Canadian parliament backs Kyoto ratification plan

[Ozz]

Wow, Do you really believe a "made in Canada" plan
would be followed? That kind of plan would be only
accountable to ourselves, and that is planned failure.

How about "paying off the debt?" how many false starts,
"we can't pay this year", and other excuses for failure
came out of Ottawa over 20 years trying to accomplish
that.

These made at home plans are just planned loopholes,
with planned failure as the target made by people who
have no intention of changing anything that would cost
them a nickel.

Don't be fooled, go Kyoto and get a genuine treaty,
don't accept pale imitations of the real thing.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by 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 ?

Source please? Because from what I heard that is a load of environut crap. Antarctica's ice cover is actually increasing in size. I Will give you a source.

Infact the world might even be in for a small, mild ice age.

So you wanna cut pollution and send the economy down the tubes? Very good plan. It reminds me of what leftists usually do... if you WANNA LIVE IN CAVES GO AHEAD AND DO SO! I AM NOT GOING TO DO THAT. Unlike what you leftists think, Kyoto doesn't solve anything infact it will cut millions of jobs in developed countries and help developing countries pollute more.

Spiffor, you have been defeated in this argument. You obviously have zero basis to argue anything further.

Have you forgot what the economy is? Or do you want millions upon millions to get screwed out of their jobs? Wonderful plan.

Kyoto supporters, or environuts are the most evil people in the world and they should be dealt with.

Look at Asher... he is just trying to defend his ground. What is wrong with that? With people like you, Tingkai, Spiffor, and other leftist lunatics... the world economy will be at risk of global collapse.

Take your arbitrary and flawed to hell treaty... and eat it.

[Ned]

Spiffor, the ice in Antartica is expanding just as fast as the ice in the Artic is decreasing. This represents a problem with sea levels the opposite of what you suggest. When sea ice melts, sea levels do not go up. But if land ice is formed, sea levels go down.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Fez
if you WANNA LIVE IN CAVES GO AHEAD AND DO SO!

I am living in Germany, one of the most environment-aware country in the world. And for the record, I am living in a heaten house, I take the subway every day (even though the city I live in -Stuttgart- has a very low density compared to any other city I lived in), I eat food conditioned in plastics, which I recycle, etc. Is it what you call a "cave" ?

Asher didn't 'win' or 'lose' the argument. He just limited himself in saying the increased pollution per capita comes from the low density of population, which is one of the explanation factors, but obviously not the only one. His points on the economy and pollution transfers are partly valids as well, but as I said, pure economic conditions aren't the only reasons explaining why a company is located here rather than there.
Asher's point on the oil industry is true : being an extremely polluting industry, it will move to other countries for sure, even underdeveloped ones if needed. But that's not entirely true for mildly polluting / no-polluting industries. Some would leave the country, but most others wouldn't have enough resons to do so.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, the ice in Antartica is expanding just as fast as the ice in the Artic is decreasing. This represents a problem with sea levels the opposite of what you suggest. When sea ice melts, sea levels do not go up. But if land ice is formed, sea levels go down.

Ned, I trust you on that. The figures I've talked of were the results of a Greenpeace study, and I don't take them too seriously (I knew something was fishy : how come that NL and Bangladesh were NOT already sunk with such a catastrophe ? ). No link, I eard about this on TV, and I'm too lazy to find a link.
However, even if Greenpeace often wildly exagerates, the risk of climate rise is well known, and I wonder how such a thing would not raise water levels at all. I assume all the talks about greenhouse gases aren't just held to please some ecologists, but have a very good political reason behind. I heard the Dutch are scared by global pollution (well, my only source is a Dutch friend, so it's not as reliable as a study), and I'd understand why : would you like to live in a country which risks to be heavily flooded because of glabal warming ?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, the ice in Antartica is expanding just as fast as the ice in the Artic is decreasing. This represents a problem with sea levels the opposite of what you suggest. When sea ice melts, sea levels do not go up. But if land ice is formed, sea levels go down.

Didn't most of the Ross iceshelf just drop off into the
sea a couple of months ago? I believe both icecaps are melting gentlemen.

[gsmoove23]

Yep, ice shelfs have been receding in parts of antartica, glaciers have been retreating all over the world. The question isn't whether global warming is happening but whether greenhouse warming is happening.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
whether greenhouse warming is happening.

Isn't that what keeps you from freezing to death?

[gsmoove23]

eh?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ozz


Didn't most of the Ross ice shelf just drop off into the
sea a couple of months ago? I believe both icecaps are melting gentlemen.

Ozz and GS, Actually, Antarctica has portions that extend far North. In those areas, the ice seems to be retreating. But, on the continent itself and in most of the surrounding ice sheets, the ice is growing.

Scientists have also noted a dramatic decrease in temperatures in Antarctica. The global warming models predict the opposite. So they are still trying to understand why this is. No one knows.

