And then there was one...

[Arrian]

Most of Canada’s population is on or near the east or west coasts, the St Lawrence and the Great Lakes so I call your argument false

And how does one travel or send goods between the two coasts? Hmm.

It makes little sense to pretend that the UK has advantages wrt to this sort of thing as compared to Canada (or the US, for that matter). Stick to comparing Canada to Scandanavian countries. Even then, well, size matters.

Better mass transit
Better insulation
Alternative energy sources

Pretending that a country like Canada (large, cold, with great gaps between population centers) can just figuratively snap its fingers and comply with Kyoto...

-Arrian

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

And this is different from say Sweden and Norway how? Just build better insulated houses that use energy more efficiently. So, false again.

In Quebec, the price of electricity is: 5.1 cent by KW/H

5.1 CENT!!!!
god that's cheap...

I think you now know why our house are so... inefficient.

I would vote for any politician who will propose to rise the price of electricity;

We are mainly exporting our electricity by exporting our production of aluminum; which is stupid.

We would be better to sell the electricity directly to USA and Ontario. And stop subsidizing the production of aluminum.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Because Canada is stupid and does not use its national rail infrastructure for freight?

Actually the UK is very poor on that too. Most of Canada’s population is on or near the east or west coasts, the St Lawrence and the Great Lakes so I call your argument false.

Doesn't matter if most is, how does it get there? How do goods from Japan get from Vancouver to Toronto?

Canada has a national rail infrastructure, in that it's got a track that goes from coast to coast. It's also incredibly busy as it is, and is HARDLY sufficient for the volume of goods being moved. Further, that ONLY works for strict east/west movement and for cities on the track. Canada's population is very spread out.

Whose fault is that!!?

Even small cities in the UK have comprehensive bus networks – it’s hardly difficult! Oh wait, Toronto is hell-bent on getting crappy trams! False – stupidly so!

Toronto's public transit is decent. The problem you don't comprehend is the UK has a huge population density "advantage". In Canada, with all this space, population is spread out more. This means with less people per KM^2, mass transit service is non-existent or infrequent. Further, this isn't about whose "fault" it is, the fact is this is a major issue in many cities and it won't be magically fixed in time for Kyoto to matter.

A necessary evil – but then I am willing to bet that air travel emissions in the UK are far higher per capita than Canada! So false again.

Why the hell would you guess that? Compare car ownership rates. Compare distance travelled (car, truck, bus, or air...) The UK would be far lower than Canada.

Yeah, of false arguments that fail to stand up to scrutiny.

They stand up just fine, you choose to ignore them.

[Caligastia]

Hasn't it been conceded that even if Kyoto were followed by everyone who signed, and the US, - it wouldn't make much difference anyway?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
And how does one travel or send goods between the two coasts? Hmm.

I'm a European, but apparently I obviously know more about N. American geography than you - I even gave you clues!

Thunder Bay (in the heart of Canada) is a major shipping and rail freight hub - but instead of using these energy efficient means of transport, Canada is opting for more and more trucks...

It makes little sense to pretend that the UK has advantages wrt to this sort of thing as compared to Canada (or the US, for that matter). Stick to comparing Canada to Scandanavian countries. Even then, well, size matters.

Better mass transit
Better insulation
Alternative energy sources

All things Canada could do if it bothered to lift its fingers...

Take alternative energy: The Canucks are whining like pussies about the US' protectionist timber policies - when it could supply all the carbon neutral energy it needs to meet its Kyoto obligations with biomass from its forests, all locally supplied and safeguarding or even creating jobs... Nah, too much like hard work...

Pretending that a country like Canada (large, cold, with great gaps between population centers) can just figuratively snap its fingers and comply with Kyoto...

Pretending that Canada can't do a damned thing and has to magically comply with Kyoto overnight...

Canada's Kyoto obligations are modest compared to even the UK's and yet they can't even be bothered doing that. But then, it does now have a conservative govt so I guess that explains it...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Asher

Doesn't matter if most is, how does it get there? How do goods from Japan get from Vancouver to Toronto?

Train.

Canada has a national rail infrastructure, in that it's got a track that goes from coast to coast. It's also incredibly busy as it is, and is HARDLY sufficient for the volume of goods being moved.

Are you sure? I was given to understand that rail freight was diminishing quite rapidly due to more and more freight being trucked.

Further, that ONLY works for strict east/west movement and for cities on the track. Canada's population is very spread out.

Yeah, very spread out along the same east/west corridor that the railway route travels...

