Alberta fumes over Chretien's promise to ratify Kyoto

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Uhhhmmm.. Tingkai...

Have you ever heard of a tax revolt? It is possible the way Customs and Revenue have structured things.

Every employee is given a form to fill out. That form determines what column of deductions are used for federal tax withheld by the employer. All people have to do is claim the column for crippled, blind people with 10 dependants and all of a sudden the Fed ain't getting much money.

Instant revolution.

You're right. Hadn't thought about that.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
BTW, current estimates have put the Canadian damage tally due to Kyoto at CA$30-CA$40 billion and 450,000 jobs.

If you're going to make up numbers, you should at least make it look more credible. You'll get more suckers to believe this if you claim that it will cost $31.5-41.75 billion and destroy 455,000 jobs. If you use rounded-out numbers, people will realize that these figures have been pulled out of a hat.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
You don't need to work it like that. You can just reduce emissions by giving tax breaks to people who buy more efficient cars, by subsidizing business costs for upgrading machinery, by encouraging Hydro/Wind/Solar powered energy, whatever. You don't need to do Kyoto.

All of these techniques can be used to achieve Kyoto targets, although giving tax breaks is not the best approach. The polluter-pays approach is more effective.

Originally posted by Asher
Alberta's not about to go into Anarchy or a revolution, Tingkai. I think investors know that too.

You're the one blabbering on about seperating. Now that won't cause any uncertainty or scare off investors, now will it.

Originally posted by Asher
No, we don't. I'll need links of "pollution controls" set up like Kyoto, which as it's currently set up right now will do nothing but drive pollution elsewhere for the most part, if you're gonna continue spewing this.

You'll understand when you get older. I've been hearing this crap from big business for decades. Everytime any minor pollution control law is introduced, big business starts crying about how jobs will be lost and the economy will collapse. After so many years of crying wolf, big business has lost its credibility.

Originally posted by Asher
You don't think it will? Why is it propaganda?
Just look at Kyoto. Production will have to be scaled back extensively for Alberta to meet its quota.

The Kyoto agreement does not require Alberta to meet specific targets. It requires Canada as a nation to meet these targets.

The demand for oil may decline as people switch to other energy sources that create less pollution, or if people use things that are more fuel efficient.

But what's wrong with that. Are you suggesting that we should use gas-guzzling, pollution spewing machines in order to keep the Albertan economy afloat?

[blackice]

Most of the money for equalization payments from Alberta come from a slice of Alberta's

You still don't get it, I was talking about all the investments and tax incentives to the oil industry not the transfers.

current estimates have put the Canadian damage

Pie in the sky numbers that do not take into accound jobs created.
Once again did not hear Alberta complaining about the 450,000+ jobs and industries lost to NAFTA.

Albertan economy is becoming more diversified, but now, all you care about is protecting one industry.

On top of that dollar for dollar has the least employment.

particularly when they deal in the oil business

Simple economics tells us if you produce something with less energy there are more profits. This point is mute also.

Or how about his actual proposal that he put forth at numerous Premier's meetings?

All talk even Alberta's own industries have asked Klein to do something, what has he done then? A few weak rules with no teeth and no enforcement. Now he whines, what a flake he knew it was comming so it is just grandstanding again.

We also know that economies keep growing after these laws are enacted.

For that look to China.

You don't need to do Kyoto.

I question if you have ever read the protocal with this statement.

Where am I going wrong

There are tons of other areas to reduce GHG's other than the oil industry. The protocal is for Canada as a nation to reduce the overall GHG's. But once again we are treated to the me me me from the few Albertans that miss the big picture.

which Alberta could simply stop giving back to Ottawa

And in turn pis$ off and hurt every province yup you'll get those feds.

blackice was talking about earlier with a "730M" grant to oil explorations.

It goes well beyond that but keep this part picture going. Taki is right you simply do not understand how things like the transfer payments, income tax breaks etc. work, none.

No, most around here are not willing to endure our economy biting the dust, sorry

First off most do not think like you two, second most agree it is time to do something and are willing to pay. That includes some of your largest oil companies. They understand simple economics, if it cost less energy to produce there are more profits. If you do it in an eco people friendly way you get more investments. Simple really.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
If you're going to make up numbers, you should at least make it look more credible. You'll get more suckers to believe this if you claim that it will cost $31.5-41.75 billion and destroy 455,000 jobs. If you use rounded-out numbers, people will realize that these figures have been pulled out of a hat.

You've never heard these numbers before? It figures you don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_fr...chive/5322.cfm

I know many Albertans hate Ottawa (How could I not after reading stuff from you, NYE, and others), but there is a hell of a jump from hating the Liberals to seperating from Canada.

It's not a simple matter of hating the Liberals, it's a matter of realizing when to get out of an abusive relationship.

What incentive would Alberta have to stay in Canada if they try to force Alberta into implementing Kyoto? There's far more incentive for far more Albertans to join the US or even become an independent country if that happened.

You'll understand when you get older. I've been hearing this crap from big business for decades. Everytime any minor pollution control law is introduced, big business starts crying about how jobs will be lost and the economy will collapse. After so many years of crying wolf, big business has lost its credibility.

