Canadian parliament backs Kyoto ratification plan

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ozz


Cause we can slap tariffs on emitters (unfair trade) and maybe get some trade going with the EU, as we won't be effected by Kyoto tariffs. (if we can delouse ourselves of GM that is)

I guess you don't want a job anytime in the near to distant future...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ozz


Cause we can slap tariffs on emitters (unfair trade) and maybe get some trade going with the EU, as we won't be effected by Kyoto tariffs. (if we can delouse ourselves of GM that is)

What this means is you slap tarrifs on the US, Australia, India, China and the entire third world. They will all be "emitters." I suggest that such a move will have devastating consequence on Canada as the targeted countries will undoubtedly retaliate.

But you the point you raise is valid. The costs imposed on first world countries by Kyoto will be high. This undoubtedly will force many industries to flee to the US or to the third world.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ned
This undoubtedly will force many industries to flee to the US or to the third world.

The whole point of the tariff is to prevent this. No benefit
to leaving if you have to paid a tariff to sell your goods.

Kyoto will divide the world into trading blocks more then NAFTA or the EU. Then GM barriers will really go into effect. For each market that retaliatation closes, counter-retaliation will open another.

Not a pleasant scenario.

[gsmoove23]

Developed countries win with Kyoto by providing environmentally friendly technologies to other countries. Whats the problem?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Seeker
If only we could seperate the good reform ideas like recall from the rest of their crap.

You should not be doing something that the overwhelming majority of your constituents oppose, it really puts the lie to representative democracy.

Let's face it, 'write a letter to your MP' is a joke. We have an elected (kinda) dictatorship.

To bad Canada elects parties and not people other wise the people's will might actually be done.

[gsmoove23]

Where is the people's will displayed in that poll you posted? Simple question, should Kyoto be ratified. There is no tag on saying in the absence of... Just yes or no. 39% strongly agree. 12% strongly disagree.
74% yes, 19% no.

2nd page offers a mythical 'other' plan not specified nothing. What does this prove? 49% of canadians are sceptical enough about Kyoto to say maybe we could create something better but where is this something? Its not detailed, the critics haven't gotten to it, its some floating fantasy. A poll of this sort would mean something if it could compare a specific plan to Kyoto. Why not the Alberta plan? Ask canadiens which they would prefer, that might mean something.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Don't even bother with your pathetic "what ifs" regarding margin of error making it a tie in some extremely unlikely circumstance.

Once again, you're on the wrong path. This is not a "what if" situation. This is about the accuracy of the poll.

The poll is accurate within plus or minus 3 per cent which means Canadians could be evenly split 46-46 (or 40-52, or anywhere in between) over this question

gsmoove23 is correct in his comments. The second question is about a hypothetical situation. The first question is specific and simple.

You need to learn about the accuracy of polls that you so fondly cite.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Once again, you're on the wrong path. This is not a "what if" situation. This is about the accuracy of the poll.

The poll is accurate within plus or minus 3 per cent which means Canadians could be evenly split 46-46 (or 40-52, or anywhere in between) over this question

Right, but the CHANCES ARE that more Canadians are in favor of a domestic solution over Kyoto to the point where it's a lie to say "most support Kyoto".

I wrote a final exam on this very thing this morning, Tingkai.

If you want to argue that it's just as likely for it to be a tie than it is to favor the domestic plan, you have to show your math on here, so I could pick it apart for you. Otherwise cut your losses and drop it.

gsmoove23 is correct in his comments. The second question is about a hypothetical situation. The first question is specific and simple.

You need to learn about the accuracy of polls that you so fondly cite.

How is the second question a hypothetical question when there has been a domestic solution proposed??

By this logic the first question is also hypothetical, since at the time Kyoto was not ratified.

Question 1 asked if they supported Kyoto, and didn't mention anything else.
Question 2 asked if they would prefer a domestic plan over Kyoto, and the results show that Kyoto is not the clear-cut solution that Tingkai has wetdreams about...

[Asher]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
2nd page offers a mythical 'other' plan not specified nothing. What does this prove? 49% of canadians are sceptical enough about Kyoto to say maybe we could create something better but where is this something?

So instead of exploring an option that the Canadian people have shown a clear interest in, Chretien literally rushes ratification before the end of the year.
Either way, I fail to see the point you're making -- the polls illustrate that the Canadian people want to cut back on pollution. When they're only given the option of supporting Kyoto or not, they support it.

When they're given the option (page 2) of working out our own domestic plan, the majority do not support Kyoto.

Tingkai loves to cover his eyes and pretend that a domestic plan is impossible and that the Canadian people all want Kyoto, when in fact they've shown a domestic plan is more favorable than Kyoto...

