Propaganda or Informative? Alberta's campaign on the Kyoto Protocol

[Asher]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Funny, I didn;t meant to be condescending the fist time, but when I'm forced to repeat the exact same post twice because you didn;t read it the first time, it is hard to leave condescension out...

...

I do hope you see the connection, or rather lack of connection here. The Kyoto doesn't give a rats ass about how much fossil fuel you export. It is the consumer who pays, that is it.

Why don't you read the thread and play a game of "connect the ideas expressed to the poster", then ask yourself why the hell you're telling me this.

I never talked anything about exporting fossil fuels and counting towards Kyoto, I'm talking about how Kyoto doesn't count the natural gas we export as a clean burning gas. Different issues completely.

Now, would world demand drop, and consequently Albertas production? Well, hopefully. But again, using this as an argument reduces to "I'd rather make a buck now than save the earth".

The concept that worries everyone here isn't the lack of demand, it's the idea that the production is simply going to move. And it's true.

[blackice]

Nothing new here Asher has called everyone every name in the book, kids.

Ok Asher if you can answer this with some sort of maturity....what happened to the all canada plan to reduce pollution KILL"EM klien agree to several years back?

Second your points are completely mute because once again you have no idea what the koyoto agreement is about, none obviously.

You have not read it obviously or you would know more than you type.

Third Taki is right read the KILL"EM klien again, I really think your brainwashed.

Canada has many choices under koyoto killing the oil industry is not even close to one of them grab a grip.

Opec has no intention of reducing the cost of oil one, two for every hostile move these opec nations represent oil goes up in price hello you there? So tell me how can tis stop oil production, pure bs.

KILL"EM klien is a fool and could give a rat's as$ about you or you kids ok you bother's kids.

You ignore the facts already presented to you to harp the master puppet tripe, with no real concept of the protocal or reality.

Ok insult away it makes for humorus reading anyway...

Now feed on this:

As of January 1999, U.S. generating capacity at electric utilities was 687 gigawatts (GW). U.S. power demand continues to increase rapidly, with EIA forecasting 1.8% average annual growth in electricity sales through 2020. This increase will require a significant addition in generating capacity, as many as 1,300 new power plants may be needed over the next 20 years. if recent trends continue, it is likely that the vast majority of new plants will be natural-gas-fired, with oil accounting for less than 1% of power generation by 2020.

Now would if that has anything to do with new tar sands being stopped? Big pictures allude you Asher because your limited to belief and alberta news...

KILL"EM klien has two things in mind, election and pension. Look at the polls man very few albertans think as you do. Must be your closeness to the industry and money? What do you think?

Sources please for India and China both producing less than 2% of GHG emissions each please

Covered last time you ignored it why post it again.

Is Canada using more energy for heating per capita than say, Sweden, Norway, Finland, or Iceland?

Canada ranks fourth per population Finland 8th the rest are not even in the top ten.

Now 90% of alberta's electrical power comes from coal, instead of whining why not just change it to natural gas powered? Ontario is doing just that, whithout the whinning. Since the coal power generation is one huge percent of the ghg emissions seems like a smart investment for the people of alberta with the billions thier oil has made them.

Since the tar sands are one of the worlds largest polluters I think thier whinning is greed based and they could give one iota of your health. Let them rot or find a non polluting cheaper way to produce.
LESS ENERGY TO PRODUCE MEANS MORE PROFITS they have been doing it for years. Now they have to do it with less pollution poor babies.

It could cost Alberta

No facts here just assuptions

Every Albertan will face increased prices for energy related products.

In other words we as your government will not pad the hit with a reduction in taxes and or rebates for YOUR OIL, because we care....

higher prices, higher taxes and a devastated economy.

Remeber it could cost this and screw you it's your resources but we will not spread it around to the people.

negative impact on programs and services.

So Instead of taking even 2% gnp of the profits we make for you to add to your services, screw you...

Look Asher read the damn thing it is based on maybe's this you call facts?
This thing is designed to scare the hell out of people like you that have not read the protocal and have no clue.

But keep going it's humorous...ignorance is bliss KILL"EM klien counts on it....