You keep saying this, yet nothing like Kyoto has ever been done before. Kyoto is not only a pollution cap, but it's designed in such a way that business and production will simply move to non-Kyoto countries. It's not a pollution cap, it's a pollution transfer -- it's just that you don't want to see it for what it is.

The Kyoto agreement does not require Alberta to meet specific targets. It requires Canada as a nation to meet these targets.

The demand for oil may decline as people switch to other energy sources that create less pollution, or if people use things that are more fuel efficient.

But what's wrong with that. Are you suggesting that we should use gas-guzzling, pollution spewing machines in order to keep the Albertan economy afloat?

Alberta's oil production makes up the majority of Alberta's pollution. Alberta's pollution is a "large" share of the nation's pollution. In order to cut emissions nationwide, Alberta's oil production must drop to meet 1990 levels. It's a simple and unavoidable fact. Sometime after this oil demand may also drop in Canada, but it WON'T in the US -- OUR LARGEST TRADE PARTNER. The end result is effectively tying Alberta's hands behind its back while countries like Ecuador get that developmental funding instead of Alberta.

blackice: You really don't think most people who know what Kyoto will do don't think like us? Most of the people in Alberta still don't know exactly what Kyoto will entail (60 something percent). It will hurt Alberta's economy, an issue you guys seem to love to avoid, and it WILL cost us tons of jobs, and it's something this province was very adamant on not signing in the first place.

It doesn't make the situation any better when Chretien promised consultation with all of the premiers and went ahead and promised ratification without them. Further, he promised ratification before the Canadian government even estimated costs or put forth an implementation proposal!

They're ploughing forward without consulting the provinces, or even the public, with a treaty that will drastically effect how we live. You don't have a problem with this because all you're willing to see is "we'll save lives from less pollution! yay trees". You still seem to avoid the fact that businesses that pollute a lot will simply move since it's cheap and easy and close to do. Canada's pollution share will drop, but in reality all it has done is moved...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
You've never heard these numbers before? It figures you don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_fr...chive/5322.cfm

Don't tell me you believe this scaremongering crap. This is a prime example of how big business invents scary numbers every we try to reduce pollution.

The 450,000 number is a joke. It is based on the assumption that Canada is the only country in the world to implement Kyoto. But as the Globe and Mail reported Kyoto only comes into effect after 40 countries have ratified it. (By the way, the reporter who wrote that story is a good ol' Albertan conservative).

Originally posted by Asher
What incentive would Alberta have to stay in Canada if they try to force Alberta into implementing Kyoto? There's far more incentive for far more Albertans to join the US or even become an independent country if that happened.

There is a simple incentive called love of country, something you know nothing about.

Originally posted by Asher
In order to cut emissions nationwide, Alberta's oil production must drop to meet 1990 levels. It's a simple and unavoidable fact.

As pointed out before, wrong. Reduction of emmissions does not mean that oil production must fall. There are ways to reduce the pollution emitted from burning fossil fuels.

But again, you want to continue polluting the plant just so your family can get rich from oil.

How in the world can you object to the increased use of more fuel-efficient technology? Only you would object to cars that use less fuel?

Originally posted by Asher
Most of the people in Alberta still don't know exactly what Kyoto will entail (60 something percent).

Well, we know one Albertan who doesn't know what Kyoto entails.

Originally posted by Asher
It doesn't make the situation any better when Chretien promised consultation with all of the premiers and went ahead and promised ratification without them.

More lies. Chretien promised to consult with the provinces, and the federal government did consult with the provinces and more consultation is occuring.

Originally posted by Asher
Further, he promised ratification before the Canadian government even estimated costs or put forth an implementation proposal!

More lies. The federal government is getting input on four proposals to implement Kyoto.

Originally posted by Asher
They're ploughing forward without consulting the provinces, or even the public, with a treaty that will drastically effect how we live.

More lies, see above.

Originally posted by Asher
You still seem to avoid the fact that businesses that pollute a lot will simply move since it's cheap and easy and close to do. Canada's pollution share will drop, but in reality all it has done is moved...

Yes, there will be some sleazy businesses that will move to the third world in order to continue polluting like crazy. But many more will seek higher efficiencies and remain in Canada. The net result is a reduction in pollution.

Your approach leads to more pollution. The Kyoto agreement is the first international step to the reduction of pollution.

The choice is simple. Do we want clean air. Obviously, you don't care.

[blackice]

Asher I guess we have different views I see people as well people, not trees.

I also see industries staying well because if it cost less energy to produce a product that means more profits.
I also see the very same oil people you talk about endorsing the plan and have been for some time.

I think the few incidents of pollution scares in Alberta have not wised some people up?

I also see under Nafta that no corporation or company has any qualms about moving to say mexico anyway.

I also see that the oil companies have been concentrating on making thier product more energy efficient anyways. Just now thay have to do it with the environment in mind.

I also see the east coast getting hit and the other western provinces getting hit hard too. Ontario steel mills who have been working on it anyway. The government here is one of the major polluters.

Again direct me to that poll you talk about as the one I saw from Alberta did not say they did not know. It said 60% had heard of koyoto.

I think if people are willing to spend for cleaner air and the government is willing to spend for cleaner air. The corporations will toss in a bit and reap in the profits.

Other than Alberta, Nafta did far more damage than this will ever do. Well look how that has turned out.

