[DanSC]

I am interested in the legal questions. An American diplomat's word isn't legally binding under the US Constitution. All treaties must be ratified by the Senate.

[andyt]

China, UN urge Canada to reconsider decision to pull out of Kyoto climate treaty

The world's No. 1 polluter, China, also took Canada to task for abandoning Kyoto.
China's official news agency, Xinhua, published a scathing article Tuesday over Canada's decision to call it quits.
"Canada ... became the first country to pull out of the historic Kyoto Protocol, inescapably scarring the global anti-climate change efforts," Xinhua wrote.

[saturn_656]

China (a country with no obligations under Kyoto) is hardly in a position to take us to task on anything.

Never mind the billions the Chinese are investing in the oil sands, the favourite whipping boy of certain enviro groups.

[2Cdo]

eureka wrote:

Can you think of any instance in history where one country has defied the totality of the rest of the world as Canada is now doing? Canada has sabotaged Man's hope.

That is not hyperbolic. The stakes are that high and it will be too late by the time some future agreement can be made.

Just when I think you might not be one of the biggest morons on the internet you post something that confirms I was wrong about you. You are beyond stupid.

Didn't you have a relative or a friend at the Conference, possibly in the Albanian contingent?

[eureka]

China did have obligations under Kyoto and it met them. It also went much further than its obligations that were only to report and prepare.

Canada is the only country that has made no attempt to meet its obligations.

As for the other "comments," stupidity and ignorance, apparently, know no boundaries.

The whole body of science has said for years that, if we go past that 450 ppm of CO2 concentration then we cannot hold the increase to 2C and that will lead to runaway warming AND catastrophe.

The International Energy Authority, not noted for its environmental advocacy, has said that we have until 2017 to meet that goal.

Most of those scientists who do give us that leeway do it with their fingers crossed. There are as many who say we have already passed that tipping point but we can still prevent the runaway part and set the stage for a return to a climate regime we can tolerate in a couple of hundred years - not a comfortable regime but one that we can adapt to.

And the twits above think they are still in the schoolyard.

[ShepherdsDog]

Quote:

As for the other "comments," stupidity and ignorance, apparently, know no boundaries.

You're proof of that cum stain.

[eureka]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

Quote:

As for the other "comments," stupidity and ignorance, apparently, know no boundaries.

You're proof of that cum stain.

Why don't you just go and have sexual congress with one of your charges!

[peck420]

So Eureka,

If it is such a doomsday scenario, why is it that the Kyoto Accord (Blessed Saviour of the Earth) only wants the single largest polluter to report and monitor? No reductions.

Yet, Canada, a country that produces less than 2% of global emissions, is a pariah?

If Canada reduced our emissions to exactly zero, it would make no difference what so ever to the outcome. So, save the 14 billion and use it for saving our own asses. No?

[ShepherdsDog]

Now you're just projecting sweet cheeks...love you.

edit: Eureka not you Pecks...you're just a tease.

[eureka]

peck420 wrote:

So Eureka,

If it is such a doomsday scenario, why is it that the Kyoto Accord (Blessed Saviour of the Earth) only wants the single largest polluter to report and monitor? No reductions.

Yet, Canada, a country that produces less than 2% of global emissions, is a pariah?

If Canada reduced our emissions to exactly zero, it would make no difference what so ever to the outcome. So, save the 14 billion and use it for saving our own asses. No?

China would be obligated to far more in the next round that Canada has now scuppered. That is what the negotiations that Canada has sabotaged were about. A successor agreement that would take the next and necessary steps.

Canada's 2% makes it the 7th. largest emitter in the world. Bigger than every European country except Germany. Germany is two and one half Canada;s size but emits a total of little more and dropping as it acts to meet its obligations.

So, should every country in Europe stop acting because they emit less than Canada? Should Britain and France and Spain and Italy go about "business as usual" as Canada does?

[peck420]

But you said we only have until 2017.

China can't hope to reduce their emissions in time.

Oh no!......We're Doomed!!!!

If you can't figure out that this is a crock without the world's #1 (China) and #2 (USA) producers on board and reducing NOW, we will never hit the 'required' targets by 2017...or 2020...or 2050.

Harping on what Canada does or doesn't do was moot when Kyoto was signed and is less than moot now.

Kyoto and Canada is akin to me trying to bail out the Titanic with a thimble...and people blaming me for it sinking after.

You can check the math yourself if you want, but if the US and China don't reduce by far more than the Kyoto targets, nothing any other country does will matter.

[Caelon]

eureka wrote:

The whole body of science has said for years that, if we go past that 450 ppm of CO2 concentration then we cannot hold the increase to 2C and that will lead to runaway warming AND catastrophe.

The International Energy Authority, not noted for its environmental advocacy, has said that we have until 2017 to meet that goal.

Could you explain the role of atmospheric water vapour as a green house gas and its relative importance compared to CO2? What is the variability of water vapour and the relative effect of such things as El Nino years versus La Nina years? Would that variability have more or less impact on climate than a rise of CO2 from 350 to 400 ppm?

As for China there is absolutely no chance they will make any significant reduction in total emmissions by 2017. The same applies to India. So I am wondering what global impact would Canada have by lowering its contribution 10% from 2% to say even 1.8% of world CO2? Perhaps the $14 billion would be better spent on reducing particulates and other carcinogens from the local atmosphere.