CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Do you support the Keystone XL?
Poll ended at Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:39 am
Yes  54%  [ 15 ]
No  32%  [ 9 ]
Undecided  4%  [ 1 ]
I don't care, one way or the other  11%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 28

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4247
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:10 pm
 


eureka eureka:
But China and India are taking a very active role in Kyoto. Both are doing far more than was required under Kyoto. It is Canada and the USA that are the worst actors as far as Kyoto requirements go.

I have not checked this particular source lately, but, as of a year or so ago, of the 57 nations that produced more than 90% of the world's CO2 emissions, Saudi Arabia was at the bottom in terms of reduction strategies. Next was Canada and the USA had moved up couple of notches from being just one above Canada before that.

India ranked seventh of the 57 and China was several places above the USA.

But neither China or India was obligated by Kyoto to begone reduction preparations: only to prepare for them in the next round.


So you honestly believe China and India would sign on to a global agreement banning fossil fuels including coal? Keep dreaming. :wink:


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:21 pm
 


They are signed on. It is called Kyoto. It is the USA and Canada that are undermining that Protocol.

Banning is not the right term. Reducing their use until they can be eliminated totally is what it is about.

As I posted, both China and India are already doing far more than the USA. Canada, in spite of its relatively small population is the seventh largest emitter in the world. Higher than any EU country except Germany which with about 150% greater population produces CO2 emissions of only 30% more than Canada - and declining while those of both Canada and the USA continue to increase..


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4247
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:29 pm
 


eureka eureka:
They are signed on. It is called Kyoto. It is the USA and Canada that are undermining that Protocol.

Banning is not the right term. Reducing their use until they can be eliminated totally is what it is about.

As I posted, both China and India are already doing far more than the USA. Canada, in spite of its relatively small population is the seventh largest emitter in the world. Higher than any EU country except Germany which with about 150% greater population produces CO2 emissions of only 30% more than Canada - and declining while those of both Canada and the USA continue to increase..


Between 2004 and 2008 China's CO2 emissions rose by nearly 40%. They are currently the largest consumer of coal in the world. So again, do you honestly believe China would sign a global pact banning fossil fuels? And on the Kyoto thing, it's pretty hard to not to keep a commitment of 0 reductions.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:30 pm
 


You are not reading what I wrote!

Chinas is also installing more solar power and wind power than any other country in the world. In the recent financial meltdown, while the West bailed out its financial sector, China devoted the largest share of its stimulus package to developing renewable energy.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4247
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:48 pm
 


eureka eureka:
You are not reading what I wrote!

Chinas is also installing more solar power and wind power than any other country in the world. In the recent financial meltdown, while the West bailed out its financial sector, China devoted the largest share of its stimulus package to developing renewable energy.


I did read what you wrote. I don't care what kind or how much they've invested in renewable energy the fact remains that China and India would never agree to some sort of global pact banning fossil fuels. That's what I was originally commenting on if you go back in read the previous posts. The only reason I brought Kyoto up was to demonstrate how impossible such a proposition would be, if the world can’t even agree on Kyoto how realistic is a global ban on fossil fuels? The only reason China and India signed on was because they had no commitment to reduce emmisons, had they had some type of commitment I highly doubt they would have signed on.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:16 pm
 


Then you should read about the Kyoto Protocol. You clearly have no idea of what it was about. Every country in the world was "signed on." Canada reneged on its commitments (harper belongs to a Church that does not believe in evolution, either). The US is a signatory but the Republican majority signalled its intention to refuse to ratify the treaty.

Banning is a term that was never a question. Everyu country in this world, including China and India is committed to reducing emissions. China and India were to put there strategies into effect in 2012 in the next Kyoto round in 2012.

Canada sabotaged those agreements at Bali and Copenhagen.. But China and India are still doing more than the share they were committed to.

Stop listening to the spin of the successive environment Ministers of this administration and you will gradually find the truth dawning.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11362
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:45 pm
 


Kyoto doesn't "Ban Fossil Fuels". :roll:


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 955
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:56 pm
 


eureka eureka:
Various posts in this thread by "eureka"


But China and India may not be dedicated for long, and the wording did not strictly dedicate them for the current period, as you have noted yourself. This means that their involvement in Kyoto relies heavily in their ability or willingness to take part in the next period during negotiation and ratification during the next period. The next round is in 2012, and China, to be a part of it, needs to set a date when they plan to reduce CO2 emissions. After signing on to the Kyoto protocol last time, in 2005 China planned to expand their coal plants numbers... by an additional 562 plants by the end of 2012.