I could find a few links tonight if you would like. However, a quick search on news from Antarctica in the last six months should get you the news reports.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
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).

It's not contradicting myself, Tingkai...
Do you not comprehend the difference between asking if people would prefer a domestic plan over Kyoto, and asking if people prefer (specifically) the Alberta plan that they wouldn't know the first thing about?

There is a difference. The question is, do you want to see it?

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.

If anything that's YOUR attitude here, Tingkai.
I don't think everyone else is stupid, there's just a couple people that constantly get on my nerves by intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreting and manipulating everything and then acting all innocent about it and ignoring what you don't want to hear...

The reality is that Canadians support Kyoto.

The reality is that Canadians prefer a domestic plan over Kyoto.
Why do you ignore that? Because you think a domestic plan wouldn't work. For some reason unknown to me you think Kyoto will work.

Well, logic isn't for everyone.

Even a large section of Albertans want to implement Kyoto.

If by "large section", you mean "a minority", then yes.

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.

Tingkai, there is still no concrete Kyoto implementation plan. It is, for all intents and purposes, an imaginary implementation that they are agreeing to.

Again, you just don't want to wake up to the reality that Kyoto is not the way to go about reducing pollution -- in fact more Canadians prefer a domestic plan over Kyoto.

Let's put it this way. Suppose first I'm asked if I want a Ford Focus. I'll say sure, and take it.
Next they'll ask me if I want a Toyota Celica instead. So I say I would prefer the Toyota Celica. In fact, more people want a Toyota Celica instead of a Ford Focus.

Now you're running around trying to say that the Canadians want a Ford Focus over the Toyota Celica, and trying to use the first poll question as a basis for that. It doesn't fly, Tingkai.

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

HAH!
There have been far more TV, radio, and newspaper commercials from the Liberals (using TAXPAYER money mind you) brainwashing Canadians into thinking Kyoto is the ONLY way to reduce pollution and everyone who says otherwise doesn't care about pollution. They air one every commercial break it seems.

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

I'm just going to throw this into your face so you can hopefully see how silly you're being:

Asher's comment is typical of fringe lunatics. Everyone else is stupid. Only they know the truth.

Thanks for playing Tingkai, but please think more before posting blindly...

[DinoDoc]

The 195-77 vote by the House of Commons lower chamber has no binding power on the government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

What would have a binding effect of the government? Is there still time for the voices of Alberta and other provinces/people to be heard?

[Asher]

Not in Canada, DinoDoc.

Canada is, for all intents and purposes, a dictatorship by Jean Chretien.

There have been many attempts for this to be reformed but eastern and central Canada largely support Chretien, letting him stomp over anyone else without them doing anything about it.

Even now, Chretien is telling Canadians via a huge marketing strategy how Kyoto is going to save the planet, how it won't hurt the economy at all, and how anyone who doesn't support Kyoto doesn't care about the environment at all.

It's very sad.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I am living in Germany, one of the most environment-aware country in the world. And for the record, I am living in a heaten house, I take the subway every day (even though the city I live in -Stuttgart- has a very low density compared to any other city I lived in), I eat food conditioned in plastics, which I recycle, etc. Is it what you call a "cave" ?

Can I ask you something? How is the German economy doing? Your country is not the most environmentally aware! Your country has many problems. Let me just start out saying that the German economy is in a slump, and unemployment is very high because of labor rigidities and tough regulations against the private sector. Funny thing is the US's unemployment is around 6%, whereas the German unemployment is more around 11%. Tells you about something what regulations do. Also your country has registered either anemic or negative GDP growth in the past few years.

His points on the economy and pollution transfers are partly valids as well, but as I said, pure economic conditions aren't the only reasons explaining why a company is located here rather than there.
Asher's point on the oil industry is true : being an extremely polluting industry, it will move to other countries for sure, even underdeveloped ones if needed. But that's not entirely true for mildly polluting / no-polluting industries. Some would leave the country, but most others wouldn't have enough resons to do so.

You have not reached any points. How can you replace oil? By promoting nuclear. Restricting oil power right now will have devastating economic effects.

So what exactly is your point? You promote the Kyoto protocol? For what? To destroy jobs? Stay out of my country please.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Yep, ice shelfs have been receding in parts of antartica, glaciers have been retreating all over the world. The question isn't whether global warming is happening but whether greenhouse warming is happening.

That is bullcrap. Ice shelfs are not receding in Antarctica. Infact ice shelfs have grown steadily in the past thirty years. Your are so full of it. I suggest staying out of this. If you need the source I will gladly spend my time look for it. Right now I have to study for a final.

