The problem with Kyoto: case Alberta

[The Mad Monk]

Because, Lord knows, you don't use anything from the chemical industry, right, Ludd?

[Kuciwalker]

Ludd's opinion on pretty much any subject is basically worthless.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Because, Lord knows, you don't use anything from the chemical industry, right, Ludd?

Using / doing something doesn't automatically make it a good thing (tm).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Let me explain, based on my understanding, why this is grossly unfair.

Let's say you have two companies, A and B. In, let's say 2000, both produced 100 in emissions per unit of whatever they make. Since then A has been responsible and cut that to 80, while B hasn't done anything. Now you pass this law and you expect:

A to cut emissions to 70.4 and B to cut emissions to 80 by the end of the year. Now, A is going to have a rougher time since they already made improvements and their baseline will be lower. B can just make the improvements A made, while A has to go above and beyond.

Now the worst part is, they have less than one year to come up with something of pay fines. Most structural changes that lead to permanent reductions may take longer to implement.

You have a point about companies that previously invested in technology. Hopefully that will get hammered out along the way. There's also an allowance for newer projects which I have a hard time understanding (facilities built since 2000 get longer to comply; huh?).

I'm not sure I buy the too soon point though. Canada signed a treaty several years ago that mandated cuts to emmissions. The topic has been on the agenda of public debate since before then. Any large organisation that doesn't have some plans and ideas by now should be looking for new leadership.

Furthermore, who do the companies want to be at the mercy of, the GoA or the GoC (possibly led by Liberals with zero MPs from the region)? Stelmach is making it tough. It has to be tough in order to get Alberta's rapidly expanding industrial sector off the national agenda.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Ludd's opinion on pretty much any subject is basically worthless.

It's worth slightly less than 1 in 14,000,000 or so, assuming he votes federally.

The shut down comment was especially for him.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Starchild


You're so ungrateful to your once and future masters.

Yup.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Although, what global warming will do to rid us of the blights that are Toronto and Calgary remains unclear.

Jealous Edmontonians.

[notyoueither]

Not at all. I'm just willing to do Alberta's part in reducing non-essential pollutants in Canada. Blowing up Calgary sounds like a great way to start.

[DinoDoc]

Wouldn't blowing up Toronto make a bigger dent in Canada's hot air emmissions?

[Solly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Wouldn't blowing up Toronto make a bigger dent in Canada's hot air emmissions?

Think of the aerosols

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Wouldn't blowing up Toronto make a bigger dent in Canada's hot air emmissions?

Calgary is trying to compete with Toronto in all spheres.

Besides, blowing up Calgary would be a good test of the feasability. Once we know we can do it, then we move on to the main project.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs

As the average global temperature rises, it will melt the permafrost underneath both cities, causing them to sink beneath the ground.

You think that Toronto has permafrost? That has to be a joke.

[notyoueither]

Did the rising sea levels drowning Calgary tip you off?

[Dinner]

I figured he meant lake levels.

[DRoseDARs]

Good God, Oerdin, you used to have a sense of humor. What happened?