That means they planned to increase the amount of coal plants by a third at the time (globally, memory serves) immediately following their dedication to renewable energy, as is perceived. There are currently 620 in China, out of 2300 world wide, already at 27%. The unfortunate reality is that China may have some green washed policies and relies heavily on the ability to expand it's energy production rapidly, as well as continuing to output large amounts of concrete, which is a key point in the Kyoto Protocol. The needs of the people and those in need outweigh that of the environment in developing countries, an unfortunate necessity. I do think the timing is interesting, since it appeared they were setting themselves up for the future in regards for where they would need to cut from, possibly.

While it could be said they have done "more," I would prefer to view it in the aggregate result of their efforts rather than in the ceteris paribus sphere of simply one part of this instance. In the end, overall dedication to Kyoto is not exactly stringent and perhaps not as effective as some statistics could be used to imply, in my own opinion.

So far, China has made no moves, and myself and others expect them not to -- given the plans for negotiations involve the States, I would not be surprised to see them hold out to see if and how the States becomes involved this time around.

India, for the record, also jumped in saying they'd like Kyoto to continue, but refused any further legally binding contracts on them. IE, both nations have not mentioned any actual inclination to reduce emissions overall, and it may be said they plan not to reduce them. In other words, in reading current events, you will discover that in 2011 it looks like both India and China are going to be falling short of what you expect already, which is perhaps problematic.

Also, stretched equivalencies move us no where. The only countries comparable to us are the developed arctic countries, since they are the only ones with heating requirements, and to be frank, of those, none of them work out to have the same transportation requirements which are imposed on a nation the size of Canada, especially a nation with a large amount of farming, manufacturing and such going on. If you look at the top ten producers, you will notice a correlation to geographic size, incidentally, and a bend to the north for the developed nations on the list.

Ironically, I also noted that some nations with cool environments, such as Iceland, has specific clauses which allowed them to increase their GHG by 10% over this period, meaning caps were on what they increased to, not what they actually were. However, this is more an interesting factoid about a nation in a not too distant situation.

The unfortunate reality is that a lot of statistics in this discussion are going to be tortured statistics for various reasons, although no doubt a forerunner is poor reporting on the part of observers, reporters and politicians. For example, the figure that America makes up 30% of all emissions sounds horrendous until we find out the original value corresponds to the amount contributed between 1900-2005 -- suddenly, we are not looking at annual values, as they are often used, but long-term values. China is 8% by THOSE figures, which means by annual figures they are FAR larger. Today, China IS the top emitter of GHG, at 17%. The EU is 11%. Canada is, in reality, in ninth at 2%.

An interesting side note is that, if memory serves, Canada, Russia and Japan may not be involved in the next set of Kyoto negotiations (three Northern nations, two with significant transportation issues and a third with a thirst for concrete and difficult road projects), however, there is a strong push to get the US involved, especially given the administration's promises during election to significantly reduce emissions of GHG by 2020.

While I am skeptical about China's and India's placement and some of the things I mentioned here, I want to mention that this does not reflect my opinion on this topic beyond the major points brought up here. My overall stance on Kyoto is a moot point in this context and would only serve to potentially colour the views of this post for some posters on both sides of the debate, and would prefer not to cause that issue. Thanks!

-----------

As for my opinion on the Keystone, I'm relatively disinclined to share my opinion currently since I have not formulated a strong opinion, much like bootslegga is still a bit on the fence.

I would like to note, given the fungible nature of oil and oil-derived products, that I'd prefer developed nations to make use of oil produced in nations with equality for women, minorities and homosexuals than I would in other nations, especially if those nations with those things are relatively close for transport and hence not only generally cheaper but also potentially safer given the shorter distance, although as always feel free to correct me. I figure the possibility of some minor and fairly easily contained problems on land are better than another oil spill at sea, which we all grew up seeing.


Last edited by Khar on Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:15 pm
 


Scott Yee Scott Yee:
Alternative Energy:
1) Creates jobs.
Nope, it creates negative employment. I suggest looking at the experiences of France, Italy and Spain so far.