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
Nothing new here Asher has called everyone every name in the book, kids.

Ok Asher if you can answer this with some sort of maturity....what happened to the all canada plan to reduce pollution KILL"EM klien agree to several years back?

I have no idea what you're talking about but I'll assume you'll tell me with a bunch of overly verbose links?

Second your points are completely mute

The term is moot, baby.

because once again you have no idea what the koyoto agreement is about, none obviously.

You mean it's not about reducing porn in the classroom?

Opec has no intention of reducing the cost of oil

Hey cool, brownie points for you for stating the bloody obvious for no reason.

two for every hostile move these opec nations represent oil goes up in price hello you there?

You're racking up the points today!

So tell me how can tis stop oil production, pure bs.

Um. It's simple really. I don't see what you don't get -- I'm not talking about my speculations, I'm telling you point blank WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITHOUT A DOUBT. The major US oil companies looking to further develop the Alberta oilsands are putting the project on indefinite hold if Kyoto passes due to uncertainty around how the federal government is eventually going to come down on those oil companies. Instead they're going to develop some offshore sites off the coast of Australia. This is not speculation, this is pure unadulterated fact.

Now would if that has anything to do with new tar sands being stopped? Big pictures allude you Asher because your limited to belief and alberta news...

I don't know why you're having problems dealing with the basic fact, but you're always full of surprising. If Kyoto passes, the tarsand development is restricted to what's been done in Athabasca only. The future projects will be shelved for a later date in favor of Australian coast projects.

Covered last time you ignored it why post it again.

Bullshit, post the figures NOW. There's no way in hell China produces less than 2% of the world's GHGs, same with India.

Now 90% of alberta's electrical power comes from coal, instead of whining why not just change it to natural gas powered?

Because the natural gas is mostly being sent to the western US to fund stuff there? It's not like we have extra natural gas sitting around.

Ontario is doing just that, whithout the whinning.

Ontario isn't selling its natural gas for huge profits elsewhere. Don't you get it? Alberta still primarily burns coal since it's abundant here, and we can sell our natural gas for far higher. The natural gas we send away reduces pollution elsewhere anyway. Think of the big picture.

No facts here just assuptions

Fact: At the very least, if Kyoto passes, upfront 26,000 jobs will be lost (or rather not created) and billions of dollars of investment will be lost as the big oil companies develop elsewhere first.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
I have no idea, what is your point?

Glonkie, perhaps you should learn something about energy efficiency before you argue? It could only help you know.

Originally posted by Asher

Everyone uses natural gas here for heating -- you got a better idea smartass?

You miss the point entirely. It is not about the sort of fuel you use but rather, let me repeat it for the n^th time: energy efficiency. Maybe, say, turn the thermostat to 18°centigrade and wear thicker clothes? What about better insulation, double paned glasses, and using solar energy for some things?

Originally posted by Asher
Shoo. I will never understand why you would bother reading a Canadian thread.

Do you have stealth country turned on again?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Glonkie, perhaps you should learn something about energy efficiency before you argue? It could only help you know.

So in your world someone who doesn't know how much energy per capita Finland uses for heating is someone who doesn't know a thing about energy efficiency...thanks man.

You miss the point entirely. It is not about the sort of fuel you use but rather, let me repeat it for the n^th time: energy efficiency. Maybe, say, turn the thermostat to 18°centigrade and wear thicker clothes? What about better insulation, double paned glasses, and using solar energy for some things?

Double paned glass? Better insulation? What a NOVEL CONCEPT. That we already do.
Solar energy we dont' really do, it's not really viable in Alberta. We do, however, have Wind power. The LRT is 100% wind-powered now, and for a premium through Enmax (a local power vendor -- yes it's privatized here), you can get Wind power to your house as well.

[Asher]

More information on Wind power in the Calgary area (available since 1998): http://www.enmax.com/Energy/Resident...ax/default.htm

And how the C-Train is 100% emission free with Wind power (1st of its kind in North America): http://www.calgarytransit.com/enviro...de_d_wind.html

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Yes, and I've never said they were the same thing. Do you realize that even in 1990 the levels were "too high"? Of course you do. This allows for MASSIVE DAMAGE TO OUR WORLD! The only logical solution is to ditch all forms of energy and go back to the stoneage.

