Kyoto opposition surges: 72% of Albertans demand Ottawa withdraw from the accord

[CyberGnu]

BTW, what is a "credit for clean gas exports"?

Are you still suffering fom the misonception that the Kyoto strikes at the producer side?

I explained it just two weeks ago. Implementation of the Kyoto aims at striking at the consumer level. the most likely method will be a carbon tax, just like gasoline and diesel in europe.

Diesel is taxed less than gasoline, because a car powered by diesel has a better mileage than a gasolin powered car.

The same will most likely be implemented for production of all consumer goods. An item will be forced to declare how many kilos of CO2 was generated in the creation of the item, and those kilos are then taxed. It doesn't matter whether the item is made by albertans, americans or chinese, the amount of CO2 will still be taxed for by the Canadian goverment.

Naturally, an item made using methane for energy will have a lower CO2 number than an item made using oil. This will be reflected in the tax, which in turn means that items made with methane will be cheaper. The demand for methane will go up, which means prices will go up. That is your "clean fuel credit".

Your only real problem is if your goveremnt is too stupid to implement a consumer system. If you truly care about Canada, then you should spend your energy arguing for that instead of ranting against the Kyoto.

[CyberGnu]

notyou:

That's just it, many people and many Canadians do not understand this thing enough to make a proper decision. I know I don't.

Well, I have a Masters in chemical engineering and a PhD in organic chemistry.

I have read the Kyoto.

So why don't you take it from me? Global warming is a problem. We have to do something about it. The kyoto is the best bet we have right now.

And it doesn't come for free. Nothing ever does. Your next car might not include a DVD player, because the car company that made it was forced to plow more money into research instead of lowering prices. Your next TV might not have picture-in-picture, because you were forced to pay a carbon tax which put the price of the unit at your maximum level.

Hard as this might seem, it sill doesn't invalidate the most important line I've written all night on this thread.

The kyoto is the best bet we have right now.

[Giancarlo]

Cybergnu, enough! You bascially don't want to concern yourself with the future and rather agree with one flawed treaty that lets a lot of developing countries like India and China off the hook. They can actually pollute more. Get your head out of you arse and start looking at the facts.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Canada would exist just fine without Alberta and you know it. Alberta exists right now and all you do is ignore it, having it leave would only result in less income tax revenue.

You're acting like a ****ing moron. Do you know that?

"Canada would BE DESTROYED if the 3M people we constantly **** on decide to leave"

Do you believe anyone believes a word of what you spew on here?

What is it with you Asher. I write that Alberta is vitally important to Canada and you start insulting me.

As for your tax comment, I think that says everything about your view of the world. There is more to a nation than just tax revenues. Loyalty to a country means more than a daily measurement of the bottom line.

Do you understand that Canada is more than just geographical boundaries. Canada is a concept that most Canadians truely believe. Rip out a province and the concept gets destroyed.

You claim that Albertans are constantly being pissed upon. That's just pure idiotic hyperbole and you know it.

As for your comment about pissing off Albertans, you represent a very small fraction of the Albertan population, politically and sexually.

If you or Loif want to talk about destroying Canada then I most certainly will say that such ideas are idiotic and anyone who believes in separtistim is a nutcase.

[Giancarlo]

Well Tingkai, from what I hear the Canadian Government is not properly representing Alberta.

you represent a very small fraction of the Albertan population, politically and sexually.

So you are willing to bring in Asher's sexuality into an argument that is about the environment?

Tingkai, listen... Asher is just concerned about the future of the economy which makes the livelyhood of everybody. The Kyoto protocol would of not reduced emissions but rather severely damage an economy. If enacted Canada could fall down to the same standard of living as Mexico.

[Tingkai]

Fez: Alberta is a conservative province. The Canadian government is currently liberal so naturally there are disagreements. However, in the last five federal elections, the Liberals have won three times and the Conservatives won twice.

So it is not as if Alberta's voice is never heard.

The point about the sexuality is that Asher assumes all Albertans share his opinions when they do not. He is in the minority on many things.

As for the economic effects of Kyoto, everyone has a right to their own opinion. We can argue about it, agree or disagree. In the end, no one can predict the future with certainty.

We can achieve Kyoto without destroying the economy. In fact, reducing pollution levels will have far greater economic benefits than allowing pollution to grow (The Alberta plan allows for much more pollution) despite what the scaremongers like Asher and you claim (Canada's standard of living will not fall to Mexico's level and you know it).

When Asher and Loif start talking about destroying Canada, that's an entirely different matter. That type of talk is pure stupity and childish.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Originally posted by Fez
Basically the premise of cutting emission levels to 1990 amounts. That could be devastating.

Yeah, can you believe it. Those companies might start reduceing their externalities. Anyone who has done a little economics knows that externalities are part of the market failure group: where price doesn't always reflect the entire costs of production.