Scott Yee Scott Yee:
2) Is better for the environment, therefore we will benefit from it. (air pollution)
False assumption. While there is no doubt about them not creating air pollution, it's pretty hard to discern any real negative effects until there's an abundance of solar/wind or whatever power plants. Pollution comes in a variety of forms don't forget.
However, land use is bound to become a major issue.

Scott Yee Scott Yee:
3) It has to be done eventually, and the longer it takes, the harder it will be to over-come the environmental damage we are doing to our planet.
I think yer underestimating the resiliency of our planet.

Scott Yee Scott Yee:
If the ignorant keep holding this off, we will only end up killing ourselves. And if we do, then human beings have proven not to be worthy to survive as a species.

I wouldn't sweat it. The odds are significantly higher that a naturally occurring ELE will wipe us out before our own stupidity does, nuclear war excepted.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 32
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:28 am
 


dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:
Scott, the only thing the UN is capable of passing is "passing the buck". Do you honestly think countries like China and India would go for a more expensive alternative considering they wouldn't even step up and take a more active role in Kyoto?

These are all great warm and fuzzy ideas but they're not overly realistic and I personally think that is part of the problem with many people on the environmental side. They set unrealistic goals. There may be a day when we achieve some of the goals you've mentioned but it will happen ever so slowly and in very small steps.

I looked into how Trans Canada was making out today and they've already started construction on the water crossings and wouldn't ya know it Michels got the contract. I wonder if Trans Canada plans on using any Canadian contractors? OJ and Waschuk should automatically be given a couple of spreads on the Canadian side. Could you imagine the reaction in the US if a big Canadian contractor went down south to build part of this pipeline.

I know, and competently agree with what you said. When I said that, I was referring to something else, which I will not get into here, as this is about the environment. But yes, it will take an international law, (which the GA does not have the power to pass, and which countries can't even agree, to disagree) to save our world.

If Texas is an environmental waste land, it has zero affect on the rest of the world. But if all of America, Canada, India, China, etc, become an environmental waste land, then it does affect the rest of the world.

That is why, we need an international environmental law. Which nationalists will bitch about. But countries continue to either not agree to something, or when they do, they can back out of it, because there is no punishment, if they do.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 32
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:30 am
 


eureka eureka:
But China and India are taking a very active role in Kyoto. Both are doing far more than was required under Kyoto. It is Canada and the USA that are the worst actors as far as Kyoto requirements go.

I have not checked this particular source lately, but, as of a year or so ago, of the 57 nations that produced more than 90% of the world's CO2 emissions, Saudi Arabia was at the bottom in terms of reduction strategies. Next was Canada and the USA had moved up couple of notches from being just one above Canada before that.

India ranked seventh of the 57 and China was several places above the USA.

But neither China or India was obligated by Kyoto to begone reduction preparations: only to prepare for them in the next round.

We Canadians are environmental pigs. Waste water like there's no tomorrow, and have high Co2 emissions. But that is per-capita.

India and China, still cause more harm to the environment than us, because of their population size, etc, etc.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 32
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:45 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Scott Yee Scott Yee:
Alternative Energy: 1) Creates jobs.
Nope, it creates negative employment. I suggest looking at the experiences of France, Italy and Spain so far.


So because they failed at job creation, it means nobody else can possibly succeed at it? So you're saying, if the government gave home owners a grant to have their house retro-fitted to use solar power, that it would create negative jobs?

Even if at the end of the day, overall, it turns out to be true, it is still the right thing to do. Conservatives scream and yell about job creation, and make jobs the #1 issue, no matter what. Well... expect for national security.


Scott Yee Scott Yee:
2) Is better for the environment, therefore we will benefit from it. (air pollution)
False assumption. While there is no doubt about them not creating air pollution, it's pretty hard to discern any real negative effects until there's an abundance of solar/wind or whatever power plants. Pollution comes in a variety of forms don't forget.
However, land use is bound to become a major issue.[/quote]

The use of geothermal plants, etc, around the world, is better for the environment, period. And yes, I am taking about there being an abundance of it. Because 1 solar powered car, will do dick all. And wind farms, cannot just be out anywhere, so "land use" will not be a major issue everywhere, just in areas where residents don't want it.