Toronto's public transit is decent. The problem you don't comprehend is the UK has a huge population density "advantage". In Canada, with all this space, population is spread out more. This means with less people per KM^2, mass transit service is non-existent or infrequent.

I comprehend that your average city has a dense population by its very definition... I know Calgary is essentially hickville but the plain fact is it has a population of > 1million so it is densely populated. But it has a **** transit system. In fact more of Canada's population live in large cities than does the UK's (shock!) ... Spread out, my arse!

Further, this isn't about whose "fault" it is, the fact is this is a major issue in many cities and it won't be magically fixed in time for Kyoto to matter.

But surely something that should be addressed as a matter of urgency! Canada's obligations for Kyoto are half that of the UK's and yet the UK is able to meet theirs almost twice over. And by European standards we are a lazy, complacent country whose govt hardly cares about Kyoto...

Why the hell would you guess that? Compare car ownership rates. Compare distance travelled (car, truck, bus, or air...) The UK would be far lower than Canada.

I did a thread about this a while back and owned all the US posters because they didn't realise how many cars are owned and the distance travelled - it was a really good thread!

They stand up just fine, you choose to ignore them.

About the only thing that seems to stand up is that Canadians are lazy ****s who don't give a **** about the environment...

[Asher]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I'm a European, but apparently I obviously know more about N. American geography than you - I even gave you clues!

Thunder Bay (in the heart of Canada) is a major shipping and rail freight hub - but instead of using these energy efficient means of transport, Canada is opting for more and more trucks...

The heart of Canada is Thunder Bay? Seriously?

Major shipping and rail freight hub? I guess if you use "major" loosely.

All things Canada could do if it bothered to lift its fingers...

Take alternative energy: The Canucks are whining like pussies about the US' protectionist timber policies - when it could supply all the carbon neutral energy it needs to meet its Kyoto obligations with biomass from its forests, all locally supplied and safeguarding or even creating jobs... Nah, too much like hard work...

"Carbon neutral" is bull****, and I'm sure you know it too.

As for alternative energy -- what do you suggest? There's lots of windfarms going up, but they can only do so much. The public transit trains in Calgary are 100% windpowered (through wind farms), can any transit system in the UK make such a claim? Busses are going natural gas or electric hybrids to save on fuel there, or biodiesel on older busses.

There are genuine efforts being made here, but they can't be made nearly in time for Kyoto to make any sense.

Pretending that Canada can't do a damned thing and has to magically comply with Kyoto overnight...

Pretending that Canada isn't doing anything.

The thing is it'll be impossible for Canada to do what Kyoto asks in Kyoto's timeframe. Anyone with the most basic understanding of where Canada's pollution comes from and what can be done to change that could comprehend.

Canada's Kyoto obligations are modest compared to even the UK's and yet they can't even be bothered doing that. But then, it does now have a conservative govt so I guess that explains it...

1) Define Canada's obligations
2) Define UK's obligations
3) Define Canada's growth rate (population)
4) Define UK's growth rate (population)

Before you continue...please.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Train.

You clearly know that the transcanada trains are already operating at capacity. Right? No?

Are you sure? I was given to understand that rail freight was diminishing quite rapidly due to more and more freight being trucked.

Where the hell do you get that? Source that, or stop lying.

Yeah, very spread out along the same east/west corridor that the railway route travels...

You seem to think Canada lives only in a straight horizontal line. A lot do, but not all.

Further, you seem to think the transcanada rail network has infinite capacity. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

I comprehend that your average city has a dense population by its very definition... I know Calgary is essentially hickville but the plain fact is it has a population of > 1million so it is densely populated. But it has a **** transit system. In fact more of Canada's population live in large cities than does the UK's (shock!) ... Spread out, my arse!

Uh.

Not sure you comprehend the meaning of "density".
Calgary: 1,252.3 people per km^2.
London: 4,761 people per km^2

But surely something that should be addressed as a matter of urgency! Canada's obligations for Kyoto are half that of the UK's and yet the UK is able to meet theirs almost twice over. And by European standards we are a lazy, complacent country whose govt hardly cares about Kyoto...

Define "half of that of the UK", and again do research as to the available infrastructure. Also, for the 3rd time, source your "UK is doing twice what Kyoto wants" stuff.

[Asher]

Did some brief research for you. This explains why you hadn't included the numbers.

Canada's target: 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.
In 2004, they were 27% above 1990 levels, meaning a reduction of 32% is needed by 2012 to meet Kyoto obligations.