As far a consulting the provinces, come on everyone with any sense knew this was comming.

I see this as a good thing the agreement is sound. Let's face it now we have a tech race to clean air

Who ever makes the most gains wins, we all win...

Since moving back here I have lost 15% of my breathing capacity. I tasted the pollution for about 2 years. It's gross I'll say that. One mile away from the skyway bridge and some days you can not see it. I personally know it will cost me bucks but if I can see that bridge everyday or my child can when I am long gone

We can say we did something. Pollution is not new but it has added up and as the saying goes pay me now or pay me later. We all know what later means we are living it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Don't tell me you believe this scaremongering crap. This is a prime example of how big business invents scary numbers every we try to reduce pollution.

The 450,000 number is a joke. It is based on the assumption that Canada is the only country in the world to implement Kyoto. But as the Globe and Mail reported Kyoto only comes into effect after 40 countries have ratified it. (By the way, the reporter who wrote that story is a good ol' Albertan conservative).

Here's a reality check for you: Our largest trade partners, and closest neighbors by FAR, have not ratified Kyoto. Whether all of the tiny nations in Europe do it doesn't have much of an effect on the picture to Canada anyway. The vast majority of the "damage" of "no other country ratifying it" comes from mainly the USA and Mexico, our "neighbors".

There is a simple incentive called love of country, something you know nothing about.

What is there to love? You keep relying on this constantly in any debate this comes up. Not everyone has an irrational "love" for a country they see as screwing with them for decades on end.

As pointed out before, wrong. Reduction of emmissions does not mean that oil production must fall. There are ways to reduce the pollution emitted from burning fossil fuels.

How was this WRONG?
How the hell will you more than halve the pollution rate from Alberta without shutting stuff down, considering (as blackice already said) most companies are already using the modern equipment because it increase their profits anyway.

How in the world can you object to the increased use of more fuel-efficient technology?

When did I ever object to that?
Why won't you ever get it out of your head that Kyoto isn't the only way to reduce emissions and encourage more efficiency? Alberta is tabling legislation now and will be passed this fall to reduce emissions without Kyoto.

More lies. Chretien promised to consult with the provinces, and the federal government did consult with the provinces and more consultation is occuring.

Not so, he said he would consult with the premiers about it. This is public domain, he's shown saying it on TV, and you're saying it's lies? Do they not show that kind of crap out east, or what?

More lies. The federal government is getting input on four proposals to implement Kyoto.

What good is getting "input" when he's already promised to pass it?

Yes, there will be some sleazy businesses that will move to the third world in order to continue polluting like crazy. But many more will seek higher efficiencies and remain in Canada. The net result is a reduction in pollution.

Just how do you figure?
Almost every single oil company in Alberta has operations elsewhere. Right now they're focusing billions and billions of dollars developing Alberta's resources since it's close and convenient. Once you start passing stuff like Kyoto those plans get put on hold, and instead they develop the resources in Venesuala and Ecuador. I know for a fact that ChevronTexaco and Exxon/Esso is going to halt development on the Alberta tarsands after the Athabasca ones are complete next year if Kyoto is passed, and that alone was scheduled to employ 26,000 people within 5 years. I know this because I know people working on the project. It's just not economically viable for them to deal with it, and they're going to develop other countries instead.

The choice is simple. Do we want clean air. Obviously, you don't care.

Same argument, different people.

You still ignore the fact that you're not reducing pollution, you're moving it. To counter that you simply say you've already discussed it before, when you haven't, and you go on to display a complete lack of understanding of how large multinational corporations work.

Why would they stick around and develop here when it's so much more expensive to do so? Most of them WILL leave, most of them are planning on halting development, why do you ignore that?

[Asher]

blackice: This isn't about NAFTA, and I'm struggling to see why you keep whining about NAFTA in a thread about Kyoto.

The same old argument about wanting to stop pollution is tiresome, because you both are ignoring the fact that Alberta is passing its own emission reduction programs this fall. Kyoto is not the only way, and Kyoto is a flawed way.

Alberta doesn't get credit for our clean gas exports, which are HUGE and would make a HUGE difference. It's an irrational decision and Canada should certainly refuse to sign the thing until we do get credit for it.

In fact, Alberta has stated all along that we won't follow it UNLESS we get credit for our clean gas exports.

Instead on actually realizing that perhaps the treaty is flawed, you both are blasting Alberta for it. Alberta's not going to sign something that will cripple the economy (something you both like to ignore as well), particularly when we should be getting credit for our natural gas exports when we're not.

It's a raw deal, and we're not going to implement it unless it's fixed. End of story.

[blackice]

Sorry can't help you there, if you do not get what I posted I am not going to connect the dots for you.

[Uncle Sparky]

We may need a second thread for this ... however, the quickly tap dancing feds stated today that their intent is to approve "a Canadian version of Kyoto". The weasels strike again !!!!!

[Asher]

http://www.canada.com/calgary/story....-7D62A0DE9114}

Kyoto supporters puzzled by Canada's position on emissions treaty

BRUCE CHEADLE

Thursday, September 05, 2002

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada has no intention of meeting the conditions of the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions even though the government hopes to ratify it this fall, Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal confirmed Thursday.

