How will Canada keep warm now?!?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Sprayber


Its just that PH has this small car fetish

It's called being responsible. I want a decently sized car but what is the purpose of me having a truck when I use it to drive to and from work and the odd bit of domestic stuff, and now and again a drive up North to visit the family?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Just that its not as simple as not signing Kyoto=doing nothing.

No one has claimed that. The point is its disgraceful that this administration has turned down the treaty for the sole purpose of making a few bucks and keeping big businesses happy.

If you think it was for any other reason then you're not looking at the full picture.

[el freako]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

from whitehouse.gov

US GHG goals:

"Reduce the Greenhouse Gas Intensity of the U.S. Economy by 18 Percent in the Next Ten Years. Greenhouse gas intensity measures the ratio of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to economic output."

Seeing as Greenhouse gas intensity fell by 17% between 1990 and 2002 this really amounts to no change at all.

For the record the EU15's Greenhouse gas intensity fell by 28% in 1990-2002 whilst it's GDP, measured using EKS PPPs, went from 97.4% of the US's level in 1990 to 97.8% in 2002.

So Europe has reduced it's greenhouse intensity furthur and still saw it's economy catch up with America's.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by el freako


Seeing as Greenhouse gas intensity fell by 17% between 1990 and 2002 this really amounts to no change at all.

For the record the EU15's Greenhouse gas intensity fell by 28% in 1990-2002 whilst it's GDP, measured using EKS PPPs, went from 97.4% of the US's level in 1990 to 97.8% in 2002.

So Europe has reduced it's greenhouse intensity furthur and still saw it's economy catch up with America's.

I'm sure the anti-patriots (ie the Bush boys) will have some reason to disbelieve this.

[Ned]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV


The issue with Kyoto is that it screws nations like Canada and the United States, which have a developed industrial base, and it lets completely off the hook an la nation like China, which has no restrictions and is allowed to build factories and pollute like crazy in order to catch up with the rest.

I wonder how Gore ever agreed to Kyoto? The Senate voted unanimously to reject the Kyoto Protocol when he returned, triumpant.

Reminds me a bit of how Wilson was treated when he returned from Europe with the disasterous Versailles treaty.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Ned


I wonder how Gore ever agreed to Kyoto? The Senate voted unanimously to reject the Kyoto Protocol when he returned, triumpant.

Reminds me a bit of how Wilson was treated when he returned from Europe with the disasterous Versailles treaty.

Gee I wonder. Maybe because Gore was an environmentalist and thought it was a step in the right direction? And the fact that most governments of industrialized countries thought the same thing as well?

But don't worry. When I see you on the street, gasping for clean air, I'll remind you of how dumb you are and laugh.

[Ned]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Gee I wonder. Maybe because Gore was an environmentalist and thought it was a step in the right direction? And the fact that most governments of industrialized countries thought the same thing as well?

But don't worry. When I see you on the street, gasping for clean air, I'll remind you of how dumb you are and laugh.

JimmyCrackHead. The point here is that Kyoto is not only UNFAIR to the US, Canada and Europe, it will not solve the problem.

As to clean air, WTF has that to do with Kyoto?

[chequita guevara]

On NPR this morning, they explained some of the finer details. For example, a company in a signatory state like France, can get credit for reducing its emmissions, by build a low emissions plant in India, for example. What a lot of folks don't seem to realize is that Kyoto does not let other countries off the hook, it simply gives them a waiver for a certain number of years (fifteen, IIRC). So, a lot of these countries are going to be looking for low-emission development anyway.

American businesses assume that eventually the U.S. is going to sign on to Kyoto, and they'd rather it be sooner than later, preciesly because, until we do, they won't be eligible for credits for building low-emission plants in the 3rd world, and they fear that by the time the U.S. signs on, that all the capacity in the 3rd world will be taken up.

Oops. looks like the conservatives have screwed America over again.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


It's called being responsible. I want a decently sized car but what is the purpose of me having a truck when I use it to drive to and from work and the odd bit of domestic stuff, and now and again a drive up North to visit the family?

I miss my truck in a big way I went and got all responsible like and got a two door sporty car that would save me on gas but I go faster but can haul less.

I'm getting a big ass truck next one I get and I'm gonna take up two parking spaces> Quad cab

[chequita guevara]

What the hell do you need to haul everyday that you need a truck? Rent one!