Do I really have to explain this to you Asher? I guess I do.

Producing less pollution tomorrow is better than producing more pollution.

It's that simple. Yes, we produced a lot of pollution in 1990, but we produced less than we do today. So obviously, if pollution levels drop to 1990 level, we will be better off than if pollution continues to increase.

Originally posted by Asher
What people want to hear is how we're going to reduce pollution without economic impact

Wrong.

A poll done in June found that almost 80 per cent of Canadians supported Kyoto even if it meant a 1 per cent decrease in GDP.

About 70 per cent of Canadians supported Kyoto even if it meant a 5 per cent decrease in GDP. (Ralphie claims Kyoto will cost 5 per cent GDP.)

Clearly, Canadians are willing to pay money and accept lower GDP in return for less pollution.

Originally posted by Asher
No one has denied such a thing.
But the problem is, the use of it rises faster than it becomes more efficient. Basic concept, no?
Cars now pollute FAR less than they did in 1930, but overall pollution is higher.

Come on. Your 1930 comparison is stupid. Look at car ownership between 1980 and 2000. It is increasing, but only because the population is increasing. The car ownership market is relatively mature.

Meanwhile, we have lots of inexpensive cars that achieve high gas mileage.

The problem is we have lots of city idiots buying gas-guzzling SUVs when they don't need them.

A tax on SUVs and higher gas pump prices would lead to people buying more fuel efficient cars and that would reduce air pollution.

As well, mandatory emmissions tests significantly reduce air pollution by forcing people to properly maintain their cars.

There is lot of things that can be done to reduce pollution from vehicles.

Originally posted by Asher
Price elasticity of supply, yes yes, but you're not applying it correctly. That bullshit doesn't work with oil, since it's not a "free market".

No, you're the one who doesn't understand economics.

Oil does not operate on free market principles. As a result there are economic rents. If the government imposes pollution controls that increase production costs then economic rents decline, but oil companies could still make a profit.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Producing less pollution tomorrow is better than producing more pollution.

Yes, and I'd also love to eliminate the murder rate.

Do you not understand that most of the polluting nations in the world did not sign Kyoto, which means for the most part it's simply a pollution transfer?

The odd "good" thing may happen like the increased popularity of hybrid cars, but that can be accomplished WITHOUT Kyoto via government incentive. Think outside of Kyoto, it ain't the only way.

Wrong.

A poll done in June found that almost 80 per cent of Canadians supported Kyoto even if it meant a 1 per cent decrease in GDP.

1 percent being the keyword.
Laughable, totally laughable.

About 70 per cent of Canadians supported Kyoto even if it meant a 5 per cent decrease in GDP. (Ralphie claims Kyoto will cost 5 per cent GDP.)

And guess where that GDP decrease is going to be concentrated? Hint: It's where less than 30% of Canada live.

And provide a link please.

Come on. Your 1930 comparison is stupid. Look at car ownership between 1980 and 2000. It is increasing, but only because the population is increasing. The car ownership market is relatively mature.

What does it matter if population is increasing? You don't care that the production capacity has tremendously increased since 1990, you just want emissions to those levels -- but suddenly you're crying about the population going up since 1930 for car usage? Haha.

A tax on SUVs and higher gas pump prices would lead to people buying more fuel efficient cars and that would reduce air pollution.

And this requires Kyoto how?

As well, mandatory emmissions tests significantly reduce air pollution by forcing people to properly maintain their cars.

And this requires Kyoto how?

There is lot of things that can be done to reduce pollution from vehicles.

And this requires Kyoto how?

No, you're the one who doesn't understand economics.

Oil does not operate on free market principles. As a result there are economic rents. If the government imposes pollution controls that increase production costs then economic rents decline, but oil companies could still make a profit.

And your name is Tingkai. And ________?
No one is arguing oil companies can't make a profit at all. What are you on boy?

The problem is investment will decrease or even halt in energy here. Fact fact fact. It's the whole point of the treaty anyway.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
A summary of what's going to happen, and what Tingkai has conveniently kept ignoring/dismissing:

You definitely have your head up your butt.

