Bright Spark
Posts: 403 
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
October 12th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Activists say U.S. has done better job than Canada in limiting pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTTAWA (CP) - Environmentalists say the United States has done a better job limiting air pollution than Canada.
That despite a decade of Canadian government hype about taking the issue seriously. The group Pollution Watch says the United States reduced its air pollution emissions by 45 per cent between 1995 and 2003 while Canada reduced its air pollution by 1.8 per cent.
It says Canadian government rhetoric on how industry and government are making the problem go away masks what it calls hollow promises.
Pollution Watch says increased air pollution has added to breathing and other health problems.
It also says the data shows just how inefficient Canadian industry has remained while U.S. competitors have adapted.
©The Canadian Press, 2005
Activists say U.S. has done better job than Canada in limiting pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTTAWA (CP) - Environmentalists say the United States has done a better job limiting air pollution than Canada.
That despite a decade of Canadian government hype about taking the issue seriously. The group Pollution Watch says the United States reduced its air pollution emissions by 45 per cent between 1995 and 2003 while Canada reduced its air pollution by 1.8 per cent.
It says Canadian government rhetoric on how industry and government are making the problem go away masks what it calls hollow promises.
Pollution Watch says increased air pollution has added to breathing and other health problems.
It also says the data shows just how inefficient Canadian industry has remained while U.S. competitors have adapted.
©The Canadian Press, 2005
Bright Spark
Posts: 403
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
October 12th, 2005, 01:21 PM
...its seems that the Liberals are more concerned with pleasing the Europeans and sighning on to Kyoto then to actually think for themselves....they'll follow any fad mindlessly even if its not the best or most efficient way.
...and to think that Paul Martin had the balls to put down the US at the UN for not adopting kyoto and not doing enough to fight global warming.......these jerks are masters of spin and will continue to "put one over" Canadians if you people don't speak up!
...put the anti Americanism aside and discuss whats good for Canada...... when someone bring up these issues its just another way to attack the US..... "small man syndrome".......... the liberals should be attacked for this therefore the next party in power will take this issue more seriously and we can solve the problems.
...its seems that the Liberals are more concerned with pleasing the Europeans and sighning on to Kyoto then to actually think for themselves....they'll follow any fad mindlessly even if its not the best or most efficient way.
...and to think that Paul Martin had the balls to put down the US at the UN for not adopting kyoto and not doing enough to fight global warming.......these jerks are masters of spin and will continue to "put one over" Canadians if you people don't speak up!
...put the anti Americanism aside and discuss whats good for Canada...... when someone bring up these issues its just another way to attack the US..... "small man syndrome".......... the liberals should be attacked for this therefore the next party in power will take this issue more seriously and we can solve the problems.
Time Out
Posts: 4,194
Location: Vancouver
Location: Vancouver
October 12th, 2005, 01:31 PM
Any reduction is better than no reduction.
Whats the real problem with Kyoto Hank? You worried the oil companies might have to spend a few extra bucks to be within Kyoto limits or because your "god Ralphie" does not like Kyoto and has been spinning fear since it was created?
Like all typical right wing governments they are more concerned about where to drill next, instead of finding and spending money on alternate fuel, alternate power and reducing pollution.
Campbell here is the same, with wanting to do offshore drilling. The right wing slogan should be " screw the environment, screw the working man and just make huge profits for corperations at all cost".
Any reduction is better than no reduction.
Whats the real problem with Kyoto Hank? You worried the oil companies might have to spend a few extra bucks to be within Kyoto limits or because your "god Ralphie" does not like Kyoto and has been spinning fear since it was created?
Like all typical right wing governments they are more concerned about where to drill next, instead of finding and spending money on alternate fuel, alternate power and reducing pollution.
Campbell here is the same, with wanting to do offshore drilling. The right wing slogan should be " screw the environment, screw the working man and just make huge profits for corperations at all cost".
Member
Posts: 123
Location: somewhere between moncton and londo
Location: somewhere between moncton and londo
October 12th, 2005, 01:46 PM
The issue here isn't about kyoto, it's about the rhetoric surrounding kyoto. America didn't sign on to Kyoto, and they still managed to reduce their emissions 45%! yet we did sign on to kyoto (or at least intend to, I don't really know where we are right now) and have only reduced our emissions by 1.8%. Kyoto isn't the problem/soloution. We can still work to reduce emissions without it.
Kyoto has no real meaning or purpose anymore, other than silly liberal rhetoric.
If you cant work to reduce emissions and clean up the environment without signing onto some agreement, then I say you have problems. Maybe you should look beyond the end of your nose and do something instead of just whining about it!