I could swear, there was a report a few years back, where there was an excellent place to build a wind farm in BC, that could produce 50% or so of BC's power. And, was out of the way, so people wouldn't bitch about it. Guess not, because it didn't happen.

Scott Yee Scott Yee:
3) It has to be done eventually, and the longer it takes, the harder it will be to over-come the environmental damage we are doing to our planet.
I think yer underestimating the resiliency of our planet.[/quote]

And I think yer underestimating the resiliency of human beings to cause damage to our planet.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
Profile
Posts: 32460
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:04 am
 


Scott Yee Scott Yee:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Scott Yee Scott Yee:
Alternative Energy: 1) Creates jobs.
Nope, it creates negative employment. I suggest looking at the experiences of France, Italy and Spain so far.


So because they failed at job creation, it means nobody else can possibly succeed at it? So you're saying, if the government gave home owners a grant to have their house retro-fitted to use solar power, that it would create negative jobs?

Even if at the end of the day, overall, it turns out to be true, it is still the right thing to do. Conservatives scream and yell about job creation, and make jobs the #1 issue, no matter what. Well... expect for national security.

No you made a claim that it created jobs. He provided evidence to the contrary and now you want to be "right" by saying its good for the planet. That's disingenuous.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:50 am
 


Thanks for a thoughtful post, Khar.

However, I think you are wrong on some points. The claim that Canada as a Northern nation with great distances to cover does not really stand up to examination. It is no more Northern than some European countries and has less need for heating than some large areas where the continental climates make for long, cold winters.

The transportation has also been a splinter rather than a crutch in the claim. More than 80% of Canadians live in a few urban conglomerations and more than 80% of transportation occurs within those. Years ago, I did a comparison of Canada's transportation with a few other countries. Spain was one with greater transportation use.

Then, China is closing old, inefficient coal and steel plants as fast as it is building new ones. It is installing, as we write about this, as much solar as the rest of the world combined (although there is some indication that America is waking up and planning large additions).

The USA, like Canada, is not planning substantial reductions in emissions by 2020. The reductions planned, and in Canada, pretended, are in the order of 17% against 2006 totals. That would be about 30% above their Kyoto obligations.

It is true that Canada and Japan may not be involved in the next round of Kyoto and that round may fail altogether because of the intransigence of North America and Europe finally saying that it will not carry the whole burden longer. We are enteering a very dangerous time in this as World Trade agreements could collapse along with Kyoto. Europe has threatened a tariff on trade with nations that do not take action that is commensurate with that in Europe.

The annual proportions, btw, are now about 24% for the USA and 25% for China. China's per capita is less than one fourth of that in the USA and India's is one tenth.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22272
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:40 am
 


eureka eureka:
However, I think you are wrong on some points. The claim that Canada as a Northern nation with great distances to cover does not really stand up to examination. It is no more Northern than some European countries and has less need for heating than some large areas where the continental climates make for long, cold winters.

The transportation has also been a splinter rather than a crutch in the claim. More than 80% of Canadians live in a few urban conglomerations and more than 80% of transportation occurs within those. Years ago, I did a comparison of Canada's transportation with a few other countries. Spain was one with greater transportation use.


Does not stand up to examination? I guess your globe must be very different from mine.

On mine, Canada is the 2nd largest nation on the planet (and subject to fairly harsh winters by most Western standards of measurement), while northern nations in Europe are far smaller (maybe about as big as one or two provinces, and usually with far less population than Canada too). The only 'European' country that even compares to Canada in size and scope of winter is Russia - and I question whether it is really an European nation, given that most of its landmass resides in Asia. Yes, parts of Scandinavia are as far north (or further) than Canada, but it is warmed by the Atlantic current and most of Europe has, on average, far milder winters than most of Canada does. On average, most major Canadian cities experience a far harsher winter than Oslo, Helsinki or Stockholm (Vancouver being the exception).

Transportation is also far from a splinter - all it takes is a short drive in the middle of January to realize that. While most Canadians do live in urban areas, the food they consume, the energy they use, the goods they use are all made elsewhere and must be transported (usually by truck, but also by train or plane) to where they live. I don't know about where you are from, but the produce in local grocery stores usually comes the US, Mexico or Central/South America. Not only that, but business travel remains brisk year round, and for example, the highway from Edmonton to Calgary has almost as much traffic in January as it does in July (the key difference being a lack of RVs and motorcycles).


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.