UK target: 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2010 -- they had already fallen nearly 15% between 1990 and 2005, but this has been sneaking upwards. Gee, I wonder why it's easy for the UK to meet it. They don't even need to do anything, compared to a massive 1/3 cut in all greenhouse gasses in 5 years.

Also contrary to your claim that they're going to "more than double" their obligation or whatever (a 40% reduction passed the 1990 levels by 2010 -- amazing!):

Although the UK's overall greenhouse gas emissions have fallen, annual net carbon dioxide emissions have risen by around 2% since The Labour Party came to power in 1997. As a result it now seems highly unlikely that the Government will be able to honour its manifesto pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by the year 2010

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070131a.htm

[Wezil]

Trucks.

More trucks.

[Asher]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4399323.stm

UK could 'miss Kyoto gas target'
By Richard Black
BBC environment correspondent

Stansted Airport
Transport is a growing emissions sector
The UK's emissions of greenhouse gases rose between 2003 and 2004, according to provisional government data.

The emissions last year were 1.5% above those in 2003, and are now higher than at any time since the Labour government came to power in 1997.

For the first time, the data also suggests Britain could miss its target set down under the Kyoto Protocol.

Opposition politicians and green groups have accused the government of losing control of greenhouse gases.

"The increase in carbon emissions and greenhouse gases shows the failure of Labour's strategy for tackling climate change," said Liberal Democrat shadow environment secretary Norman Baker, in a statement.

"The latest figures mean that we may actually miss our targets under the Kyoto Protocol."

The Kyoto treaty commits Britain to keeping annual greenhouse emissions during the period 2008-2012 to 12.5% below 1990 levels.

In 2002, the UK was 14.4% below 1990 levels, and in 2003, 13.4% below.

The provisional figures for 2004 show emissions are 12.6% below - just 0.1% underneath the Kyoto figure.

'Radical changes'

The government says the main reason for the increase is growing energy demand; statistics show that emissions rose from industry, transport and the domestic sector.

"The policy package they have isn't working," Bryony Worthington, climate change campaigner for Friends of the Earth UK, told the BBC News website.

"They need to make radical changes to it, a completely different approach, much more top-down management of emissions across the economy.

"If they don't do that, there's every sign that these trends will continue and we will miss our Kyoto targets."

Prime Minister Tony Blair and Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett have already admitted that Britain will not meet a unilateral target contained in Labour's 1997 election manifesto of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from1990 levels by 2010.

These latest government figures show CO2 emissions in 2004 were just 4.2% below 1990 levels.

'Not good enough'

Environment Minister Elliot Morley was pressed on Wednesday about Britain's record on meeting its international commitments at the launch of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a comprehensive review of the state of the planet.

He acknowledged the UK needed to work harder to reduce its emissions but emphasised the progress the country had made compared with other nations.

"Whilst it's true there has been an increase in CO2 as a result of increased coal burn because of increased gas prices - in effect, since 1997, CO2 has been basically stable despite 17% [economic] growth," Mr Morley said.

"That's not good enough for us in this country - we have to do better than that - but it's a better record than any other industrial country globally."

Where are the articles on how the UK is going to reach 24% below 1990 levels, Mobius? Source them or admit you lied.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Asher

The heart of Canada is Thunder Bay? Seriously?

Major shipping and rail freight hub? I guess if you use "major" loosely.

It's halfway between the east and west coasts in the inhabited strip - I'm willing to bet that it is virtually in the geographic centre of Canada in terms of where the population is...

And yes, it is a major shipping and rail freight hub. Just because it is being used at massively under capacity because of trucks is my point...

"Carbon neutral" is bull****, and I'm sure you know it too.

No it is not, it is just very difficult to achieve in today's world because of our massive reliance on fossil fuels...

Any part of Canada close to forestry could easily utilise renewable biomass for energy requirements right down to the humble fire place - that is carbon neutral. The problem is in the manufacture and transport of the wood as fuel - but it is still a **** of a lot better than the gas guzzling alternative that Asher would rather we stick to...

Besides, grow a bunch of wheat (gee, doesn't Canada grow a lot of that already!?) make it into bioethanol and you're sorted on that front anyway...

As for alternative energy -- what do you suggest? There's lots of windfarms going up, but they can only do so much.

Biomass! Huge tracts of Canada is covered by forests or wheat fields. But you can't argue against that, so you're avoiding addressing it. It's OK, I understand why...