The government's position flabbergasted other signatories to the 1997 accord, appalled environmentalists, puzzled opponents and left even some Liberals scratching their heads.

Dhaliwal was backed up by Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who said Canada should ratify now and worry about implementation later.

"We have a goal, it's to ratify Kyoto and the goal is 2012," Chretien said following a cabinet meeting.

"So we have the time to manoeuvre in a solution that will permit Canada to meet its international obligations."

The manoeuvring has already begun.

Dhaliwal said an implementation plan would be presented at a joint federal-provincial energy and environment ministers meeting in Halifax on Oct. 21.

That plan, he said, will start from the premise that Canada's emission reduction targets for 2012 are now almost 30 per cent less onerous than those laid out in the accord Canada signed.

That's because Canada wants credit for its sale of relatively clean natural gas to the United States, a demand that has been explicitly and repeatedly rejected in negotiations with the other Kyoto signatories.

"Canada will include clean energy exports in our obligations under Kyoto . . . ," Dhaliwal stated. "Our program will be based on (reducing annual emissions by) 170 megatonnes, not 240."

Supporters of Kyoto expressed confusion over the government's position.

"I'm hoping this is part of a negotiating strategy," said John Godfrey, a Toronto Liberal who last month enlisted 96 of 170 government MPs to sign a letter urging ratification of Kyoto as is.

"You'd have to check with Foreign Affairs but I really don't believe you can sign on to an international agreement with an asterisk," said Godfrey. "I don't believe you can have it both ways."

A spokesman for the European Union delegation in Canada said Thursday the accord "is not open for renegotiation."

Roy Christiensen said Canada's position will fail as a negotiating ploy and threatens to undermine the entire protocol.

"Either you're ratifying the accord or you're not. . . . If Canada does this, others may follow Canada's lead and then we no longer have one international agreement."

But Dhaliwal was intransigent about the clean energy credits.

"They can say no, but we've put it on the table and it will continue to stay there," he said.

The contradiction left many questioning whether Canada has any semblance of a plan for implementation or even any expectation the accord will ever be brought into force.

"The only conclusion I can come to . . . is they're convinced Kyoto will never be implemented, that they'll never get the 50 per cent of countries (representing) 50 per cent of emissions, so it will never come into effect," said Dave Chatters, the Canadian Alliance natural resources critic.

"We're going to ratify it but we have no intention of meeting our commitments? That doesn't give you a lot of credibility in the eyes of the world, does it."

Chretien surprised observers earlier this week when he unexpectedly announced in Johannesburg that Canada would ratify the accord by the end of this year. He made no mention of clean energy credits and even the energy industry says it was unaware of the plan.

"It is very hard for us to make any comment," said Pierre Alvarez, the Calgary-based president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

"How the government intends to achieve this remains unclear."

Alvarez said Chretien appears to have set an impossible ratification deadline.

"This issue is so incredibly complex, to expect that it would be tabled, digested, analyzed, amended, debated between (the Oct. 21 meeting in Halifax) and December is highly ambitious. There is a huge gap here in information."

Chretien broadly hinted Thursday that the information gap will not be filled anytime soon.

The prime minister compared implementing Kyoto to slaying the federal deficit. The Liberals couldn't say in 1993 exactly how they would reverse the $40-billion budget shortfall, only that it would happen.

"We didn't have a precise plan," said Chretien. "The government took a series of decisions. This is exactly the same thing."

The subject of clean energy credits is particularly troublesome.

Critics say there's no evidence that Canadian gas exports displace U.S. coal consumption. Besides, Canada isn't proposing that such natural gas credits be offset by debits for export of dirtier Canadian coal and oil.

"I've never bought the (clean energy credit) argument because I never hear anyone talk about the 30 million tonnes of coal we export each year," said Godfrey.

Jamey Heath of Greenpeace said clean energy credits are problematic because they place the environmental benefit in the wrong country.

It is akin to giving Japan a credit because Canadians choose to drive low-emission Toyotas, he said, or Germany credit for wind turbines exported to Canada.

"It's a fundamental rewriting of the entire Kyoto protocol," said Heath. "And it's not going to happen. Europe has been unequivocal on this."

Premier Ralph Klein said it is impossible to determine if Alberta would find Kyoto more acceptable if it included clean energy credits because the federal government hasn't given the province's information on how the plan would work.

"There is a tremendous amount of confusion surrounding this issue," he said.

"The feds say one day they are going to sign the protocol, then we hear they won't sign the protocol unless they get certain agreements . . . on credit trading. So I really don't know. No one from the federal government is really talked to the provinces about what they are actually proposing."

Support for Kyoto appears to decline the more Canadians are told, says poll

MONTREAL (CP) - Eight out of 10 Canadians strongly supported ratification of the Kyoto accord, even though more than half weren't aware of the environmental agreement, a new poll suggests.

A CROP survey released Thursday said 81 per cent of respondents supported the international deal, while nine per cent disagreed. Ten per cent of respondents said they didn't know or refused to answer any of the pollster's questions.

More than half of respondents (51 per cent) said they were not aware of the environmental deal. Westerners were most aware of the deal, while Atlantic Canadians were least informed.