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Ned


JimmyCrackHead. The point here is that Kyoto is not only UNFAIR to the US, Canada and Europe, it will not solve the problem.

As to clean air, WTF has that to do with Kyoto?

What does clean air have to do with Kyoto?

What doesn't it have to do with it?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
It's called being responsible. I want a decently sized car but what is the purpose of me having a truck when I use it to drive to and from work and the odd bit of domestic stuff, and now and again a drive up North to visit the family?

I own two cars one is a two door 2L four cylinder which I use for every day driving the other is a 2.5L V6 sedan which I use when I need I have passengers. I had a ton of house hold appliances to haul today so I was happy my sister let my borrow her suburdan; there really isn't anything like a large V-8 powered SUV for hauling junk.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil


You are under the mistaken impression we will actually fulfill our commitments to Kyoto.

Aren't there penalties if we don't?

How does that work, anyway?

I can tell you one thing... people are going to beg Canada to pump as much as possible from the tar sands in Alberta (and maybe Saskatchewan). Just wait for some ME countries to go over the hump and decline in production. Just wait...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
On NPR this morning, they explained some of the finer details. For example, a company in a signatory state like France, can get credit for reducing its emmissions, by build a low emissions plant in India, for example. What a lot of folks don't seem to realize is that Kyoto does not let other countries off the hook, it simply gives them a waiver for a certain number of years (fifteen, IIRC). So, a lot of these countries are going to be looking for low-emission development anyway.

American businesses assume that eventually the U.S. is going to sign on to Kyoto, and they'd rather it be sooner than later, preciesly because, until we do, they won't be eligible for credits for building low-emission plants in the 3rd world, and they fear that by the time the U.S. signs on, that all the capacity in the 3rd world will be taken up.

Oops. looks like the conservatives have screwed America over again.

Doesn't Kyoto expire after 10 or 15 years?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drogue

IIRC, one of the tenants of Kyoto was that it had to be signed by nations representing 55% of the worlds pollution. Reducing that 55% by a significant margin *will* help stop climate change. Pollution doesn't respect national boundaries, so US pollution causes acid rain on Scandinavia, and climate change all over the world. The world, or rather, the world except China and the US, decided that action was needed, and that the only way it could happen was if it happened to reduce a large proportion of the worlds emissions. 55% is a large proportion.

Let me ask you this - what use are emissions? Why pollute? Do people driving SUVs help the economy by driving those SUVs? Well, they may help the Saudi economy, but not likely much their own. I don't see why reducing emitions (as the UK already is, I'm happy to say) has to hurt your economy. It certainly won't help the little guys catch up, they have pollution caps too. It's like saying paying taxes makes the poorest people, who don't pay any, catch up with the richest. As soon as they start to earn money, they'll be taxed on it too.

Plus the reason it hits the most industrialised nations most is that they pollute the most. China has relatively small pollution per capita, it's much easier to cut pollution when you're causing more. It's like progressive taxes, the heavy polluters can afford to give more. The idea of tax is to charge everyone for services that would otherwise be impossible, but that benefit all. Reducing pollutants benefits all, and the only way it can be tackled is with everyone tackling it.

A couple of things. First, China could be a quarter pp of anyone else and pollute 5 times as much due to the number of people. I'm not sure if that means much, but global warming isn't going to be eased by 'low' pp emissions in China. Natural forces do not respect statistical parlour games.

Next, developing countries will not ever be taxed under Kyoto. They get a free ride and then the treaty expires. Maybe I am wrong, so I would appreciate it if you could show me where there are provisions for China or Malaysia to enter into a status that would require cuts.

Finally, not all nations have the same circumstances. Canada occupies in land mass a larger area than the EU25, but only has 30 to 35 million people during the period covered by Kyoto. Guess what?

We have major distribution centres that are 1000's of miles apart in some cases. How do goods move? Burn fuel.

Most of us live with sub zero temperatures for 4 or more months of the year. In short, we burn fuel to exist.

We hold some of the most significant oil reserves in the world, but the extraction process for most of it is GHG emission intensive. You are asking that Canada leave that oil in the ground and ignore the economic prospects of a significant region of the country. Oh, and you are asking that the world do without reserves that outstrip Saudi Arabia's at the very time that oil is passing $50 per barrel and may well hit $100.

Here's a question. Do you want the oil? If so, Canada will not be able to make Kyoto, no way, no how.