it is whereas Chretien sees it as something he wants it to be.

[Spiffor]

Asher :

It is a sure thing Kyoto didn't exist because of tree hugging altruism, and that Europe, being advanced in ecological tech, has products to sell if other countries comply with Kyoto.

However, if Chretien wants Kyoto to be ratified so badly, I guess it's also explained by Canadian interests : Canada has potential to have an oil-free electricity production (with so much hydrolic resources), and can export its clean energy -water and gas- to other countries which lack them, US first. I think it's in Canada's interest that more countries sign Kyoto. If Canada decredibilizes Kyoto by rejecting it, it loses even more chances that other countries join.

You say rejecting countries have no chance to join, which isn't entirely true IMO : All developed countries might want to reduce pollution in mid-term, because it is a costly externality which penalizes economy. When these countries are more ready to Kyoto, along with some necessary internal pressure from environmentalist / liberal / leftist / whatever groups, these countries might enter again (granted, not before 5 years at least).
IIRC, even Al Gore (the one who got most votes last presidential election) was in favor of Kyoto, meaning there can be a support even if more 'obscurantist' countries like the US.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
IIRC, even Al Gore (the one who got most votes last presidential election) was in favor of Kyoto, meaning there can be a support even if more 'obscurantist' countries like the US.

The President isn't able to order Congress to do anything to the same extent the PM is able to do bully Parliament.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, if Chretien wants Kyoto to be ratified so badly, I guess it's also explained by Canadian interests : Canada has potential to have an oil-free electricity production (with so much hydrolic resources)

Wanna explain to me how hydro power would work in Alberta?

and can export its clean energy -water and gas- to other countries which lack them, US first. I think it's in Canada's interest that more countries sign Kyoto.

Canada doesn't get credit for clean-gas exports under Kyoto, and the European nations refuse to give us credit for it. It's one of the many flaws of Kyoto, and a prime reason why Canada should refuse to sign it until at least they give us credit for clean gas exports.

You say rejecting countries have no chance to join, which isn't entirely true IMO :

You *REALLY* think countries like Saudi Arabia are *EVER* going to sign Kyoto?
You really think the US would pass Kyoto? Even a democrat wouldn't go that far, you'd need the Green party to do that. And they're never getting in power.

IIRC, even Al Gore (the one who got most votes last presidential election) was in favor of Kyoto, meaning there can be a support even if more 'obscurantist' countries like the US.

Can you provide a link for that...

And even so, Al Gore will say a lot of things for the sake of being different from the current administration. When he's in power, and when he realizes it's his name and reputation that will be associated with all economic damage given from Kyoto, I very much doubt he'd ever sign it.

[Giancarlo]

The economy of West Germany was in good shape and growing before reunification.

Originally posted by Spiffor


What is the problem with that ?

No problem and infact I am all for nuclear power because it will reduce dependence on unreliable partners in the Middle East and now in South America, specifically Venezuela. I am just saying are you ready for it?

IIRC, even Al Gore (the one who got most votes last presidential election) was in favor of Kyoto, meaning there can be a support even if more 'obscurantist' countries like the US.

But of course one of the few out of the just as influential senators and representatives. And Al gore is a disgrace. (And no he didn't get the most votes in the last Presidental election, George Bush did... I am talking about the relevant electoral votes. Popular vote is irrelevant)

Kyoto sucks as a treaty I am sorry to say. Even dumb leftist groups will not screw people out of a future. They do not stand a chance in the face of the public eye.

Edit: Spelling

[Lawrence of Arabia]

So then what do you suggest?

[Asher]

Re: Al Gore

http://www.debatethis.org/gore/enviro/naderopenletter.html#globalwarming

Despite his vaunted last minute trip to save the Kyoto treaty, Gore’s compromise committed the US to very small reductions in greenhouse gases, and has worked since to include nuclear power among the renewable energy source eligible for Clean Fuel credits under the treaty. These would allow the US to claim reductions supposedly made for the global good, while actually benefiting only the huge corporations that build nuclear power plants. It may sabotage the treaty in the eyes of Europe and small island nations (who will disappear if global warming isn’t stopped), but Al Gore only seems to care about how global climate change affects big corporate contributors.

As suspected, his "support" for Kyoto is merely token support as a platform of telling people he cares about the environment. In reality, it'd be much different...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
So then what do you suggest?

Well if you are asking, I think developed countries should go completely nuclear (but not lack a plan of what to do with waste afterwards).

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Thats not a very formulated answer. How about some specifics.

[Asher]

Nuclear power isn't exactly good for the environment either.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
Nuclear power isn't exactly good for the environment either.

It isn't like solar power is either.

[Asher]

Yeah, solar's not very friendly either.

Hydro is quite friendly, if you neglect all the areas that need to be flooded...