The CROP survey was commissioned by the Quebec Business Centre on the Environment and the Quebec Chamber of Commerce. The survey was conducted among 1,105 Canadians between Aug. 30 and Sept. 2. The results are considered accurate within three percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

It was conducted as the World Summit on Sustainable Development was meeting in Johannesburg. The accord aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent of 1990 levels by 2012.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien vowed Sept. 2 to have a vote in Parliament on the accord by the end of the year. The Canadian Alliance and the governments of Alberta and Newfoundland have denounced the agreement, which they said would devastate the oil industry and the Canadian economy.

The poll suggested that support for the deal decreased as respondents were asked a series of questions about the potential implications on the Canadian economy and American investment.

Seventy-six per cent of respondents favoured the accord even after being reminded that it has been opposed by the United States. Opposition was voiced by 14 per cent of respondents.

A total of 63 per cent of respondents said they agreed with Kyoto despite being told in the question that it "could have a significant negative impact on Canada's economic growth." Twenty-seven per cent said they disagreed with deal.

Support further dropped to 58 per cent after respondents were asked if they favoured ratification "when you consider that the Kyoto protocol could lead to important decreases in investments from the United States to Canada." Thirty-two per cent opposed ratification.

Given a choice between Kyoto and a "Made in Canada" solution to global warming issues, 53 per cent said they favoured an approach that "takes our situation into account." Thirty-seven per cent expressed support for Kyoto in its present form.

An Ekos poll conducted last May suggested two-thirds of Canadians wanted Kyoto ratified.

It also showed that 56 per cent believed the agreement would not have dire financial consequences and cause job losses across the country.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
The vast majority of the "damage" of "no other country ratifying it" comes from mainly the USA and Mexico, our "neighbors".

Where are the facts to back up your wild claim. Do you know how the pie-in-the-sky numbers were calculated?

You've made a claim, now lets see some proof.

Originally posted by Asher
What is there to love? You keep relying on this constantly in any debate this comes up. Not everyone has an irrational "love" for a country they see as screwing with them for decades on end.

You obviously have no concept of patriotism, loyalty, or belonging to a community. All you know is a hatred for Canada.

Originally posted by Asher
How the hell will you more than halve the pollution rate from Alberta without shutting stuff down.

The more you talk, the more you show that you don't know what the Kyoto agreement requires. Kyoto does not require Alberta, or Canada, to reduce emmission levels by 50 per cent.

Originally posted by Asher
What good is getting "input" when he's already promised to pass it?

Again, more proof that you don't understand the agreement. The agreement sets targets. Each country then decides how to achieve these targets. The four proposals going through public consultation deal with how to achieve the targets.

Originally posted by Asher
Once you start passing stuff like Kyoto those plans get put on hold, and instead they develop the resources in Venesuala and Ecuador. I know for a fact that ChevronTexaco and Exxon/Esso is going to halt development on the Alberta tarsands after the Athabasca ones are complete next year if Kyoto is passed, and that alone was scheduled to employ 26,000 people within 5 years. I know this because I know people working on the project. It's just not economically viable for them to deal with it, and they're going to develop other countries instead.

More scaremongering. You first accuse Chretien of not telling the public how Kyoto will be implemented and then you claim that the oil industry knows exactly how it will be affected.

Tell you what. Go and read about the Kyoto agreement with an open mind so that you actually know what you are talking about and then we can continue this discussion.

Your misconception and lack of knowledge about Kyoto is as bad as your lack of knowledge about equalization payments.

[blackice]

Not everyone has an irrational

Speaking of irrational, how do you blame say my aunt here. She has voted pc all her life. She is Canadian and loves the counrty. She hates the governments but loves her country. This goes over most of your very few Alberta hate Canada groups heads.

(as blackice already said) most companies are already using the modern equipment because it increase their profits anyway.

Do not resort to putting words in people mouthes. I said the oil companies have been trying to do it cheaper. I did not say they did it with the environment in mind. They will have to now though good.

Alberta is tabling legislation now and will be passed this fall to reduce emissions without Kyoto.

Certainly better have more teeth and more punch then the last complete waste of time for an environment protection act. That was laughable and most corporations agreed. If you leave it to the corporations it has been shown they do not give one fvck about the environment, profits that's it.

I know for a fact that ChevronTexaco and Exxon/Esso is going to halt development on the Alberta tarsands after the Athabasca ones are complete next year, and that alone was scheduled to employ 26,000 people within 5 years.

Government Policy on GHG Emissions

At the Kyoto Summit in December of 1997, Canada's federal government agreed that Canada would reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by the year 2010. If implemented, this commitment will most certainly impact the $19.1 billion of planned investment in Alberta's oil sands. However, at this time the extent is not known as it is highly dependent on the combination of techniques used to meet the targeted reductions in GHG's. Use of internationally tradable emission permits and of joint implementation projects with developing countries offer the greatest potential for meeting the targets for reducing global GHG's while minimizing the disruption to the economies of energy producing countries like Canada.

http://www.eub.gov.ab.ca/com/Sands/R...w+Paradigm.htm

Don't let this tidbit of information fool you. The link explains why the tarsands may not go forward. Man I hate half a story being passed of like Asher just did as the whole story.
Interesting enough in 1997 everyone knew it was comming. Klein passes a weak not enforced, leave it up to the industry as we are reaping in the rewards anti pollution act. Now he whines give it up Ralph you flake.
If he was not out drinking and playing golf with his buddy's he may have actually done something.

energy efficiency - Energy efficient producers will protect themselves from environmental opponents and lower their vulnerability to pressures for further emissions reductions. We note that the oil sands industry has been among the leaders in Canadian industry in seeking to voluntarily reduce emissions.