Every single point you have mentioned has been proven wrong many times by me and by others.

The only one ignoring things is you Asher.

Originally posted by Asher

Canada is the only major energy-exporting nation to pledge support for Kyoto. How does this NOT put Canada at a huge disadvantage when attracting investment to our energy industry? Do be thorough.

See previous messages. This has been dealt with extensively (e.g. nearness to market, economic rents, absence of a true free market, etc.)

Originally posted by Asher

Canada is NOT going to receive credit for natural gas exports as a clean gas because "majority rules" and the majority of other countries benefit from us needing to buy credits from them, so we don't get credit. That's fair, ain't it?

This has been dealt with before. Sure, natural gas exports should receive credits, however, just because the agreement is not perfect, doesn't mean you throw out the whole thing. This is an international agreement. Compromise is necessary.

Originally posted by Asher

The only way to curb pollution to 1990 levels is to curb production to around 1990 levels -- There have not been huge leaps in technology in the past dozen years which drastically reduce pollution.

False. See previous posts.

Originally posted by Asher

Most consumers will not bend over substantially to support Kyoto -- they'll expect the big nasty corporations to do it. Or more accurately, that's who Ottawa will go after to meet the quota without angering most Canadians.

False. See previous posts.

Originally posted by Asher

Pollution levels in 1990 were still "bad", and the largest polluters in the world aren't going to sign Kyoto. What are we doing, again? Cripple Canada's economy so we can "reduce" pollution from Canada by a couple tenths of a percent, when the reality is that pollution has just moved to another country?

The bit about 1990 is a red herring. The rest is false. The world's second largest polluter is Japan and they're signing. The EU nations are onboard. The only country that has rejected it is the United States.

The idea that pollution will move to another country is false, as stated in previous threads.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You definitely have your head up your butt.

Every single point you have mentioned has been proven wrong many times by me and by others.

The only one ignoring things is you Asher.

You have certainly not proven anything wrong at all. In fact it only shows your arrogance since most of it is speculation. And you seem to think you've proven it wrong? Get over yourself.

This has been dealt with before. Sure, natural gas exports should receive credits, however, just because the agreement is not perfect, doesn't mean you throw out the whole thing. This is an international agreement. Compromise is necessary.

It's an international agreement between a minority of polluters, what's the point?

False. See previous posts.

False. See previous posts.

What an obvious cop-out. Can't you be more creative? The least you could do is smoke and mirrors a la blackice, it's at least entertaining.

The bit about 1990 is a red herring. The rest is false. The world's second largest polluter is Japan and they're signing. The EU nations are onboard. The only country that has rejected it is the United States.

You seriously think the US is the only country that rejected it? You're out of it, man.

The idea that pollution will move to another country is false, as stated in previous threads.

Stated is right -- but you've yet to do anything but state it's false.

I know for a fact one major project is moving to Australia, which (contrary to what you just said) has refused to sign Kyoto.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
blah, blah, blah.

You're not saying anything new Asher. Pretty much everything you have said is wrong. And you continue to make yourself look foolish.

It's boring.

Here's the simple truth of the matter: A vast majority of Canadians want to reduce pollution even if there is an economic cost.

You don't like Kyoto. Well propose something that will REDUCE pollution.

[Asher]

How about the government putting high taxes on SUVs and giving rebates to hybrid vehicles?
How about the government subsidizing costs for things like windpower?
How about the government giving more tax breaks to companies who go out of their way to do better to the environment?
How about the government doing home inspections and providing advice on how to make homes more energy efficient?

You said yourself, there's tons of ways.

[Tingkai]

Finally, you recognize that there are many ways to reduce air pollution. Amazing.

And all of those steps can be used to achieve the Kyoto agreement without destroying our competitive advantages.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Finally, you recognize that there are many ways to reduce air pollution. Amazing.

I've been saying all along there are PLENTY of other ways to do it than Kyoto, you've been sorta plugging your ears and screaming "you don't care, you just don't care!".

And all of those steps can be used to achieve the Kyoto agreement without destroying our competitive advantages.

