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

[Roland]

Asher:

"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."

Looks like we will be a net buyer of credits to meet our targets. Really, the idea that we want to make a buck by selling credits we need ourselves to Canada is utterly bizarre.

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

Darling, what does Art 25-1 of the Kyoto protocol say ? Hmm ?

[November Adam]

Quick question. What is the typical milage on a 4 door sedan in Europe?

[Asher]

Originally posted by 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?

Think, Tingkai. I should have used better wording. Kyoto does in no way have a body to force us to do it, right?

BUT

Signing the Kyoto protocol gives us hard numbers and facts and figures that would "force" us to achieve, otherwise signing it was useless.

Surely you can use that massive brain power of yours to figure out the difference?

Looks like we will be a net buyer of credits to meet our targets.

So everyone's going to be buying credits. This looks great, woo.

The vast majority of fuel production related CO2 emissions come from heating, particularly in bitumen production.

Are you trying to prove something, or what? All you've shown is that the tarsands pollute a lot. If anything, this just serves my point of why all of the major US oil companies are going elsewhere to find their oil if Kyoto is passed, since the tarsands (and the companies who support them) will be the biggest target for the government to crack down on pollution -- and as a bonus only pissing off Alberta at the same time.

Trying to prop up the demand for oil doesn't make sense.

Do you mean "leaving the capital as it is makes no sense", since you're trying to drive it away?

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

Gnu's own figures show you that won't do very much. It's also unlikely to have any real effect since most people can't afford to replace their cars for the sake of being more environmentally friendly, particularly when hybrid or electric cars cost so much more.

Now Asher claims that it is impossible.

I've already corrected you on this but you still plug your ears and scream that I say it's impossible? It's not likely that what you propose would get us anywhere near our 1990 levels, and you've yet to prove otherwise as well which tells me you know it's true also. The onus is on you, however you want to put it -- you're proposing supporting legislation that affects it, so YOU do the research on its causes. You don't pass it then tell everyone else afterwards to do their own research.

[blackice]

How about the government putting high taxes on SUVs and giving rebates to hybrid vehicles?

They do

How about the government subsidizing costs for things like windpower?

They do

How about the government giving more tax breaks to companies who go out of their way to do better to the environment?

They do

How about the government doing home inspections and providing advice on how to make homes more energy efficient?

They are going to

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

Since the Alberta government agreed to do this on thier own and did nothing...The next step is to force them...

Common sense says it can't

You have no proof and you are wrong all studies say it will.

You are in favour of introducing radical legislation

Nothing radical about it the government and the provinces agreed to an almost verbatim Canada-Made protocal serveral 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?

Nice to see KILL"EM klien being so up front with his people. Asher here has no idea what is going on obviously. Links oh right well they will not be as verbose as the 32 pages you have put up. What a putz this was all covered in the last round of this conversation. Obviously you simply ignore facts and proof to feed you inability to learn something. Your a waste of time Asher...

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.

It is not fact it is estimates grab a grip, as for the rest of your tripe you promote complete stupidity.

Solar energy we dont' really do, it's not really viable in Alberta

You daft man? The sunshine province is where you live do you know how much sun you get hours/year. Silly boy you really know nothing or pretend to one or the other.

The least you could do is smoke and mirrors a la blackice

You have yet to prove this old tripe asher but continue to show your stupidity.

Kyoto does in no way have a body to force us to do it, right?

Wrong try reading the damn thing before you comment on it.

and as a bonus only pissing off Alberta at the same time.

Why because one of the worlds largest polluters can't pollute anymore and must find cheaper less polluting ways to do it. CRY ME A RIVER>>>>They all ready produce too much of the stuff for the market place, your own government says that asher. Koyoto is not the only reason to stop investment. They would rather invest in upgrading the refineries to keep up with current supplies.

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.

From your own now whinning KILL"EM klien government site. Talk about bs you and klien are tops asher. On one hand the government says no biggy on the other scare tactics and bs. Simple vote get using the feds again when will some albertans wise up to this. Seems most have few die hards with oil money feeding thier internet connections want to play the ignorant train....

[blackice]

plug your ears and scream

Speaking of that most people are getting tired of your screams eyes wide shut ignorant tripe.

Your wrong again on all points, the article offers no proof what so ever nor do you. This thread is simply a waste of time as is KILL"EM klien.

You have not even read the protocal, what a joke.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Think, Tingkai. I should have used better wording. Kyoto does in no way have a body to force us to do it, right? ...
Surely you can use that massive brain power of yours to figure out the difference?

That's classic. You incorrectly use the word force when you meant incentive, but we're to blame for not understanding what you really meant. Yup, it's all our fault. You're not to blame for your mistakes.

You write "highly unlikely=impossible" and then you attack us because we thought that in your strange little world, you think these two things are equal. (By the way, impossible means something will not occur, highly unlikely means something could happen, but the odds of it happening are low. Two very different things.

You're 18. It's time to grow up and take responsibility for your actions. If you write something contradictory, don't expect us to know what you actually meant. We're not mindreaders. We're not responsible for your mistakes.

Originally posted by Asher
Do you mean "leaving the capital as it is makes no sense", since you're trying to drive it away?

No, it means exactly what I wrote. It makes no sense to artificially prop up consumer demand for oil, just to keep the oil industry rich. We should be looking for ways to make vehicles more fuel efficient and if that means the demand for oil decreases then so be it.

Originally posted by Asher
The onus is on you, however you want to put it -- you're proposing supporting legislation that affects it, so YOU do the research on its causes.

Very good. NYE has taught you the word onus. Now if you read my response to him, you would find that I provided an explanation. I'm not going to repeat that explanation just so you can ignore it again. If you really want to understand it then read it. The comments are there.