That line should be of great interest to you Asher, it shows how full of chit you really are...Hey and guess what people the fvcking Alberta government published this piece of work in 1998. Just goes to show you how full of Chit Klein is and how gulible some people really are.

You still ignore the fact that you're not reducing pollution, you're moving it.

No that is your opinion or take on things.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Where are the facts to back up your wild claim. Do you know how the pie-in-the-sky numbers were calculated?

You've made a claim, now lets see some proof.

I'm going to have to rely on common sense here, Tingkai.
When all of your large tradepartners and only neighbors do not sign it, this makes up the majority of a "worst case" scenerio where almost no one signs it. Whether Bangladesh and Austria sign it are rather moot, since trade with them is very minimal anyway.

The loss of jobs that is associated mostly with businesses leaving -- and those businesses are most likely to leave south, to the US.

You obviously have no concept of patriotism, loyalty, or belonging to a community. All you know is a hatred for Canada.

Not a hatred, a frustration. That's all I know, and that's all a lot of the newer Westerners know, and westerners who remember the 70s and 80s too...I'm seeing a trend here...

Eyeroll all you want, but the more you frustrate Westerners the less likely they'll stay for "national pride".

The more you talk, the more you show that you don't know what the Kyoto agreement requires. Kyoto does not require Alberta, or Canada, to reduce emmission levels by 50 per cent.

It doesn't say it directly. Look at the emission rate increase, nationwide by 2012 it'll ask for a 30% decrease in emissions to 1990 levels, but in Alberta this rate is more than 50%.

Use that noggin', Tingkai...

More scaremongering. You first accuse Chretien of not telling the public how Kyoto will be implemented and then you claim that the oil industry knows exactly how it will be affected.

Feel free to tell us how it will be implemented without discouraging the oil industry.

Do you enjoy not thinking for yourself, or is it a disease of some kind?

Your misconception and lack of knowledge about Kyoto is as bad as your lack of knowledge about equalization payments.

Your persistence on telling me I don't know anything is almost funny, since you seriously insisted that emissions can be reduced to comply with Kyoto without decreasing production.

Face it, Tingkai, you're out of your league. Your arguments are baseless and don't even make logical sense. It all comes down to "I want clean air and I don't care if you say it'll just cause businesses to pollute elsewhere, Kyoto is good lalala I can't hear you".

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Speaking of irrational, how do you blame say my aunt here. She has voted pc all her life. She is Canadian and loves the counrty. She hates the governments but loves her country. This goes over most of your very few Alberta hate Canada groups heads.

When the hell did I blame your aunt, or blame any individual Canadian at all? What are you on?

Don't let this tidbit of information fool you. The link explains why the tarsands may not go forward. Man I hate half a story being passed of like Asher just did as the whole story.
Interesting enough in 1997 everyone knew it was comming. Klein passes a weak not enforced, leave it up to the industry as we are reaping in the rewards anti pollution act. Now he whines give it up Ralph you flake.
If he was not out drinking and playing golf with his buddy's he may have actually done something.

Um, no, I think you're having trouble comprehending.
There are still plans to develop the rest of the tarsands, in fact the new upgrader design has been approved, and they're in negotiation now for the materials and labour needed to begin construction. But if Kyoto is passed, they're putting this on indefinite hold due to economic uncertainty -- investors don't like spending $40B in an area where we don't know what will happen.

energy efficiency - Energy efficient producers will protect themselves from environmental opponents and lower their vulnerability to pressures for further emissions reductions. We note that the oil sands industry has been among the leaders in Canadian industry in seeking to voluntarily reduce emissions.

That line should be of great interest to you Asher, it shows how full of chit you really are...Hey and guess what people the fvcking Alberta government published this piece of work in 1998. Just goes to show you how full of Chit Klein is and how gulible some people really are.

What the HELL are you talking about? It backs up EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID.

Look at it, it tells you right away the industry in Alberta has voluntarily been reducing emissions for years -- THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

You and Tingkai have been the ones saying no one in Alberta cares for the environment, you and Tingkai have been the ones saying that we NEED Kyoto to reduce emissions.

You provided a quote which backed up my opinion then said I was full of **** with it? Are you forgetting which side of the debate you're on, blackice?

[Tingkai]

Keep posting Asher. Everytime you do, you dig yourself deeper into the ground by exposing your own lies, misconceptions and scaremongering. It certainly is amusing, although doesn't it bother you that you get things wrong all the time?

Later days.

[Asher]

http://www.canada.com/calgary/story....-E5017E6F05CB}

Alberta plans first strike
Tories ready to beat feds to the punch

Tom Olsen
Calgary Herald

Thursday, September 05, 2002

Alberta is readying legislation that will outline the pro-vince's strategy on global warming, in the process stressing its commitment to the environment and pre-empting any laws springing from Ottawa's commitment to the Kyoto accord.