A poll of this sort would mean something if it could compare a specific plan to Kyoto. Why not the Alberta plan? Ask canadiens which they would prefer, that might mean something.

99% of the Canadians wouldn't know what the f*ck the Alberta plan is, because Chretien & Co have been telling people the only way we can cut pollution is with Kyoto.

[Giancarlo]

Embracing Kyoto, is like cutting incomes for no good damn reason. Stupidity at its best there.

And Canada ratifying this plan will do a number on their economy, probably setting the stage for increasing unemployment. In the US Kyoto would of cut millions upon millions of jobs... probably no different in Canada.

Who came up with a flawed treaty like kyoto anyways? Who in their right mind could think of such crap? "save the environment"... I hate it when these leftists supporting kyoto have poopooed when they don't realize the economic repercussions.

[Spiffor]

Does everybody forget what Kyoto is about ? I've just heard today the ice caps will have be 3 millions km² this winter, instead of 4 millions. Vhen NL and Bangladesh will have sunk, will we start to discuss about pollution, or will we continue to bicker on tariffs ?

[Asher]

That's a wonderful argument, Spiffor, I wonder why people don't use it.

Oh, that's right, I just remembered why.

1) Even in 1990 people were complaining the pollution was too high, cutting to 1990 levels doesn't solve anything
2) The implementation plans shoulder the burden mostly on the large industries. In order to cut back pollution, we'll need some magic device to do so in a modern nation like Canada. Those devices don't exist. So what do we do? We cut down production. Oil companies interested in investing in Canada's oilfields are now exploring Australia and Africa.

The pollution is still there, it's just not coming from Canada anymore. Whupty-****ing-do.

Kyoto is fundamentally flawed in that it tries to remedy a global problem by getting a minority of the countries in the world to reduce the pollution. And unless EVERYONE, 100% of the world, does it all that happens is the source of pollution moves from Kyoto countries to non-Kyoto countries.

Global pollution levels stay the same, but the Kyoto countries get a kick in the nuts economy-wise.

[Spiffor]

This is precisely the point of an international agreement. The more countries participate, the more effect it will have.

Edit : either I missed something when answering, or Asher edited when I was replying.
Global pollution will actually not decrease if most major economies / polluters don't agree with Kyoto. And it's a sure thing the US refusal really helped Kyoto to be refused by plenty of other countries. If the biggest actors had agreed (US, EU and Japan), the world pollution would have been reduced.

Believe it or not, but to reduce pollution, you don't need a magic device, or you don't need to reduce pollution. You need to implement reasonable resource allocation, and to prevent abuses.
How come the US uses 4 times more oil per capita the Europe (with similar develoment levels ?). Wouldn't the creation of efficient mass transits help solve this ? The recycling of plastics ? The import of hydroelectricity from Canada ?
Same thing with water : the US (esp. California) might fear a water shortage, yet they have a waaaaay superior consumption per capita than Europe.
Sure, struggling against pollution does cost money, but it is doable without a magic device, or without reducing production.

The problem is clearly a problem of some countries' egoism (mainly the US, but aren't the only ones to blame), which defend their short term interests rather than defend the long term interest of the whole planet, including themselves (mind you, I'm French, hence I belong to the only country with Canada which won't fear any water shortage in the next century)

[Asher]

But what good is that when only a handful of countries support it??

[notyoueither]

btw Spiffor, floating ice does not raise water levels when it melts. Much of the melt will be floating ice, just as it has been in the past when the globe warmed up.

[Asher]

Of the Earth's 190 countries, only 35 have agreed to cut emissions under Kyoto.

Over 65% of the world's total emissions come from countries that do not have Kyoto, and that share will grow while the pollution leaves the Kyoto countries to these countries.

Kyoto won't do a damn thing globally, people who say otherwise are exercising wishful thinking and need to put themselves in the mindset of these businesses that will just move...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


To bad Canada elects parties and not people other wise the people's will might actually be done.

What's that, you say?

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out?

Don't you know it's gonna be
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?

You say you've got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We are doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is, brother, you'll have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You'd better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know it's gonna be
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?
Alright?

[Kc7mxo]

Heh heh. What to you do when each side of an argument has a poll supporting their belief?

[Spiffor]

Asher : edited my previous post

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
How come the US uses 4 times more oil per capita the Europe (with similar develoment levels ?).

Europe is FAR more densely populated, for one. When people live far away, you need more oil to do things.

It's why Canada uses more oil per capita than the US, which uses more than Europe...

Same thing with water : the US (esp. California) might fear a water shortage, yet they have a waaaaay superior consumption per capita than Europe.

Again, it has to do with population density. California has lots and lots of landscape to water to keep alive and whatnot.

