Canadian parliament backs Kyoto ratification plan

[Giancarlo]

Yeah, sandman, right... maybe you want to take the unemployment rate of the developed world similar to that of Argentina but I like most people don't. If you really mean it... are you ready to have a country powered entirely by nuclear power plants? Well believe it or not, France is like that.

Also saying regardless of the economy is completely ignorant of the future. Go live in a cave. And stop promoting a plan that will jeopardize everybody's future...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
Not in Canada, DinoDoc.

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

1) When is he due to retire? I had heard that he was planning on stepping down as leader.

2) Is the Premier of Alberta able to restart his legal oppossition to the plan again since he dropped it? Does that have any chance of success?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Fez
***scrapping the whole point on the German economy in shambles, since it was already way before Kyoto***

How can you replace oil? By promoting nuclear.

What is the problem with that ?

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
1) When is he due to retire? I had heard that he was planning on stepping down as leader.

2003 sometime, IIRC.

2) Is the Premier of Alberta able to restart his legal oppossition to the plan again since he dropped it? Does that have any chance of success?

He'll be able to restart it later, he's going to wait to see how Chretien's successor handles it since this seems like it's mostly Chretien's motivation to make this his "legacy" that it's passing and no one else is nearly as dedicated to it. In fact, if Paul Martin (who is one of the favorites to succeed him) gets in, he may scrap the whole thing. Paul Martin is pretty conservative fiscally, he'll probably see Kyoto for what it is whereas Chretien sees it as something he wants it to be.

[Spiffor]

Asher :

It is a sure thing Kyoto didn't exist because of tree hugging altruism, and that Europe, being advanced in ecological tech, has products to sell if other countries comply with Kyoto.

However, if Chretien wants Kyoto to be ratified so badly, I guess it's also explained by Canadian interests : Canada has potential to have an oil-free electricity production (with so much hydrolic resources), and can export its clean energy -water and gas- to other countries which lack them, US first. I think it's in Canada's interest that more countries sign Kyoto. If Canada decredibilizes Kyoto by rejecting it, it loses even more chances that other countries join.

You say rejecting countries have no chance to join, which isn't entirely true IMO : All developed countries might want to reduce pollution in mid-term, because it is a costly externality which penalizes economy. When these countries are more ready to Kyoto, along with some necessary internal pressure from environmentalist / liberal / leftist / whatever groups, these countries might enter again (granted, not before 5 years at least).
IIRC, even Al Gore (the one who got most votes last presidential election) was in favor of Kyoto, meaning there can be a support even if more 'obscurantist' countries like the US.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
IIRC, even Al Gore (the one who got most votes last presidential election) was in favor of Kyoto, meaning there can be a support even if more 'obscurantist' countries like the US.

The President isn't able to order Congress to do anything to the same extent the PM is able to do bully Parliament.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, if Chretien wants Kyoto to be ratified so badly, I guess it's also explained by Canadian interests : Canada has potential to have an oil-free electricity production (with so much hydrolic resources)

Wanna explain to me how hydro power would work in Alberta?

and can export its clean energy -water and gas- to other countries which lack them, US first. I think it's in Canada's interest that more countries sign Kyoto.

Canada doesn't get credit for clean-gas exports under Kyoto, and the European nations refuse to give us credit for it. It's one of the many flaws of Kyoto, and a prime reason why Canada should refuse to sign it until at least they give us credit for clean gas exports.

You say rejecting countries have no chance to join, which isn't entirely true IMO :

You *REALLY* think countries like Saudi Arabia are *EVER* going to sign Kyoto?
You really think the US would pass Kyoto? Even a democrat wouldn't go that far, you'd need the Green party to do that. And they're never getting in power.

IIRC, even Al Gore (the one who got most votes last presidential election) was in favor of Kyoto, meaning there can be a support even if more 'obscurantist' countries like the US.

Can you provide a link for that...

And even so, Al Gore will say a lot of things for the sake of being different from the current administration. When he's in power, and when he realizes it's his name and reputation that will be associated with all economic damage given from Kyoto, I very much doubt he'd ever sign it.

[Giancarlo]

The economy of West Germany was in good shape and growing before reunification.

Originally posted by Spiffor


What is the problem with that ?