As for your claim, you initially said the pollution reduction techniques "won't bring us to 1990 levels." Now you say "It's not likely that what you propose would get us anywhere near our 1990 levels."

What's next? Are you going to admit that it is possible to reach 1990 levels? Are you going to admit that the Alberta government believes that it is possible to reduce pollution below 1990 levels?

This whole thing is very easy to understand.

Kyoto is the first international agreement that calls for cutting pollution. It creates an international market for pollution control. It creates an incentive for governments to create concrete policies that actually cut pollution.

The alternative are policies like the one proposed by the Alberta government, policies that do nothing.

Kyoto calls for less pollution.
The Alberta plan results in more pollution.

The choice is obvious.

As for continuing this discussion, if you write something interesting, then maybe I'll respond. But you haven't said anything new lately, you ask questions and then ignore the response, and you're behaving like a child.

If you respond with more insults, don't expect anyone to pay attention.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
That's classic. You incorrectly use the word force when you meant incentive, but we're to blame for not understanding what you really meant. Yup, it's all our fault. You're not to blame for your mistakes.

Um...
I already said I should have used better wording, Tingkai. Do you EVER get tired of strawmen, or what? It's not funny anymore.

It was context specific, which is why it's easy for you to take it out of context. When I say there's no one to FORCE Canada to comply, that's true. When I was saying Kyoto forces us to meet certain numbers, what I meant was it sets specific numbers that we must meet if we are to satisfy the treaty. It, in a way, forces us to meet those numbers if we are to meet the treaty -- but there is still no way for them to enforce the treaty.

I know my wording sucks and sometimes I can't explain my thought process, but I thought it was pretty damn clear from the context what I meant. I apologize if it wasn't, but right now it seems like you're focusing on semantics of things an awful lot for someone who insists he has a sound argument.

You write "highly unlikely=impossible" and then you attack us because we thought that in your strange little world, you think these two things are equal. (By the way, impossible means something will not occur, highly unlikely means something could happen, but the odds of it happening are low. Two very different things.

Um. Yeah, NO KIDDING?
I've NEVER said it's IMPOSSIBLE, you've said that I have TWICE now, even after being corrected. Then you have the balls to define and differenciate between "impossible" and "highly unlikely" for me?

Give it up, Tingkai.

And I've also NEVER said anything of the sort that "highly unlikely = impossible". In fact if you even had the basic ability to READ, you'd see I've said:

NOT LIKELY != IMPOSSIBLE

Where != is standard convention for "not equal to".

Yet ANOTHER strawman. Do you even realize you don't comprehend half of what I say? I realize part of the blame lies with me, but definitely not all of it. You seem to have zero ability to reason or rationalize and connect the dots of what someone is saying, you take every little word literally and in its own context and miss the big picture. Then you complain about how the other people never admit their faults.

You're 18. It's time to grow up and take responsibility for your actions. If you write something contradictory, don't expect us to know what you actually meant. We're not mindreaders. We're not responsible for your mistakes.

Well, the problem here isn't me contradicting myself but you thinking I've said things when I've not. In fact your entire basis against me is full of strawmen and you still don't realize it. I already apologized for my wording, I've always sucked at that kind of thing, but it's the best I can do. I was hoping the context and the jist of it would be enough, but you went out of your way and pulled things out of context to make it appear as if they're contradictory.

Very good. NYE has taught you the word onus. Now if you read my response to him, you would find that I provided an explanation.

An invalid one. You're proposing redical legislation to change how we do things, YOU do the research on its impact. It's not up to the status quo to prove it won't work -- you're the one supporting the changes so you must show it WILL work if that's what you assert in your support for it.

Basic logic, no?

As for your claim, you initially said the pollution reduction techniques "won't bring us to 1990 levels." Now you say "It's not likely that what you propose would get us anywhere near our 1990 levels."

English is great, isn't it? I'm saying "won't bring us to 1990 levels" in that "in all probability it's not going to bring us to 1990 levels". I should have been really verbose about it, my bad. But still, I've clarified it several times now and you still seem confused about it.
I can already see you posting a rip-roaring mad post at me arguing semantics about that. So I'll provide an example: You buy a lottery ticket. I'd tell you "You know you won't win it, right?" This does NOT mean I'm saying it's IMPOSSIBLE to win, it's just that the chances of it happening are HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Now please refer to your wonderful quotes about differenciating the two phrases.

The choice is obvious.

You're right, it is. It's so obvious, in fact, that the most powerful nation economically in the world has decided not to ratify it. It's so obvious, in fact, that several provinces completely oppose it. It's so obvious, isn't it?

[notyoueither]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

The government is being accused of trying to cover up the costs of the Kyoto environmental accord, which documents leaked to the media suggest could result in 200,000 lost jobs and a $16.5-billion hit to the economy.

However, pro-Kyoto officials deleted the job figures and shaved economic estimates by more than one-third from a final version of a briefing document, which was presented to senior cabinet ministers in Ottawa Tuesday.
---
Last week, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein angrily rejected Ottawa's claim the Kyoto accord wouldn't harm the economy after an energy mega project in his province was scaled back. He called the prime minister's plan to ratify Kyoto before the end of the year "the goofiest, most devastating thing ever contemplated by a Canadian government."
---
Canadian scientist David Suzuki joined doctors supporting Kyoto, along with 50 medical and health associations from across the country, in signing a statement in support of ratifying the protocol.

"I want to remind you that before the civil war in the U.S., the southern states said, 'We can't afford to abolish slavery. It'll ruin our economy.' Some things have to be done just because they're right," Suzuki told a news conference.

This is getting better...