It seems very easy to just compare per-capita use without even looking at the environment, but there's a reason why consumption is higher different regions.

For example, natural gas consumption is far higher in Canada than it is in Africa.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
Of the Earth's 190 countries, only 35 have agreed to cut emissions under Kyoto.

Over 65% of the world's total emissions come from countries that do not have Kyoto, and that share will grow while the pollution leaves the Kyoto countries to these countries.

Kyoto won't do a damn thing globally, people who say otherwise are exercising wishful thinking and need to put themselves in the mindset of these businesses that will just move...

You should know the location of a business isn't only a cost / benefit thing. Many elements are used to determine whether a business is located here or there. Among them : eductation and productivty of the workforce, infrastructures, externalities (incl. pollution) etc. Some businesses will move, namely the most polluting, but most industries will remain in place.
If the US and some of its colonies have pollution reduction laws, then the polluting business won't have any other developed country to move (if most of their business is in Canada, I doubt they all move to Australia ), and undeveloped countries do not offer the same things to industries, except for the right to pollute. I would move my high tech chemical plant to the US, but not in Congo, if I was a Chemics tycoon.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You should know the location of a business isn't only a cost / benefit thing. Many elements are used to determine whether a business is located here or there. Among them : eductation and productivty of the workforce, infrastructures, externalities (incl. pollution) etc.

Well, I'm going to specifically talk about the oil industry since that's the one I know best.

Right now Alberta's in somewhat of an oil boom with international oil companies. We've got huge reserves and the like, and many companies are pouring billions of dollars a month (quite literally) in developing projects like the Alberta Oil Sands. These projects in particular have been affected already -- some future expansions have been canceled in favor of developing in Africa due to Kyoto uncertainty, and the others have been put on indefinite hold.

Now, when oil companies operate out of the country, they tend to import workers to those countries. They put them on compounds and they work, Canadian and Americans, in places like Zimbabwe (I know people who live there working for Exxon right now).

There's lots of places like that for oil companies to go to, and they will go to if Kyoto is in place. There's simply no reason for them to dink around with a government who's going to be riding their ass to reduce pollution even though the whole of Alberta has drastically increased production since 1990.

Kyoto is relocating oil development from Alberta to non-Kyoto countries, even before Kyoto was formally ratified.

It's a very real problem that nobody wants to acknowledge. The transfer of pollution is real...we're not reducing, we're moving. Alberta will be slammed the hardest in the nation due to Kyoto, which is why Alberta strongly opposes it. But Chretien doesn't care, since Alberta doesn't vote for him anyway...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
Europe is FAR more densely populated, for one. When people live far away, you need more oil to do things.

Don't you think it has also to do with the lack of decent mass transit in most cities, with economical choices favorable to oil business, and with the extremly high use of fossil energy to produce electricity ? I understand underpopulated countries require more oil per capita than Europe, but this factor alone is far from explaining why the difference is so huge, and you know it.

Again, it has to do with population density. California has lots and lots of landscape to water to keep alive and whatnot.

Maybe it also has to do with prices of water. I understand the lack of precipitation requires more water taken from rivers, but we could use reason : how come the price of water is much cheaper in California than in France (dunno for Canada) ? How come almost every Californian has a bathtub (at least in all places I visited there) ? And knowing that water shortages are a middle term thread, should really the Californians be gardening their deserts ?

It seems very easy to just compare per-capita use without even looking at the environment, but there's a reason why consumption is higher different regions.

There are plenty of reasons. You named one, which is true, but far from explaining everything. I named other reasons which also partly explain it. But your attitude of saying that the extremely higher pollution per capita in the western Hemisphere is only normal won't help solving the problem, that's for sure.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Don't you think it has also to do with the lack of decent mass transit in most cities, with economical choices favorable to oil business, and with the extremly high use of fossil energy to produce electricity ? I understand underpopulated countries require more oil per capita than Europe, but this factor alone is far from explaining why the difference is so huge, and you know it.

The reason why decent mass transit doesn't exist is because decent mass transit only works well in densely populated areas...

Which is why New York has a decent mass transit system. It's why London does.

It's why most US cities don't. There's just way too many places to go and too few people to support it in comparison to large cities like London and New York.

There are plenty of reasons. You named one, which is true, but far from explaining everything. I named other reasons which also partly explain it. But your attitude of saying that the extremely higher pollution per capita in the western Hemisphere is only normal won't help solving the problem, that's for sure.

And neither will Kyoto.

It's very nice to think how nice it would be if we don't pollute, but there are problems with it. Namely, unless everyone shuns most technology, we're not going to magically reduce pollution while our population increases.