No problem and infact I am all for nuclear power because it will reduce dependence on unreliable partners in the Middle East and now in South America, specifically Venezuela. I am just saying are you ready for it?

IIRC, even Al Gore (the one who got most votes last presidential election) was in favor of Kyoto, meaning there can be a support even if more 'obscurantist' countries like the US.

But of course one of the few out of the just as influential senators and representatives. And Al gore is a disgrace. (And no he didn't get the most votes in the last Presidental election, George Bush did... I am talking about the relevant electoral votes. Popular vote is irrelevant)

Kyoto sucks as a treaty I am sorry to say. Even dumb leftist groups will not screw people out of a future. They do not stand a chance in the face of the public eye.

Edit: Spelling

[Lawrence of Arabia]

So then what do you suggest?

[Asher]

Re: Al Gore
http://www.debatethis.org/gore/envir...#globalwarming

Despite his vaunted last minute trip to save the Kyoto treaty, Gore’s compromise committed the US to very small reductions in greenhouse gases, and has worked since to include nuclear power among the renewable energy source eligible for Clean Fuel credits under the treaty. These would allow the US to claim reductions supposedly made for the global good, while actually benefiting only the huge corporations that build nuclear power plants. It may sabotage the treaty in the eyes of Europe and small island nations (who will disappear if global warming isn’t stopped), but Al Gore only seems to care about how global climate change affects big corporate contributors.

As suspected, his "support" for Kyoto is merely token support as a platform of telling people he cares about the environment. In reality, it'd be much different...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
So then what do you suggest?

Well if you are asking, I think developed countries should go completely nuclear (but not lack a plan of what to do with waste afterwards).

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Thats not a very formulated answer. How about some specifics.

[Asher]

Nuclear power isn't exactly good for the environment either.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Asher
Nuclear power isn't exactly good for the environment either.

It isn't like solar power is either.

[Asher]

Yeah, solar's not very friendly either.

Hydro is quite friendly, if you neglect all the areas that need to be flooded...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Thats not a very formulated answer. How about some specifics.

How the hell can I give specifics? Why don't you give specifics about why you are criticizing me? Nuclear energy is the way to go. It is better than fossil fuels and is more practical than solar or wind.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

'Why don't you give specific about why you are criticizin me?'

I havn't criticized anything yet. How can I when you havn't stated your position. You are against Kyoto, but so far you don't have an alternate plan.
and BTW, power production constitues a very small percentage of emissions. SUVs and car dont run off of nuclear power, nor do factories use nuclear power to produce their goods (steel, glass, etc)

[Giancarlo]

There shouldn't be an alternate plan to a fatally flawed treaty like Kyoto. What I propose as for transportation would be to focus on the fuel cell.

So you want to cut down the amount of cars there are on the road? What else do you want to do? Bankrupt businesses and put millions out of work?

The old industrial sectors (which produce steel, glass, or other materials) are of decreasing importance in the developed world.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Fuel cell is a great idea. But before that, we need to make people buy more fuel efficient cars. The government should increase the tax on the gasoline. The fuel cell technology is still about 5 - 10 years down the road.

The old industrial sectors may be of decreasing importance to the developed world, but are crucial to the third world. We shouldn't think only of ourselves, rich rich priviledged people of this planet.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Fez


Well if you are asking, I think developed countries should go completely nuclear (but not lack a plan of what to do with waste afterwards).

Yeah, they can sell the waste to terrorists right?

The less of that crap floating around for like the
next 10,000 years the better. Nuclear is worse
than oil.

Go hydro-electric and tidal, use fuel cells for autos.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Fez
How dumb can you get? There are actually satellite photos from the past thirty years proving greens and environuts wrong.

Errr. Dumb enough to post a source instead of just
flapping my virtual lips in the breeze. Put up your
proof or are you just brain fartin'?

[Ned]

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.

I don't think there is realistic chance for the US Senate to ratify Kyoto unless the entire world is on board and there is a level playing field. Else we will see Kyoto forcing certain industries out of one country and into another simply because the first country is bumping up against Kyoto limits while the second is not.

But the trick is to define "level."

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned


I don't think there is realistic chance for the US Senate to ratify Kyoto unless the entire world is on board.

And the entire world will never be on board until the US signs it so the senate will never ratify it because the entire world is not on board. Catch-22

[notyoueither]

So why are we signing it?