The public transit trains in Calgary are 100% windpowered (through wind farms), can any transit system in the UK make such a claim? Busses are going natural gas or electric hybrids to save on fuel there, or biodiesel on older busses.

It's a good start.

There are genuine efforts being made here, but they can't be made nearly in time for Kyoto to make any sense.

Even if it can't, which it probably can't because your country is obviously not trying hard enough - it's still better than not trying at all.

Pretending that Canada isn't doing anything.

Indeed, at least Canada accepts that something must be done, even if it is dragging its feet.

The thing is it'll be impossible for Canada to do what Kyoto asks in Kyoto's timeframe. Anyone with the most basic understanding of where Canada's pollution comes from and what can be done to change that could comprehend.

Now yes - because Canada made insufficient effort in the 1st place!

Anyone with the most basic understanding of where Canada's pollution comes from and what can be done to change that could comprehend knows that it would be relatively easy to make significant inroads into reducing energy wastage...

Every household could make modest steps to change their devices to more energy efficient ones, e.g. lightbulbs etc. Properly insulate homes, turn devices off instead of on standby, and save a lot of money in the process - so it's not like you have to be a hippie tree hugger or anything...

In the UK these sorts of measures are being advertised in the media all the time for example.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Asher
You clearly know that the transcanada trains are already operating at capacity. Right? No?

Funny, all I can see is a steady decline in their use...

Where the hell do you get that? Source that, or stop lying.

Source your claims and I'll source mine...

You seem to think Canada lives only in a straight horizontal line. A lot do, but not all.

It does doesn't it? The US border with Canada is essentially horizontal last time I looked and given about 75% of the Canadian pop lives within a mere 150kms of the US border, well looks like I'm kinda right there...

Not sure you comprehend the meaning of "density".
Calgary: 1,252.3 people per km^2.
London: 4,761 people per km^2

Try Toronto Vs London instead. And besides, are you telling me that 1,252.3 per km^2 is not enough to have a decent public transport system?

Which is the main point I'm trying to make - most of Canada's population is sufficiently concentrated to have efficient local transport networks, but it doesn't because it's crap.

Define "half of that of the UK", and again do research as to the available infrastructure. Also, for the 3rd time, source your "UK is doing twice what Kyoto wants" stuff.

12.5% to 6%. If you're this ignorant about Canada's obligations to Kyoto, imagine how ignorant the average Canadian must be and then see why your country refuses even to attempt the modest targets it agreed to. Look it up yourself - you clearly need the education...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Asher
Did some brief research for you. This explains why you hadn't included the numbers.

Canada's target: 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.
In 2004, they were 27% above 1990 levels, meaning a reduction of 32% is needed by 2012 to meet Kyoto obligations.

UK target: 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2010 -- they had already fallen nearly 15% between 1990 and 2005, but this has been sneaking upwards. Gee, I wonder why it's easy for the UK to meet it. They don't even need to do anything, compared to a massive 1/3 cut in all greenhouse gasses in 5 years.

Oh you did look it up. Clever boy. *pats Asher on the head

Also contrary to your claim that they're going to "more than double" their obligation or whatever (a 40% reduction passed the 1990 levels by 2010 -- amazing!):

I didn't say that.

And quite where you plucked those figures from...?

Although the UK's overall greenhouse gas emissions have fallen, annual net carbon dioxide emissions have risen by around 2% since The Labour Party came to power in 1997. As a result it now seems highly unlikely that the Government will be able to honour its manifesto pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by the year 2010

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070131a.htm

Yeah, you will note I used the present tense.

As I've mentioned a few times already, our govt couldn't give a **** - but remember, 20% is the almost double I'm talking about and we will still hit the Kyoto requirement.

So, really, thanks for proving what I have been saying all along, even when I've been giving you a hard time.

You're a pal.

[Spec]

Freight in Canada is being hauled by more and more trucks every year. The reason for that is because its faster.
In todays market, poeple need their products faster and faster because companies are not into keeping big inventory. Inventory costs space and money.

We only have 2 rail frate companies in Canada, CP and CN. CP works with a trucking company named Fastfrate and CN deals with the other truck companies. Since there are only 2 train companies, transfers are limited, so it takes about 10 days for a skid to get from Montreal to BC. So companies like Sameday, Reimer and such buy trucks to do their own trailing from east to west and they do it in 5 days. Saving 5 days for 10$ more a skid on an LTL is a joke.

Thats why there is more and more trucking every year.

Spec.