They won't bring us to 1990 levels. Come on, you know it deep down...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
I've been saying all along there are PLENTY of other ways to do it than Kyoto, you've been sorta plugging your ears and screaming "you don't care, you just don't care!".

Asher, you still don't get it.

All of the suggestion you made can be used to meet the Kyoto agreement targets. If you acknowledge that these pollution control methods exist, and that they are economically viable then must be able to admit that we can work towards the Kyoto goals without destroying the economy.

Originally posted by Asher
They won't bring us to 1990 levels.

Prove it or stop talking.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Asher, you still don't get it.

All of the suggestion you made can be used to meet the Kyoto agreement targets.

I'm sure they can. But there's no guarantee they can, and in fact they likely won't.

If you acknowledge that these pollution control methods exist, and that they are economically viable then must be able to admit that we can work towards the Kyoto goals without destroying the economy.

THOSE would be. And I support them fully.
I do NOT support ratifying Kyoto because it FORCES us to meet those quotas under the treaty. Chances are what I mentioned above won't do it, and foreign investors don't like the risk of it, and they reduce investment. It's really simple.

If you REALLY think doing what I mentioned will help us reach Kyoto -- why don't we do it anyway? We don't NEED to sign Kyoto, I really don't give a flying **** what Japan thinks about us because we refused to sign it but met it anyway. In fact I don't think anyone would care, aside from the European countries who'd be pissed off that we don't buy credits from them.

Prove it or stop talking.

Common sense says it can't. You're the one that wants to introduce radical legislation to do it, you prove it'll do it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Common sense says it can't.

Oh well, how can you argue with that brilliant comment?

If this was 1900, you'd be saying "common sense says men can't fly."
If this was 1950, you'd be saying "common sense says we can't put man into space."
If this was 1965, you'd be saying "common sense says we can't land on the moon."

You claim that it is impossible to achieve the Kyoto targets. Prove it or admit the fact that you don't know whether it is possible.

Originally posted by Asher
If you REALLY think doing what I mentioned will help us reach Kyoto -- why don't we do it anyway? We don't NEED to sign Kyoto, I really don't give a flying **** what Japan thinks about us because we refused to sign it but met it anyway.

This is why you're a waste of time. You don't even understand the agreement. Your comments indicate you think the Japanese created this agreement and then went around trying to find people to sign it.

And then there are your contradictions.

You say that Kyoto doesn't force Canada to comply and then you say it does.

You say we shouldn't sign Kyoto because we'll be the only ones to do it, and then you say we should create a made-in-Canada pollution control plan that obviously we would be the only ones to implement.

You claim that attempts to reduce pollution will scare away investors and reduce Canada's competitiveness, and then you admit that we can reduce pollution without destorying the economy.

You claim that we can only slow down pollution growth, but not reduce it, and then you claim we can reduce it.



Before you respond to this message, try to:
1) read and understand the Kyoto agreement;
2) read and understand why the Alberta plan allows more pollution;
3) make an attempt to eliminate the contradictions in your arguments;
4) admit all of the misinformation you have posted here; and
5) open your mind and accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher They won't bring us to 1990 levels.

Prove it or stop talking.

You are in favour of introducing radical legislation. The onus is on you and Jean to show how the legislation will be implemented and the targets met.

When Jean explains exactly how he plans on going about this thing, then you can shush Asher. Not before.

Oh I forgot, he likely sinks on this issue. I still can't see the Ontario caucus going along with a nebulous plan that could devestate the economy of the entire country if done wrong.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Oh well, how can you argue with that brilliant comment?

Well now that we're in agreement...

You claim that it is impossible to achieve the Kyoto targets. Prove it or admit the fact that you don't know whether it is possible.

NOT LIKELY != IMPOSSIBLE
You're the one that's supporting legislation that would change the current situation, the burden of proof is on you. Think, Tingkai, think.

This is why you're a waste of time.

So you're a masochist, then?

You don't even understand the agreement. Your comments indicate you think the Japanese created this agreement and then went around trying to find people to sign it.

I have no idea what you're smoking, but I think you're using too much of it now. You've constantly used strawmen and red herrings and you don't get bored of it, even when they're not effective. I'm not biting, you know better.

