The big news coming out of the APEC summit is not the George Bush mistakes at the podium, it is the non-binding agreement which Canada helped broker in.
The nations attending agreed to non-binding targets to reduce energy intensity by 25% by 2030. Canada is being attributed with the leadership on this issue, and can only be thought of as leading the world in a business as usual approach.
First of all, the idea that energy intensity serves as a useful measure of climate action is preposterous. I won't get into the definition, as I'm sure anyone who reads this is well aware of what intensity is, a scam.
To give some context to this ludicrous situation, lets take a look at the US as a case study. A report released by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration shows just how ludicrous this is. Heres an exerpt:
We all know that past governments here in the West have by and large paid lip service to the climate change problem, even now this still appears to be the dominant trend. So while there has been very little action coming from governments, the market naturally manages to decrease Intensity all on it's own.
Basically, without any policy changes, the US could grow it's GDP by 3% a year, for the next 23 years and meet this target, while emissions rise by 75%.
Canada has followed a similar trend, though our decreases have been more moderate than the US, who decreased energy intensity by 4% in 2006.
So as we can conclude, this is nothing more than business as usual, even CBC, the leftist pinko rag that they are missed that...
The nations attending agreed to non-binding targets to reduce energy intensity by 25% by 2030. Canada is being attributed with the leadership on this issue, and can only be thought of as leading the world in a business as usual approach.
First of all, the idea that energy intensity serves as a useful measure of climate action is preposterous. I won't get into the definition, as I'm sure anyone who reads this is well aware of what intensity is, a scam.
To give some context to this ludicrous situation, lets take a look at the US as a case study. A report released by the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration shows just how ludicrous this is. Heres an exerpt:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/presentations/oiaf/speeches/0321eia.html. Energy intensity, measured as energy use per dollar of gross domestic product (GDP), has declined since 1970, most notably when energy prices have increased rapidly (Figure 7). Between 1970 and 1986, energy intensity declined at an average rate of 2.3 percent per year as the economy shifted to less energy-intensive industries and more efficient technologies. Without significant price increases and with the growth of more energy-intensive industries, intensity declines moderated to an average of 1.3 percent per year between 1986 and 1999. Through 2020, energy intensity is projected to decline at an average rate of 1.6 percent per year as efficiency gains and structural shifts in the economy offset growth in demand for energy services. Energy use per person generally declined from 1970 through the mid-1980s, and then tended to increase as energy prices declined. Per capita energy use is expected to increase slightly through 2020, as efficiency gains only partly offset higher demand for energy services.
We all know that past governments here in the West have by and large paid lip service to the climate change problem, even now this still appears to be the dominant trend. So while there has been very little action coming from governments, the market naturally manages to decrease Intensity all on it's own.
Basically, without any policy changes, the US could grow it's GDP by 3% a year, for the next 23 years and meet this target, while emissions rise by 75%.
Canada has followed a similar trend, though our decreases have been more moderate than the US, who decreased energy intensity by 4% in 2006.
So as we can conclude, this is nothing more than business as usual, even CBC, the leftist pinko rag that they are missed that...