The issue here isn't about kyoto, it's about the rhetoric surrounding kyoto. America didn't sign on to Kyoto, and they still managed to reduce their emissions 45%! yet we did sign on to kyoto (or at least intend to, I don't really know where we are right now) and have only reduced our emissions by 1.8%. Kyoto isn't the problem/soloution. We can still work to reduce emissions without it.
Kyoto has no real meaning or purpose anymore, other than silly liberal rhetoric.
If you cant work to reduce emissions and clean up the environment without signing onto some agreement, then I say you have problems. Maybe you should look beyond the end of your nose and do something instead of just whining about it!
Bright Spark
Posts: 403
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
October 12th, 2005, 04:00 PM
........my problem is that Paul Martin is trying to chasten the US at the UN for not sighning on to kyoto..... but the facts say that we should be following the US lead.
.... my problem is that the liberals don't see that kyoto may not be the best way to reduce emmissions in Canada but have followed it simply because the US did not sign on and the snooty Europeans look down on them.
Quote:
... my problem is that Kyoto is used as a fear tactic by the government....you see if anyone questions it or trys to spark up a debate they are labeled as neo-cons who hate the envoronment.
Any reduction is better than no reduction.
Whats the real problem with Kyoto Hank?
Whats the real problem with Kyoto Hank?
........my problem is that Paul Martin is trying to chasten the US at the UN for not sighning on to kyoto..... but the facts say that we should be following the US lead.
.... my problem is that the liberals don't see that kyoto may not be the best way to reduce emmissions in Canada but have followed it simply because the US did not sign on and the snooty Europeans look down on them.
Quote:
......kyoto will probably work better in some older European countries simply because of their aging energy infastructure, so rebuilding would be a better idea..... plus selling emmission credits to the gullible is a great way for some extra cash...... but this would not be as efficient in countries such as Canada, Australia and the US, which is why the latter two did not sign on.
Kyoto has no real meaning or purpose anymore, other than silly liberal rhetoric.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,458
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
October 12th, 2005, 04:12 PM
Big surprise! The Liberals are all talk, no action! This is news? In some respects the U.S. is far ahead of us in environmental protection, but in others they are not. This doesn't mean Kyoto is a bad idea, though. And by the way, anyone who believes in capitalism and free markets should recognize that the emissions credit system may be the best aspect of Kyoto. In the short term it may delay actual reduction in air pollution because companies can go after the "low-hanging fruit" - that is buying credits from Russia. In the long-term, however, what it does is starts to assign a real cost to pollution. In effect this will create the incentives for companies to make investments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
No one ever said Kyoto was perfect. It is a small first step - nothing more, nothing less.
Big surprise! The Liberals are all talk, no action! This is news? In some respects the U.S. is far ahead of us in environmental protection, but in others they are not. This doesn't mean Kyoto is a bad idea, though. And by the way, anyone who believes in capitalism and free markets should recognize that the emissions credit system may be the best aspect of Kyoto. In the short term it may delay actual reduction in air pollution because companies can go after the "low-hanging fruit" - that is buying credits from Russia. In the long-term, however, what it does is starts to assign a real cost to pollution. In effect this will create the incentives for companies to make investments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
No one ever said Kyoto was perfect. It is a small first step - nothing more, nothing less.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
October 12th, 2005, 04:23 PM
Hank, go read the Kyoto thread and learn some facts, then go to the UN site and read the actual agreement. Peppy, what emission has the US reduced by 45%?
The reality is that Kyoto, though seriously flawed, is the best agreement that we could get. It is an international agreement. Many of Kyoto's flaws are because of demands that the US made. We gave into those demands to get them to sign on, then Bush came along and refused anyway.
Kyoto emissions cover only greenhouse gas, though. Particulates and so on are not part of the agreement. While reducing greenhouse emissions does reduce other types of pollution, the opposite is not true.
What's really stupid at this point is people arguing against Kyoto. Hello? Have you seen the cost of using fossil fuels? Do you like spending that kind of money? Do you spend your spare time throwing money out of an airplane window?
If you believe that the US is still reducing pollution, you need to look at the assault the Bush administration has launched on the environment and, through that, on the American people. They've been moving dead backwards since Bush came to power. When arsenic started showing up in well water, the Bush administration raised the allowable levels. They've turned back the clock on industrial pollutants in the air and water. They invited corporate robber barons into the White House to write policy. The Bush administration needs to be berated for far more than their refusal to sign onto Kyoto. They need to dragged out into a polluted swamp, or maybe one of those rivers so full of pig **** that a new micro-organism has evolved, and made to swim back for their refusal to take care of the environment and the people who live in it.
Is Martin any better? Don't make me laugh. He's a clown without a realistic plan. His guiding principle has been not to piss off the corporations who fund him. He sold off Petro-Canada, a corporation that could have been used to create access for alternative fuels. Martin being wrong doesn't make Bush right though.