And yeah, if those companies went to Africa or any other developing countries, whats so bad about that? Those countries might even get out of debt and start going someplace.

How would Canada fall to the samel standard of living as Mexico? Souce or stats or analysis maybe?

[Giancarlo]

You would be setting the stage to bring the standard of living drastically down in developed countries. Therefore the treaty is highly illogical.

In fact, reducing pollution levels will have far greater economic benefits than allowing pollution to grow

Wrong again. If you reduce pollution levels by strangling the crap out of industry you will set the stage for a prolong recession.

You greens have your priorities messed up.

Edit: Lawrence... don't talk about something you don't know.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Originally posted by Fez
Edit: Lawrence... don't talk about something you don't know.

What don;t i know what I am talking about.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
What is it with you Asher. I write that Alberta is vitally important to Canada and you start insulting me.

If Alberta is vitally important to Canada, perhaps Jean should start treating it as such rather than expendable votes by a bunch of whackos? What a novel idea.

As for your tax comment, I think that says everything about your view of the world. There is more to a nation than just tax revenues. Loyalty to a country means more than a daily measurement of the bottom line.

Don't give me any of that crap, I hate the people who sensationalize everything. blahblahblah destroy Canada if anyone leaves, blahblahblah. You know Canada would be just fine, and Canada was founded before Alberta was a bunch of right wingers and it STILL did fine. It WILL do fine if Alberta leaves. If you don't like it, get Jean to start listening otherwise HE will destroy Canada.

It's like an abusive marriage, where one of them leaves (Alberta) while the other one *****es about how they're destroying their life.

Do you understand that Canada is more than just geographical boundaries. Canada is a concept that most Canadians truely believe. Rip out a province and the concept gets destroyed.

Hey: Newsflash. If Alberta leaves, that would mean most of Alberta doesn't agree with the concept of Canada. You know whose fault that is? Jean, Trudeau, etc. Not Alberta.

As for your comment about pissing off Albertans, you represent a very small fraction of the Albertan population, politically and sexually.

My sexuality has WHAT to do with this argument?
Low low low...

If you or Loif want to talk about destroying Canada then I most certainly will say that such ideas are idiotic and anyone who believes in separtistim is a nutcase.

You're the one talking about destroying Canada, we're the realists talking about possible separation since Ottawa and the rest of Canada constantly gives Alberta a cold shoulder in politics and never even discusses compromises.

Don't like it -- fix it. Otherwise "Canada will be destroyed" by your inabilities to compromise.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Fez: Alberta is a conservative province. The Canadian government is currently liberal so naturally there are disagreements. However, in the last five federal elections, the Liberals have won three times and the Conservatives won twice.

So it is not as if Alberta's voice is never heard.

Yeah, and the conservatives that were elected to government were, in fact, so conservatives that Albertans felt they were still way too Liberal and founded a real conservative party afterwards.

The PCs who got into power got into power because they were more centrist than conservative, Tingkai, and you know that.

The point about the sexuality is that Asher assumes all Albertans share his opinions when they do not. He is in the minority on many things.

I do no such thing. Look at the response from Albertans on this website in particular: How many of them have said separation is a real threat? Or rather, how many of them have said it's not? The only people who have said it's not, IIRC, is Flubber and he's only lived in Alberta a year or two.

And look at the damned poll results: the majority of Alberta oppose Kyoto. Just two months ago you were insisting I was in the minority because most supported it. It looks like I'm ahead of the game, Tingkai -- it seems I stay more informed on these things than most people. Once people slowly learn more about it, most of Albertans will probably share my opinion. That's not always going to be true, but anecdotal evidence from here as well as the past results with polls only backs that up.

We can achieve Kyoto without destroying the economy. In fact, reducing pollution levels will have far greater economic benefits than allowing pollution to grow (The Alberta plan allows for much more pollution) despite what the scaremongers like Asher and you claim (Canada's standard of living will not fall to Mexico's level and you know it).

Do you enjoy making an ass out of yourself? You know damn well Kyoto won't BENEFIT the economy. Either you've managed to convince yourself, or you're sleeping with David Suzuki, but it's not true either way. Look at it logically, look at it scientifically, look at it economically, look at it anyway you want to and it ain't going to do anything but hurt the economy "for the benefit of the environment" -- when in reality we're transferring most of that pollution to non-Kyoto countries.

When Asher and Loif start talking about destroying Canada, that's an entirely different matter. That type of talk is pure stupity and childish.