[gsmoove23]

Thanks for the offer of help Fez, you're sweet, but you don't need to do that for me. I'm not arguing that all ice shelves are receding(I believe I wrote "ice shelfs have been receding in PARTS of antartica"), as Ned said (heh, rhymed) shelves to the north have been receding. This link might help you sweetie. At least I found it interesting. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and.../19970729.html

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Fez


That is bullcrap. Ice shelfs are not receding in Antarctica. Infact ice shelfs have grown steadily in the past thirty years. Your are so full of it. I suggest staying out of this. If you need the source I will gladly spend my time look for it. Right now I have to study for a final.

Here's one for the melting side, whole bunch more
there with the same theme, havn't found any
gettin' thicker sources.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2040532.stm

Though increased glacier growth would promote increased iceberg calving.

[Oerdin]

Is the earth warming? Probably yes. Will Kyoto do absolutely ANYTHING to stop it? Probably no. Will Kyoto cost HUGE amounts of money & jobs? Assuredly yes.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Is the earth warming? Probably yes. Will Kyoto do absolutely ANYTHING to stop it? Probably no.

Will "made at home plans" stop it, absolutely not
One lobby group with a bucket of cash and they'll crumble quicker than a politican's promises after
being elected.

[Asher]

Ozz:

1) Yes, if every country in the world ratified Kyoto it would make a difference
2) No, not every country in the world ratified Kyoto
3) In fact, the vast majority of countries did not
4) Since it's not a global treaty, it will not work, and instead will just transfer pollution (and jobs) from Kyoto to non-Kyoto countries
5) A made-in-Canada solution would probably do far less than Kyoto would if everyone ratified it (which they did not), but a plan that would educate people on how to save energy, mandating all equipment be as non-pollutant as possible, etc certainly will help just as much as Kyoto would, without smashing our economy into bits

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ozz



Here's one for the melting side, whole bunch more
there with the same theme, havn't found any
gettin' thicker sources.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2040532.stm

Though increased glacier growth would promote increased iceberg calving.

Ummm no... more ice has not been melting. Ice has been increasing in size. How dumb can you get? There are actually satellite photos from the past thirty years proving greens and environuts wrong.

Will "made at home plans" stop it, absolutely not
One lobby group with a bucket of cash and they'll crumble quicker than a politican's promises after
being elected.

So lets kill the economy with your arbitrary kyoto protocol that actually allows developing countries to pollute more. Just great.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Asher
Ozz:

1) Yes, if every country in the world ratified Kyoto it would make a difference

Excuse me? You didn't just say that did you?

The current situation is not set in stone. There is no reason why other nations can't be brought in in the future and if you believe it can make a difference then perhaps its worth fighting for. Currently 37% of the worlds emitters have ratified and many countries are still considering. The fact that the US rejected it does not mean that it can't sign on in the future and the same for any other country.

[Giancarlo]

If the US signs on in the future, it will experience a major recession. So it won't happen. And who would sign a stupid protocol like that besides Al Gore?

urrently 37% of the worlds emitters have ratified and many countries are still considering.

Where do you get that number from? Out of thin air?

The only thing Kyoto would do is kill the economy. It wouldn't save anything.

[Asher]

Sorry, if you think the countries that rejected it now are going to have a change of heart in the future...well...

Plus, it's not a matter of those countries rejecting it. The developing nations are exempt from Kyoto as it is, and they're the ones using outdated technology just because it's cheap, even though it pollutes more...

[gsmoove23]

Sorry Fez, my fault, should have posted it.

http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf

edit - wrong site

[Giancarlo]

Still what does that prove? It is a fact that the majority of countries will not sign it because of its arbitrary policies. Russia looks like it will fall out of it because it sees the light. If it restricts its economy to the extent Kyoto proposes it will be damaged the most.

[gsmoove23]

The thing is that Kyoto was written with the idea that since this is a novel attempt mistakes will be made. So, there is a system within Kyoto to change its policies. It is not a static thing. If nations sign on and find that the negative effects are too great then policy can be adjusted.

[Asher]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
The thing is that Kyoto was written with the idea that since this is a novel attempt mistakes will be made. So, there is a system within Kyoto to change its policies. It is not a static thing. If nations sign on and find that the negative effects are too great then policy can be adjusted.

Only this only happens if it's in the interest of most countries, or in this case, most of Europe.

For example, Canada is currently not getting credit for our clean gas exports to the US which replace coal generation in California and other western states. We've applied (repeatedly) to get these clean gas export credits, but most of Europe keeps saying we can't get credit for it -- which would reduce our emissions target by 70 megatonnes.

The reason is, of course, if we can't meet the credits on our own we get to buy them from people. Guess who.

[gsmoove23]

And yet if Canada bows out of the treaty that would be considered a serious blow to it. Canada in the treaty would be a nice little FU to the US, It is up to canadien leaders to use this as a bargaining chip.

[Sandman]

Weaning the world off fossil fuels is a vital step, regardless of the environmental and economic arguments.