[Tingkai]

Because we're not the US.

This is a first step and Canadians want to work towards a better environment. No one has ever said this agreement is perfect. Sure, it doesn't include many countries, but how many international agreements have achieved unanimous support?

No one expects this agreement to solve all of our environmental problems, but if we take Asher's and the rest of the anti-kyoto crowd's approach, we would end up doing nothing.

For the first time, we have a specific international agreement on pollution reduction targets signed by many countries. This is a tremendous achievement that will create universal benefits.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Because we're not the US.

This is a first step and Canadians want to work towards a better environment.

For the first time, we have a specific international agreement on pollution reduction targets signed by many countries. This is a tremendous achievement that will create universal benefits.

"Better environment" - but for whom?

"Universal benefits" - really? How does Canada benefit?

The environmental downsides the Canadians will be protecting against are located elsewhere, outside Canada. From my understanding, Canada will receive tremendous benefits from a warmer climate.

The above is the practical view. The strict view, which I personally find extremist, is that any change is "bad" even if is "good."

[gsmoove23]

The environmental downsides the Canadians will be protecting against are located elsewhere, outside Canada. From my understanding, Canada will receive tremendous benefits from a warmer climate.

There is no reason to believe that we can forsee local effects of global warming yet, environmentalists are the first to say this. There are indications that global warming may mean significant cooling in parts of the world, more violent storms coupled with periods of drought... Who knows if the effects will be beneficial. One of the possibilities is an enormous cooling in Europe and the north atlantic if the Gulf Stream is disrupted.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23

Quote:

The environmental downsides the Canadians will be protecting against are located elsewhere, outside Canada. From my understanding, Canada will receive tremendous benefits from a warmer climate.

There is no reason to believe that we can forsee local effects of global warming yet, environmentalists are the first to say this. There are indications that global warming may mean significant cooling in parts of the world, more violent storms coupled with periods of drought... Who knows if the effects will be beneficial. One of the possibilities is an enormous cooling in Europe and the north atlantic if the Gulf Stream is disrupted.

The US government has issued at least two reports that I have read predicting ranges of effects for the United States. We don't know for certain what the local effects would be, but we are relying on the same models that predict the warming in the first place.

The reports I have seen suggest that the Northern part of the world will have the greatest warming - mostly in the form of shorter winters and warmer nights.

On the gulf stream - the world has in the past been much warmer than it is today, including the time of the Vikings. During those eras, there is no evidence that Europe was much colder than it is today, suggesting that the Gulf Steam had stopped. (Actually, I don't understand the mechanism for the Gulf Stream stopping. IIRC, hot dry winds off of the Sahara evaporate surface Atlantic waters flowing North making them slightly saltier. When this water reaches the Artic, it cools enough to sink, as saltier water is heavier. If the Sahara is hotter, I can see a reinforcement of the mechanism from that end. If the Artic is warmer, I can see the point the saltier water sinking extending farther North. But stopping altogether?)

[gsmoove23]

These are general predictions but there is no reason to assume that there won't specific anomalies. All you have to do is look at a globe and compare Britain's climate to other places of similar latitude to see what a large difference the stream makes. I didn't say stop altogether but disrupted or shifted. Check out this site.

http://millennium-debate.org/indsun8oct.htm.

Of course this is only a possible outcome, climate is infinately complex. The idea isn't to avoid change, since it is a natural process, but to avoid unchecked human activity to allow natural cycles to spiral out of control, where the amount of change we are forced to deal with may seriously threaten our societies, or prehaps just our economies.

So the important question is do greenhouse gases resulting from human activity contribute significantly to the warming climate we see today?

[Ozz]

I don't believe anyone can forecast the environmental effects of global warning, anymore than anyone can forecast the economic effects of Kyoto. No one can
even prove man is responsible.

What Kyoto boils down to is, a promise to the rest of
the world to go from being a filthy self destructive civilization, to a less filthy self destructive civilization.

There are lot of other benefits to be had by reducing
pollution. The economic arguments don't hold, the same
arguments were used when catalyic converters were
first put on cars, the cost would depress the auto industry and cause a depression. These same arguments appear whenever anti-pollution laws appear
on the table.

Canada's benefit of signing Kyoto now, watching the
US sign the bottom of it in 2006.