Hank, go read the Kyoto thread and learn some facts, then go to the UN site and read the actual agreement. Peppy, what emission has the US reduced by 45%?
The reality is that Kyoto, though seriously flawed, is the best agreement that we could get. It is an international agreement. Many of Kyoto's flaws are because of demands that the US made. We gave into those demands to get them to sign on, then Bush came along and refused anyway.
Kyoto emissions cover only greenhouse gas, though. Particulates and so on are not part of the agreement. While reducing greenhouse emissions does reduce other types of pollution, the opposite is not true.
What's really stupid at this point is people arguing against Kyoto. Hello? Have you seen the cost of using fossil fuels? Do you like spending that kind of money? Do you spend your spare time throwing money out of an airplane window?
If you believe that the US is still reducing pollution, you need to look at the assault the Bush administration has launched on the environment and, through that, on the American people. They've been moving dead backwards since Bush came to power. When arsenic started showing up in well water, the Bush administration raised the allowable levels. They've turned back the clock on industrial pollutants in the air and water. They invited corporate robber barons into the White House to write policy. The Bush administration needs to be berated for far more than their refusal to sign onto Kyoto. They need to dragged out into a polluted swamp, or maybe one of those rivers so full of pig **** that a new micro-organism has evolved, and made to swim back for their refusal to take care of the environment and the people who live in it.
Is Martin any better? Don't make me laugh. He's a clown without a realistic plan. His guiding principle has been not to piss off the corporations who fund him. He sold off Petro-Canada, a corporation that could have been used to create access for alternative fuels. Martin being wrong doesn't make Bush right though.
Bright Spark
Posts: 403
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
Location: Calgary, Alberta.
October 12th, 2005, 04:29 PM
....geez if there was actually coverage .........ex) in 2 days Paul Martin will be personally handing over a 900 million dollar cheque courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer to the Russian government..........there would be outrage!......
..........but it won't be covered and Steven Harper and the Conservatives will just end up botching the golden egg and shooting themselves in the foot...
....Jack Laynton and his NDP will be complaining about how we are not giving them enough money
... and the bloq...well they can kiss my pearly white ass
Quote:
.....im sure Canadian taxpayers will be pleased when they hear that a billion dollar cheque is being issued to Russia because we can't reduce our emmission..........that is given the liberal media in Canada will cover it
I'm not exactly sure how kyoto works, all I know is that it's about reducing emissions. But selling emmission credits? That sound like some internet scam, or indulgences
....geez if there was actually coverage .........ex) in 2 days Paul Martin will be personally handing over a 900 million dollar cheque courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer to the Russian government..........there would be outrage!......
..........but it won't be covered and Steven Harper and the Conservatives will just end up botching the golden egg and shooting themselves in the foot...
....Jack Laynton and his NDP will be complaining about how we are not giving them enough money
... and the bloq...well they can kiss my pearly white ass
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
October 12th, 2005, 05:52 PM
See, it's pretty clear that you don't understand how credits are supposed to work and you are making the assumption that they will be used to the detriment of everyone, which is quite unlikely.
The goal of Kyoto is to reduce overall global emissions. To that end, each nation has targets. It is not likely that we will just pay Russia for their credits though. What is more likely is that Canada will supply technology that will reduce Russian emissions. We will receive credit for it, and overall emissions will be be reduced.
The reason that is more likely is that by supplying technology, we will create jobs in Canada and produce wealth. It will also drive new technologies, which also produces wealth. Since we have some advanced technology, and the goal is to reduce overall emissions, that makes perfect sense.
The argument that we'll just be writing cheques does not make sense.
While the credit system should have specified that there must be a net reduction of emissions, to just buy credits without such a reduction is not sustainable and no responsible government would do it other than as a stop-gap measure.
See, it's pretty clear that you don't understand how credits are supposed to work and you are making the assumption that they will be used to the detriment of everyone, which is quite unlikely.
The goal of Kyoto is to reduce overall global emissions. To that end, each nation has targets. It is not likely that we will just pay Russia for their credits though. What is more likely is that Canada will supply technology that will reduce Russian emissions. We will receive credit for it, and overall emissions will be be reduced.
The reason that is more likely is that by supplying technology, we will create jobs in Canada and produce wealth. It will also drive new technologies, which also produces wealth. Since we have some advanced technology, and the goal is to reduce overall emissions, that makes perfect sense.
The argument that we'll just be writing cheques does not make sense.
While the credit system should have specified that there must be a net reduction of emissions, to just buy credits without such a reduction is not sustainable and no responsible government would do it other than as a stop-gap measure.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,458
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
October 12th, 2005, 06:56 PM
Quoting
I would submit that by attaching a direct cost to ghg emissions we have already set up the incentive to reduce. I agree, though, that the value (i.e. volume of emission) of each credit should decrease every year. If its not in this one, it should be in Kyoto II.