You say that Kyoto doesn't force Canada to comply and then you say it does.

Another strawman.
No one can force Canada to comply to Kyoto.
But certain idiots want to do it for the "glory of the nation" (in the eyes of others) so we're not "shamed". That'd be you, and Chretien's party.

You say we shouldn't sign Kyoto because we'll be the only ones to do it, and then you say we should create a made-in-Canada pollution control plan that obviously we would be the only ones to implement.

No, I say we shouldn't sign Kyoto because of the people who DON'T sign it screw us over. It's not worth it to sign an international agreement only agreed to by a small number of nations -- let's do our own thing and reduce pollution on our own terms.

Get off your pathetic little horse about how we MUST DO THIS TOGETHER as a world. It's not happening.

You claim that attempts to reduce pollution will scare away investors and reduce Canada's competitiveness, and then you admit that we can reduce pollution without destorying the economy.

I claim Kyoto will scare away investors and reduce Canada's competitiveness, our own policies will not. They're not the same thing. Kyoto is set up around European countries and Japan as a basis, which are fundamentally different than Canada.

You claim that we can only slow down pollution growth, but not reduce it, and then you claim we can reduce it.

Holy ****, Tingkai...
We can increase efficiency, as I've said before. We can reduce pollution per car, per house, etc. The problem is WE ARE GROWING. And this growth will surely outgrow the pollution efficiency benefits.

THINK THINK THINK THINK THINK THINK

This is how it ALWAYS worked in the past -- why is it different now?

Before you respond to this message, try to:
1) read and understand the Kyoto agreement;
2) read and understand why the Alberta plan allows more pollution;
3) make an attempt to eliminate the contradictions in your arguments;
4) admit all of the misinformation you have posted here; and
5) open your mind and accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

**** you, Tingkai, you haven't a clue what you're even reading for my arguments.

It's SO clear that you're confused about my position.
The possibilites are these:
1) I'm using words that are too large for you
2) You are high on something and not comprehending
3) You are intentionally not comprehending
4) You are actually a Chretien login
5) You just don't like my position so you intentionally try to confuse others with your posts which are full of strawmen and redherrings
6) You employ strawmen and redherrings because it's the only way you can leave the argument thinking you've done something.

Take your pick.

[CyberGnu]

I never talked anything about exporting fossil fuels and counting towards Kyoto, I'm talking about how Kyoto doesn't count the natural gas we export as a clean burning gas. Different issues completely.

Pray tell, what do you mean with 'clean burning gas'?

When we talk about emissions, we only talk about tons of emitted CO2. Is methane better than oil? It sure is. And why is that?

Hmm, I intended that as a rhetorical question, but maybe it would be better if I left it open.

Asher, why IS methane better than coal?


But none of this addresses the issue. You (and the alberta 'plan') both claims that Canada would be forced to buy emission credits from, say, Russia. You have so far utterly failed to show how that is connected to the production of oil from the tar sands.

Canada would be required to buy credits if Canada wishes to EMIT more CO2 than they did in 1990. But they could increase production a billion times, and it wouldn't make any difference.

[Tingkai]

I point out your contradicting statements and then you try to deny your contradiction by making a contradicting statement.

Which of your statements do you actually believe?

Originally posted by Asher
I do NOT support ratifying Kyoto because it FORCES us to meet those quotas under the treaty.

Originally posted by Asher
No one can force Canada to comply to Kyoto.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
But none of this addresses the issue. You (and the alberta 'plan') both claims that Canada would be forced to buy emission credits from, say, Russia. You have so far utterly failed to show how that is connected to the production of oil from the tar sands.

Canada would be required to buy credits if Canada wishes to EMIT more CO2 than they did in 1990. But they could increase production a billion times, and it wouldn't make any difference.

The oil sands are non polluting? Would you care to come back when you can say something other than through your hat?

http://www.sierralegal.org/newslette...30_apr2002.pdf

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You are in favour of introducing radical legislation. The onus is on you and Jean to show how the legislation will be implemented and the targets met.

When Jean explains exactly how he plans on going about this thing, then you can shush Asher. Not before.