[Spiffor]

You still believe pollution will be reduced by magics or reduction of production. Let me give some European examples of atmospheric pollution per capita reduction in the lastest 20 years (only examples I know of)

- Raise of gasoline taxes. In France, a litre of gas is about 1$ now.

- Recycling. Plastics being recycled reduces considerably oil use. Paper recycling allows forests to progress, and have a small effect on athmospheric pollution

- Nuclear energy. In France, 75% of our electricity is nuclear, the rest being hydaulic, alternative. The Germans scrapped their nuclear plants, but hypocritically buy nuclear energy from us.

- Tax cuts and subventions to less energy consuming devices, such as alternative car engines (using natural gas), or gas heat sources. Subventions to building's isolation to lower enrgy required for heat.

- development of alternative energy sources. Windmills are already a significant part of NL's electricity (sure, there's plenty of wind in this small country). However, I agree these sources are far from being economically viable for now, except in very few cases.

- YES, efficient mass transit. I'm living in Stuttgart, which has a very low density for a European 500.000 inhab city, and yet the mass transit system is much better than in the more dense Bordeaux. My point is : except in extremely far fetched cities, you can have an efficient mass transit system if you're ready to invest money in it. Some American cities could have an efficient mass transit system, but obviously decided to have an all-car policy (I'm thinking Los Angleles here).

Are these measures the use of a magic device ? No. They just show some political will. It is not necessary to be a tree hugger to promote them though : limiting oil consumption can drastically reduce a country's dependance to oil exporting countries and to big businesses. It also can rake more money for the state.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You still believe pollution will be reduced by magics or reduction of production.

I believe nothing is going to realistically reduce pollution in North America short of a nonexistant magic device.

Are these measures the use of a magic device ? No. They just show some political will. It is not necessary to be a tree hugger to promote them though : limiting oil consumption can drastically reduce a country's dependance to oil exporting countries and to big businesses. It also can rake more money for the state.

This is all wonderful, again, but the problem is very very simple and negates all of these wonderful theoretics: the consumer is a ***** and likes his SUV, and there's nothing you can do to change it.

Short of a massive cultural overhaul, nothing's going to reduce pollution to 1990 levels unless we cut back production in the countries under Kyoto.

It's so simple but so many people don't get it. They will, in 6 years or so. But they'll find a way to blame businesses for providing consumers what they demand.

Until then, Ottawa will piss off large businesses rather than the average Canadian. Which means there will be more emphasis on *****ing at Alberta oil companies for refining oil in Canada rather than *****ing at consumers for using too much gas.

[Spiffor]

Is SUV a word meaning car ?
In any ways, I don't see how the consumer really hates recycled plastics, non-fossil electricity, non-gas cars etc. The Germans love their cars too, yet the increase of gas prices led simply to the creation of less wasting engines.

[Ned]

Asside from Kyoto, we have a real and pressing problem with traffic in the US. We really need to invest in high speed electric rail in most of our cities to move people long distances rapidly. This would help our traffic problems and also help cut the growth in Greenhouse gasses.

This kind of infrastructure investment to reduce pollution I wholeheartedly support. I oppose, strongly oppose Al Gore's ideas of punitive taxes on energy where he takes those taxes and spends it on his next welfare project.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Developed countries win with Kyoto by providing environmentally friendly technologies to other countries. Whats the problem?

Have you considered that these other countries won't buy this stuff because they don't have to cut their emissions?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
How is the second question a hypothetical question when there has been a domestic solution proposed??

99% of the Canadians wouldn't know what the f*ck the Alberta plan is

I love it when Asher answers his own stupid questions. What's pathetic is that Asher won't be able to figure out how he contradicted himself. (His next post will be a whine about his words being manipulated).

Asher's comment is typical of fringe lunatics. Everyone else is stupid. Only they know the truth. The reality is that Canadians made an intelligent choice for a better tomorrow.

The reality is that Canadians support Kyoto.


74% of Canadian say Kyoto should be implemented.
71% say Kyoto should be implemented, even if it is not perfect, because it is an important first step.

Even a large section of Albertans want to implement Kyoto.


The second question is a red herring. It asks people if they prefer ratifying an existing agreement or would they prefer to have an imaginary better agreement. Of course people would prefer to have a better agreement.

It is like asking people if they prefer Bush, Gore, or would they like a third option. A lot of people may say they would prefer a third option, but that doesn't mean they're going to vote for Ross Perot.

The simple fact is that a vast majority of Canadians support Kyoto. Even after months of propaganda from special interest groups (read oil corporations), Canadians overwhelmingly support implementing Kyoto.

Asher just can't realized when he has lost. He can't accept the fact that wiser heads have prevailed.