Hey, you're exactly right. Only you're the moron going on and on about destroying Canada, Loif and I are discussing the realities of increased separation movements if Kyoto is truly ratified.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Will the Kyoto treaty hurt deveolped countries economy? Yes. Will it help the global economy? Yes. How? By reducing externalities, we can come close to a true market system where recessions are less likely. Secondly, the companies which do move to 3rd world countries will improve those countires development.
Yes, we are transfering some of that pollution to 3rd world countires, or also non kyoto countries, but at least we are reducing some of it.
Its like going on a diet. Its gonna hurt for a while, but in the end, you are going to feel a lot better.

I'm surprised that all of thses ultra capitalists are against the treaty, because it will create a more free market system through the redution of externalities
A lot of lefties are for the kyoto treaty all for the wrong reasons.

But then again, some people just don't have a clue.

[Giancarlo]

Lawrence, pollution is a necessary factor when countries go through development. But there must be a way to bypass the heavy industrial development and go straight to high tech. Like India... it has managed to transform itself from an agricultural economy to a high tech one. Without the retroactive "Kyoto protocol".

You are wrong, the Kyoto protocol would wipe out billions of dollars and millions of jobs. That is hardly capitalist. And don't give me the crap about externalities (which you have no clue what you are talking about).

[Lawrence of Arabia]

So why dont you tell me whats wrong with my definition of externalities.

[Giancarlo]

It has nothing to do with the argument.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

How so? Give me your definition of externalities, and then give me a reason why it has noething to do with the argument.

[Giancarlo]

I am talking about the billions and billions of dollars that would be thrown in the garbage along with millions of jobs. Nothing more. The Kyoto protocol is highly anti-capitalist.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

You still havnt given me your definition

[Giancarlo]

I don't need to. Why should I?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

BTW, not all countries can be high tech. The developed countries already have a comparative advantage in high tech, and in services. the developing countries to need to get a compartive advantage first in agriculture, then in manufacturing. Manufacturing implies pollution.
You think that those companies will just fold? If they can't meet the requirement then they will go to developing economies, and all of those jobs will move there. Its just a switch, and it speeds up the process of specialization. For a while it will hurt the economy, but not to the scale which you are talking about. And since you don;t have any sources for your statements, you are just making stuff up as you go along.

As for externalities, you don't seem to have a definition, so let me give you one.
Externalities: a cost which is not reflected in the cost of the product produced. These externalities can be either positive or negative.
ex: A chemical plant produces waste which it dumps into the water. This waste reduces the number of fish in the water. The fisherman then catch less fish, and the price of fish goes up. The chemical plant is not paying for this increased cost of the fish. THis is a negative externality
ex2: A chemical plant produces waste which it dumps into the water. This waste increase the number of fish in the water. The fisherman catch more fish, and the prices of fish goes down. The price of fish goes down, and some fisherman lose their jobs because they cannot compete. The price of the chemical produced is not included. This is a positive externality.

Pollution caused by factories are not included in the price of the product which you buy. The negative externality in this case is all of the people who get cancers, asthma etc from these toxins. These costs are not included. This leads to a market failure which can then produce a recession.

[Giancarlo]

You are like the energizer bunny you will never quit on how good a flawed treaty is...

[Giancarlo]

And since you don;t have any sources for your statements, you are just making stuff up as you go along.

It is pretty damn obvious that India has made this transition, like the UAE (somewhat) and Singapore. If you want evidence for something this obvious I will look for it...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

1. The UAE is not a developing country. Its a oil producing country, which falls under a different bracket.
2. India is not high tech. 35% of its people are below the poverty line (aka make less than $1 a day). 67% of its people are engaged in agriculture. The US employs 2.5% of its people in agriculture. (also note that 67% of 1.2 bn is way more than 2.5% of 282 mn)

Stop making stuff up. Get a source and quote it.

www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

[Giancarlo]

1. I never claimed the UAE was a developing country.
2. A growing part of India is becoming high tech.

You stop twisting facts.

[Giancarlo]

Blah.

http://www.indianembassy.org/indiainfo/india_it.htm

[Lawrence of Arabia]

So first its "pretty damn obvious that India has made that transition" and then its "stop twisting facts."
You stated the UAE as an example of developing countires becoming high tech. Oops, you made something up.
Again.

[Giancarlo]

If I said the UAE is a developing country I was mistaken. I did not make that up rather I was misspoke. The UAE was a developing country decades and decades ago.

You keep twisting the facts. And stop bullshiting at me for your faults.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

My faults? Because you can't argue your point properly.
India exports $6 bn of software units.
The US exports $20 bn of software units
India's software industry was stagnant until the dot com boom in 1999 - 2000-ealry 2001
I agree, that a growing part of India is becoming high tech, but will they be able to compete with the big economies of scale of the western world.

http://www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsrel...1-15.233.phtml

[Giancarlo]

I was saying India's high tech was steadily growing. Nothing damn more. Never did I say they were the size of the US exports. You are the one who can't argue anything properly.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Show me where you stated that indias high tech was growing steadily.