Once again, the Kyoto agreement sets specific targets for reducing pollution. Setting targets and stating exactly how we reach those goals can be, and often are done at different times.

When JFK set the goal of going the moon, he didn't have the specific details of how they were going to do it.

Asher claims, and you seem to be suggesting, that the burden of proof is on me to prove that we can reach the desired targets.

The agreement clearly provides a method for doing so. Countries that cannot reach the target by themselves can buy "credits."

In other words, if we find that there is a high economic cost to achieving the targets then we can take the cheaper route of buying credits.

Therefore, the Kyoto targets are obtainable. Either we reach the targets by ourselves or we move partway towards our goal and then buy credits.

Now Asher claims that it is impossible. It's time for him to provide some facts to back up his statement.

[notyoueither]

More reading for you Gnu.

http://www.pcf.ab.ca/quick_answers/O...tal_effect.asp

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Therefore, the Kyoto targets are obtainable. Either we reach the targets by ourselves or we move partway towards our goal and then buy credits.

Now Asher claims that it is impossible. It's time for him to provide some facts to back up his statement.

Neither Asher nor I have said we could not buy credits. What we have both said is that increased costs, like having to buy credits, may price us out of some markets.

As a resource extraction based economy, we should be very concerned with that.

[notyoueither]

And more for Gnu.

http://indrep.nisto.com/arc/2000/04/suncor.html

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Neither Asher nor I have said we could not buy credits. What we have both said is that increased costs, like having to buy credits, may price us out of some markets.

As a resource extraction based economy, we should be very concerned with that.

WRT Alberta being a resource extraction based economy, that is bound to change in the long-run (and Asher claims it already has changed). The Albertan economy will become more and more service-oriented simply because it is a developed economy. Trying to prop up the demand for oil doesn't make sense.

Equally, I don't think it makes sense to force the oil industry to install more pollution control devices. I haven't seen anything that indicates that this one industry is a major source of pollution.

What we should be targeting is pollution from vehicles, particularly family-owned vehicles.

I would propose:
1) an tax on all cars with gas mileage below 30 mpg;
2) the creation of toll zones for inner cities, similar to what Singapore has done; to reduce traffic in these areas and the congestion it creates;
3) a tax on gas pump prices that increase by 1 cent every six months;
4) Making emission testing of all vehicles mandatory throughout Canada;
5) Persuade insurance companies to get rid of the discount given for insuring a second vehicle;
6) a tax on unnecessary gas-power items, such as lawn mowers and leaf blowers.
7) Eliminating all fuel subsidies.
8) a tax on air travel.
9) tax rebates for vehicles that have gas mileage above 50 mpg.
10) increased subsidies for transit systems.
11) tax rebates for vehicles powered by natural gas and hybrid vehicles.
12) require all taxis to be powered by natural gas.
13) a small tax on electricity targeting home use with increases on an annual basis.

All of these items should be phased in over at least five years to reduce the economic shock.

These are just some of the solutions that we can achieve.

[notyoueither]

I meant all of Canada.

[notyoueither]

Your proposals are nice, but I'll stay out of the cabs, thank you.

The real problem is the amount of bull sh** flying because we do not really know how Jean plans to implement this. Maybe soon it will all be clear and we can bring out the hockey sticks for real.

[CyberGnu]

Well, let's see if I've done the math right. Alberta is currently flaring roughly 1.8 billion m3 of methane per year. This corresponds to 32 million tons of CO2.

(http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/Ces_Web/_d...target=english)

Alberta also produces about 100 million tons of oil, 80% of which is bitumen. 80 million tons of oil corresponds to ~250 million tons of CO2.

However, alberta also produces 154 billion m3 of natural gas, and it is not clear how much of the flaring comes from that production.

alberta also produces quite a bit of coal, which traditionally causes a lot more flaring than oil. I don't know how it relates to tar sands, however.

But let's say half of the flaring comes from tar sand, and we're looking at 16 million tons of CO2, which should then be compared with Canadas total emissions of slightly more than 700 million tons of CO2.



The vast majority of fuel production related CO2 emissions come from heating, particularly in bitumen production. There is no reason to treat this as any different from other export industry, however.