Work is in the early stages, but the legislation is being hammered out with input from a multitude of departments, including environment, energy, sustainable resource development and transportation.

Discussions will be held over whether it should include specific targets for emissions reductions, and whether there should be punitive measures for companies that fall short. Early indications are the law will include a strong focus on developing technology for cleaner burning energy, including more sterile ways of using coal.

The province is expected to move toward more incentive-based ways of convincing industry to develop environmentally friendly methods of operating.

Officials from the environment and energy departments are reportedly crafting the legislation. It's intended to be ready for the fall session, typically held in late October or November.

Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor was travelling from South Africa on Wednesday and couldn't be reached for comment.

Taylor is an advocate of funnelling money into producing ways of using energy with a minimum of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

One of the minister's main points of contention with the Kyoto accord is the proposed trading of emissions credits. Nations would receive credits for meeting or exceeding targets, and could sell them to countries that fall short.

Taylor insists that amounts to a transfer of money, with no real decrease in CO2. He proposes money that would be spent on credits go into research.

Alberta Economic Development Minister Mark Norris argued Ottawa won't win its demand to be credited for clean energy exports, so it should forget about Kyoto and embrace Alberta's plan as a starting point for a made-in-Canada solution to global warming.

The Alberta plan commits millions to research, with estimates of up to $500 million over 15 years.

As cleaner-burning energy processes evolve, specific economic sectors -- electricity, oil and gas, transportation, municipalities -- will be urged to sign on to specific reduction targets.

The Kyoto protocol seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Chretien enraged the Alberta government when he used a speech in South Africa on Monday to pledge a Commons ratification vote by the end of the year.

Premier Ralph Klein accused Chretien of smashing a promise by committing to hold a ratification vote before convening a first ministers' meeting.

The province has put into place a strategy to harness the voices of all Kyoto dissenters, including business leaders, politicians and industrial associations, in hopes of convincing the prime minister to back off.

If that doesn't work, Plan B calls for a full-scale challenge under the Constitution.

Michael Ritter, former chief parliamentary counsel to the Alberta legislature, said the province likely wouldn't win its challenge.

"My own opinion is they probably wouldn't prevail, but there are a lot of issues the province can raise that are quite legitimate," Ritter said.

Confusion exists over authority regarding resource development, which is a provincial matter, and shared jurisdiction over the environment.

At the end of the day, the Kyoto accord would likely be placed in the environmental category, he said.

Alberta on Wednesday gained the support of Newfoundland and Labrador in opposing ratification of the Kyoto treaty.

Premier Roger Grimes said his province, expected to produce one-third of Canada's light crude oil by next year, will pay a high price in terms of jobs and economic opportunities if the pact is ratified as is.

The Canadian Alliance also lent its support to Alberta.

"I certainly will support whatever Premier (Ralph) Klein does to stop the agreement because I think it is a bad agreement for the country," Alliance Leader Stephen Harper said during the first day of a caucus retreat on Wednesday.

"I don't think (the federal government) will have the guts to implement it because it will have a severe impact on the economy and ordinary people coast to coast."

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Keep posting Asher. Everytime you do, you dig yourself deeper into the ground by exposing your own lies, misconceptions and scaremongering. It certainly is amusing, although doesn't it bother you that you get things wrong all the time?

Both you and blackice have posted nothing but rhetoric.

And when confronted with real evidence, logic, and even common sense you back down and resort to lots of to hide your stupidity.

Very transparant, Tingkai.

[Tingkai]

I was going to sign off, but that Calgary Herald article is hilarious. What an outstanding piece of journalism. Did you see how the reporter included both sides of the story by quoting people in support of Kyoto. No? Ah, that was missing wasn't it.

A lovely piece of Alberta government propaganda.

[blackice]

Sure Asher Time to give it up, read the article before you make a fool of yourself. Unreal I wouls suggest everyone save a link to that site and a few more I have. Klein will most certainly want these things pulled. It makes him look like the idiot he is, the most damning is in hansards. Ten bucks says when Klein really starts to whine that pollitically savvy Cretien will toss this stuff out for the media to feed on.

Klein will be doing the eat dog doo dance. It will look good on him and sink any chance of a CA win. Done deal.

[Asher]

Tingkai, you do know that CanWest Global owns the Calgary Herald, which is headed up by the family friend of Chretien?

It's wonderful when you dismiss everything that disagrees with you as propaganda, isn't it? Sure makes thing easier, doesn't it?

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Sure Asher Time to give it up, read the article before you make a fool of yourself. Unreal I wouls suggest everyone save a link to that site and a few more I have. Klein will most certainly want these things pulled. It makes him look like the idiot he is, the most damning is in hansards. Ten bucks says when Klein reallyu starts to whine that pollitically savy Cretien will toss this stuff out for the media to feed on.

Klein will be doing the eat dog doo dance. It will look good on him and sink any chance of a CA win. Done deal.

Klein seems to have done a good job. Canada apparently won't ratify Kyoto unless we get our clean energy exports counted. And as I'm sure you know, the Alberta government has no problem with Kyoto if they count those.

Why don't you just stop posting to argue with me and sit down a think for a bit.

Do you agree with:

How developing nations, which use old technology which is far less efficient, are exempt from Kyoto?

How countries can buy and sell energy credits from eachother?

