Canada, the new asshat?

[Hauldren Collider]

Besides, global warming would be awesome for Canada. You guys could actually experience what us folks down south call "summer".

[Aeson]

Canada is small enough that our emissions are a ridiculously tiny portion of the world GHG, and the real problem is in India and China.

You're forgetting about US

[giblets]

Let's put this climate talk **** in perspective.

If Canada ceased to exist and had zero emissions, the world would be in the exact same boat it is today. And it would be in the exact same boat 100 years from now.

Canada is small enough that our emissions are a ridiculously tiny portion of the world GHG, and the real problem is in India and China. Not only because of their growth, but because they don't have the same environmental regulations Canada has. The hysteria over Kyoto is by people who are too stupid to comprehend how the world works.

These people are asking tens or hundreds of thousands of Canadians to lose their jobs, they're asking every Canadian to pay far more to heat their house in the winter, they're asking for the government to raise taxes so we can send billions of dollars to other nations in a flawed credit system. And for what? A 0.002% decrease in global GHG?

How does that make sense to anyone with a head on their shoulders?

Yeah, because all of the world's small countries shouldn't do anything about global warming. Only big countries like the USA should be expected to cut back

[DinoDoc]

Yeah, because all of the world's small countries shouldn't do anything about global warming. Only big countries like the USA should be expected to cut back

If it doesn't include the largest emitters, what would be the point of Canada's noble sacrifice of their economy?

[Fake Boris]

I imagine Oncle Boris' understanding of Petroleum Engineering falls somewhere between his understanding of Quantum Physics and his understanding of Economics. Note: That's not actually a very wide range.

I, too, imagine that you are a worthless little imbecile.

Whatever way you break it down, oil sands exploitation is 2-3 times as dirty as quality conventional crude.

At the current rate of development, the oil sands industry ALONE will generate more emissions than the ENTIRE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC within 10 years.

Asher's answer is that Alberta is somehow "saving" Canada, which is patently not true. He will never, ever come to admit it, despite being told repeatedly, but a higher C$ hurts Ontario and Quebec more than oil money helps them. Of course you won't admit either, as you are an insignificant ivory bathroom libertarian.

NYE's best answer was to come up with Venezuela, whose oil is KNOWN to be comparably dirty to Canadian oil. How does that justify anything we do is beyond me.

Have a nice day, ****.

[Traianvs]

If it doesn't include the largest emitters, what would be the point of Canada's noble sacrifice of their economy?

If you ask Indians and Chinese to review their economic development, then you should also question your own production and consumption patterns. AFAIK western consumption impact is many times that of your average Chinese. Critical self-scrutiny is severely lacking today.

Everyone is pointing fingers at each other. In the end it's the same Copenhagen discussion once again (then the US, now Canada). It's up to the developed countries to make the first move. If China and India understand you're not rigging the treaty they'll join up too.

As it happens, China is the largest investor in clean energy in the world right now. Whenever they integrate policies in their five year plans, you can be sure they'll implement them. However, why would they agree to a binding treaty if you've got freeloading flipfloppers such as the US, Canada or Japan.

It's easy to reject a treaty like that, but to drop out, not providing an alternative proposition is douchebaggery. In the end, without a binding treaty, the bill to compensate climate change impact around the world will only get more and more expensive. It's folly, plain and simple.

[Hauldren Collider]

Nobody has yet managed to explain why Canada would WANT global warming to stop. I imagine it would be quite good for them.

[Traianvs]

Kind of a lame troll really, but wat about refugees fleeing their flooded or arid lands then? Canada has plenty of room to accomodate them of course, but the cost would be rather steep nonetheless. Country's quite big, so building a fence won't be very easy I bet.

[giblets]

I imagine that Canada's present infrastructure is suited to its present climate.

[a.kitman]

also some people people aret pussys and can stand a bit of cold to enjoy some beautiful and funny snow.

[rah]

HC
Please be PC and call it climate change and not global warming.

[Hauldren Collider]

Kind of a lame troll really, but wat about refugees fleeing their flooded or arid lands then? Canada has plenty of room to accomodate them of course, but the cost would be rather steep nonetheless. Country's quite big, so building a fence won't be very easy I bet.

Oh yes. I can just imagine all the American refugees which would absolutely flee their home country , but also burden the Canadian government with their poverty.

[MOBIUS]

While everyone uses all this as an excuse to burn more CO2, THIS is happening...

Personally I don't really care about the subject any more when so many countries around the world have decided that the 'solution' is to hit the accelerator as they approach the chasm, it's not like we actually stand any chance of averting anything as we've already hit the feedbacks and most people don't even know it yet! So why not join them: Last year was the most I've flown in a year (12) and next year's already looking just as busy. I figure best get them in before it starts getting too expensive to fly!

Actually, I think the next few decades are going to be rather interesting and I've already done a lot to 'insulate' myself from it all...

Bring it on, I say!

[notyoueither]

Whatever way you break it down, oil sands exploitation is 2-3 times as dirty as quality conventional crude.

For GHG, it is ~15 to 25% higher than conventional oil for the US market.

http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/files/ene_10070101a.pdf

Note the higher impact of shale oil, 50-75%. That is what the US is beginning to exploit domestically, BTW.

Asher's answer is that Alberta is somehow "saving" Canada, which is patently not true. He will never, ever come to admit it, despite being told repeatedly, but a higher C$ hurts Ontario and Quebec more than oil money helps them. Of course you won't admit either, as you are an insignificant ivory bathroom libertarian.

Actually, the higher dollar should help Central Canadian industry to modernise and gain efficiency so that they may be more competitive, instead of screwing the entire population with a low dollar policy and consequent higher consumer prices. Shouldn't it?

This would be a first time for you arguing the intrests of industrialists over the population, wouldn't it?

NYE's best answer was to come up with Venezuela, whose oil is KNOWN to be comparably dirty to Canadian oil. How does that justify anything we do is beyond me.

Yeah, two of the top five national sources for US petroleum.

http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

How about you address the point? What oil will the US market turn to if Canadian oil sands are not developed?

Incidently, the presence of the oil sands in a first world, liberal democracy has resulted in a lot of R&D into ways to reduce environmental (including GHG emission) effects.

Would you rather have the major development of this technology happen in a regulated, closely observed environment, or where they never will give a damn what the consequences are?

[Fake Boris]

I have always made it clear that I do not oppose tar sands as much as a fossil fuels economy.

As for the value of the dollar, who wants to be trading in a currency whose value does not reflect productivity?

Smacks on the face: teach you to endure pain.