While the credit system should have specified that there must be a net reduction of emissions, to just buy credits without such a reduction is not sustainable and no responsible government would do it other than as a stop-gap measure.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
October 14th, 2005, 11:45 AM
I'm not sure what you mean, Mike. The volume of emissions should decrease every year. The value (i.e. cost) of those emissions should rise so the penalties are ever-increasing. I think that's what you're getting at, and I agree.
I also think it needs to be more internationalised. The US hasn't signed on? So what? If we reduce their emissions by providing them with hydrogen from hydro-electric facilities in Manitoba, Quebec, and BC, that should count for something. Combine that with ever-increasing costs for producing emissions and continued political pressure for non-compliant nations.
One area that is going to be interesting is trade. There is already talk of some EU countries launching WTO suits against the US because their refusal to sign onto Kyoto and other lax environmental laws amount to a defacto subsidy.
I'm not sure what you mean, Mike. The volume of emissions should decrease every year. The value (i.e. cost) of those emissions should rise so the penalties are ever-increasing. I think that's what you're getting at, and I agree.
I also think it needs to be more internationalised. The US hasn't signed on? So what? If we reduce their emissions by providing them with hydrogen from hydro-electric facilities in Manitoba, Quebec, and BC, that should count for something. Combine that with ever-increasing costs for producing emissions and continued political pressure for non-compliant nations.
One area that is going to be interesting is trade. There is already talk of some EU countries launching WTO suits against the US because their refusal to sign onto Kyoto and other lax environmental laws amount to a defacto subsidy.
Knows Too Much
Posts: 2,488
Location: PEI...for now
Location: PEI...for now
October 23rd, 2005, 05:41 PM
Time to turn Canada around
For as long as I can remember, being Canadian has always been an immense source of personal pride. We live in one of the greatest countries in the world - which is all the more reason why I'm so disturbed at where we are heading.
This week, my foundation released a comprehensive report on Canada's environmental performance compared to other industrialized countries. It shocked me, although I suppose the writing has been on the wall for some time. Still, it was disturbing to see just how poorly Canada's environmental record stacks up to other wealthy countries.
We rank 28th out of the 30 member countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) based on 29 key environmental indicators - things like air and water pollution, heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, pesticide use and more. Our performance is only marginally better than the two countries at the very bottom, the United States and Belgium.
It's not as though we're just bad in one area. We're consistently awful: energy consumption - 28th, greenhouse gas emissions - 26th, water consumption - 29th, sulfur oxides pollution - 27th, number of species at risk - 26th, nuclear waste - 30th, and the list goes on. In fact, Canada did not place first in any of the 29 indicators. We are decent at a few things, like recycling, but our list of failures is long and depressing. What's more, our performance has not improved over the past decade.
This not the Canada that I know and love. Polls tell us over and over that Canadians value our natural heritage and want to protect it for our future. Yet here we are, one of the worst environmental offenders in the world, chipping away at that heritage and threatening the health and well-being of future generations. So how can we fix this mess?.....More
Time to turn Canada around
For as long as I can remember, being Canadian has always been an immense source of personal pride. We live in one of the greatest countries in the world - which is all the more reason why I'm so disturbed at where we are heading.This week, my foundation released a comprehensive report on Canada's environmental performance compared to other industrialized countries. It shocked me, although I suppose the writing has been on the wall for some time. Still, it was disturbing to see just how poorly Canada's environmental record stacks up to other wealthy countries.
We rank 28th out of the 30 member countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) based on 29 key environmental indicators - things like air and water pollution, heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, pesticide use and more. Our performance is only marginally better than the two countries at the very bottom, the United States and Belgium.
It's not as though we're just bad in one area. We're consistently awful: energy consumption - 28th, greenhouse gas emissions - 26th, water consumption - 29th, sulfur oxides pollution - 27th, number of species at risk - 26th, nuclear waste - 30th, and the list goes on. In fact, Canada did not place first in any of the 29 indicators. We are decent at a few things, like recycling, but our list of failures is long and depressing. What's more, our performance has not improved over the past decade.
This not the Canada that I know and love. Polls tell us over and over that Canadians value our natural heritage and want to protect it for our future. Yet here we are, one of the worst environmental offenders in the world, chipping away at that heritage and threatening the health and well-being of future generations. So how can we fix this mess?.....More
Newbie
Posts: 40
Location: Ontario
Location: Ontario
October 22nd, 2006, 02:29 AM
Doing soemthign about pollution is very important.... I hope someday we'll live with great solutions and not see an end to this world... Not just Canada but every other country has to start coping and working to environmental solutions for the future
Doing soemthign about pollution is very important.... I hope someday we'll live with great solutions and not see an end to this world... Not just Canada but every other country has to start coping and working to environmental solutions for the future