How Canada doesn't get credit for our clean natural gas exports?

How Chretien has openly admitted to "ratify it first, worry about implementation later"?

If you answered no to any one of these, why are you still in favor of ratifying Kyoto? There are other ways we should persue to reducing emissions, Kyoto simply is not it.

End of story.

[blackice]

We are, however, concerned with some of the provisions contained in energy legislation currently before Congress. Canada is bringing these concerns to the attention of American officials and I would like to share four of them with you now.

Canada is concerned that the Senate Democrats' new comprehensive energy bill provides the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to develop-on its own-reliability standards that would apply to the interconnected North American grid.

Canada prefers an approach whereby reliability standards would be developed by an international self-regulating organization, preserving the authority of both American and Canadian regulatory bodies.

Indeed, bills recently introduced in the United States House of Representatives are generally more consistent with the approach preferred by Canada and enjoy wide support in the US industry.

Canada also has concerns about the Renewable Portfolio Standard in the Senate Democrats' bill. While we strongly favour the encouragement of renewable energy, we are concerned about renewable portfolio standards that recognize only US domestic renewable sources for credit and that discriminate against Canadian renewable energy sources. We are also concerned that the proposed Renewable Portfolio Standard in the bill arbitrarily excludes existing hydro as a renewable energy source.

Canada is route neutral when it comes to the construction of pipelines to transmit Alaskan natural gas from Prudhoe Bay south to the 48 states. We hold that commercial parties should determine the scope, time, and route of northern pipeline projects. We do not believe that financial assistance or new legislation is required or appropriate to determine what route any pipeline or pipelines should take.

This does not mean we are neutral as concerns Canadian interests. We wish to see our northern resources, including natural gas, developed in a timely and responsible fashion. We want to see our aboriginal peoples and other northern communities benefit from this development. Action is being taken to ensure regulatory and other processes are co-ordinated to provide project proponents a transparent and effective framework for approvals while ensuring environmental and other important objectives are met.

Canada is concerned that legislation now before Congress could negatively impact the consideration of viable projects prior to industry completing its assessments. We do not believe that this is how energy markets should function.

Last but not least, Canada is concerned about the American withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Nevertheless, we are eager to explore opportunities for cooperation on climate change when the broad outlines of the new American approach are announced.

http://www.csis.org/americas/canada/...501cameron.htm

Read it Asher...Again being a neighbor to them is like sleeping with an elephant.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
We may need a second thread for this ... however, the quickly tap dancing feds stated today that their intent is to approve "a Canadian version of Kyoto". The weasels strike again !!!!!

Who's that? Never seen him before. An old timer too.

Hi. How ya doin? I'm fine.

These threads are something else though.

[blackice]

Article 24

1. This Protocol shall be open for signature and subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States and regional economic integration organizations which are Parties to the Convention. It shall be open for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York from

2. Any regional economic integration organization which becomes a Party to this Protocol without any of its member States being a Party shall be bound by all the obligations under this Protocol. In the case of such organizations, one or more of whose member States is a Party to this Protocol, the organization and its member States shall decide on their respective responsibilities for the performance of their obligations under this Protocol. In such cases, the organization and the member States shall not be entitled to exercise rights under this Protocol concurrently.

3. In their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, regional economic integration organizations shall declare the extent of their competence with respect to the matters governed by this Protocol. These organizations shall also inform the Depositary, who shall in turn inform the Parties, of any substantial modification in the extent of their competence.

Article 25

1. This Protocol shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties included in Annex I which accounted in total for at least 55 per cent of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Parties included in Annex I, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

2. For the purposes of this Article, "the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Parties included in Annex I" means the amount communicated on or before the date of adoption of this Protocol by the Parties included in Annex I in their first national communications submitted in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention.

3. For each State or regional economic integration organization that ratifies, accepts or

approves this Protocol or accedes thereto after the conditions set out in paragraph 1 above for entry into force have been fulfilled, this Protocol shall enter into force on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

4. For the purposes of this Article, any instrument deposited by a regional economic

integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by States members of the organization.

Article 27

1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary.

2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.

3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Protocol.

Thats why this post and the last...Man you need to read more.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
http://www.csis.org/americas/canada/...501cameron.htm

Read it Asher...Again being a neighbor to them is like sleeping with an elephant.

I know I'm stupid, but could you take the time to explain to me why you decided to link to that article? I don't see a point to it, it seems kinda random to me, but surely you must have had a reason?

Thats why this post and the last...Man you need to read more.

Again this seems random? If you're trying to tell me I need to read the protocol, I've already read it and I'm wondering why you keep linking to it?

It's like you're oblivious to everything going on around you, you just pop your head up randomly, copy/paste some stuff from somewhere else that's not relevant, and it's a game of whack-o-mole from that point on with you...

[blackice]

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/PolicyBriefingEng.pdf

They are not the only ones saying this.

[blackice]

Uh huh

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by blackice
Speaking of irrational, how do you blame say my aunt here. She has voted pc all her life. She is Canadian and loves the counrty. She hates the governments but loves her country. This goes over most of your very few Alberta hate Canada groups heads.

I admit. I am Evil incarnate. I live in Alberta. I think Ralph has done a good job of representing us. Sieg...

You however, remain a twit.