David Suzuki's Rock bus Eco - Tour -Mr .Kyoto himself


CDNBear
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Considering China's infastructure and level of poverty I'd say it is a developing country.

It's level of poverty is the direct result of its socialist mechanisms of some people are more equal then others.
 
Avro
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Speaking of typical...

Anyone that deny's Kyoto or that GW is completely the result of mankind, is either ignorant, unintelleigent, an idiot and the list goes on all day.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news juan, but Suzuki is a liar...

I never said that, I just said they don't fully understand Kyoto.
 
Avro
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

It's level of poverty is the direct result of its socialist mechanisms of some people are more equal then others.

That is changing all you have to do is go there like I did last year.
 
BitWhys
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

You don't know Suzuki and you don't have the education to criticize him. You sure as hell are not qualified to call him a liar. You are welcome to your opinions, but opinions based on ignorance don't carry a hell of a lot of weight. While Suzuki didn't invent Kyoto, the accord had some good points, namely getting the world to work together on GW. It needs improvement but so do we all.

good post. Suzuki isn't perfect but, I mean, get serious. The guy's over 70 years old. If you ask me after all those years he's earned the right to pass all the gas he wants. at least he's ponying up.
 
EagleSmack
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Considering China's infastructure and level of poverty I'd say it is a developing country.

Because China refuses to fix some of the infrastructure and refuses to bring it's people up and devote it's billions to its industry, military, space program does not make it a developing nation.

There is poverty and infrastructure issues here in the US... are we developing as well?

Misuse of money is no excuse to give a country a developing nation status.

The bottom line is China NEVER would have signed that treaty and the Kyoto folks knew it. Complaining to China is like complaing to a wall. They could care less what you think or what you say about them. China will NEVER sign on to this treaty. Heck even the signator nations aren't living up to their obligations.
 
darkbeaver
#96
Good man Suzuki, anybody slagging him deserves a punch in the head.
 
Avro
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Because China refuses to fix some of the infrastructure and refuses to bring it's people up and devote it's billions to its industry, military, space program does not make it a developing nation.

There is poverty and infrastructure issues here in the US... are we developing as well?

Misuse of money is no excuse to give a country a developing nation status.

The bottom line is China NEVER would have signed that treaty and the Kyoto folks knew it. Complaining to China is like complaing to a wall. They could care less what you think or what you say about them. China will NEVER sign on to this treaty. Heck even the signator nations aren't living up to their obligations.

The level of poverty in China is vastly different in China than in the U.S.

China is already making moves in the area of green technology with help from the West.
 
CDNBear
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

The level of poverty in China is vastly different in China than in the U.S.

China is already making moves in the area of green technology with help from the West.

That green technology will be negated by the shear quantity of coal fire plants.
Quote:

New coal plants bury 'Kyoto'

New greenhouse-gas emissions from China, India, and the US will swamp cuts from the Kyoto treaty.

By Mark Clayton (external - login to view) | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

So much for Kyoto.
The official treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions hasn't gone into effect yet and already three countries are planning to build nearly 850 new coal-fired plants, which would pump up to five times as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce.

The magnitude of that imbalance is staggering. Environmentalists have long called the treaty a symbolic rather than practical victory in the fight against global warming. But even many of them do not appear aware of the coming tidal wave of greenhouse-gas emissions by nations not under Kyoto restrictions.
By 2012, the plants in three key countries - China, India, and the United States - are expected to emit as much as an extra 2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to a Monitor analysis of power-plant construction data. In contrast, Kyoto countries by that year are supposed to have cut their CO2 emissions by some 483 million tons.
The findings suggest that critics of the treaty, including the Bush administration, may be correct when they claim the treaty is hopelessly flawed because it doesn't limit emissions from the developing world. But they also suggest that the world is on the cusp of creating a huge new infrastructure that will pump out enormous amounts of CO2 for the next six decades.
Without strong US leadership, it's unlikely that technology to cut CO2 emissions will be ready in time for the power-plant construction boom, many say.
"If all those power plants are online by 2012, then obviously it completely cancels out any gains from Kyoto," says Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The reason for the dramatic imbalance is coal. Just a few years ago, economists and environmentalists still pictured a world shifting steadily from "dirty" coal-fired power plants to "cleaner" natural-gas turbines. But the fast-rising price of natural gas and other factors abruptly changed that picture. Now the world is facing a tidal wave of new power plants fired by coal, experts say. "China and India are building coal-fired capacity as fast as they can," says Christopher Bergesen, who tracks power plant construction for Platts, the energy publishing division of McGraw- Hill.
China is the dominant player. The country is on track to add 562 coal-fired plants - nearly half the world total of plants expected to come online in the next eight years. India could add 213such plants; the US, 72. ( See chart below.)
Altogether, those three nations are set to add up to 327,000 megawatts by 2012 - three quarters of the new capacity in the global pipeline and roughly equal to the output of today's US coal-fired generating fleet.
The new coal plants from the three nations would burn about 900 million extra tons of coal each year. That, in turn, would emit in the neighborhood of 2.5 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, Dr. Schmidt estimates.
"I'm not hugely optimistic we are going to slow the rate of carbon emission overall any time soon," says Schmidt of the Goddard institute. "If this sort of thing continues unchecked, we won't be arguing about climate change in 2100, because the changes will be all too obvious."
But several uncertainties remain. First, not all of the plants may be built. In the US, for example, local opposition may halt construction of some of the 100 coal-fired plants now in various stages of development. According to Mr. Bergesen's numbers, 72 plants could be added, the basis for the Monitor's estimates.
Another uncertainty: Slightly less than half of the new plants Platts forecasts for China and India have an official start date. If only those plants with start dates are built, then the expected emissions from the three nations would total only 1.2 billion tons of CO2, still more than double the required reduction from Kyoto. But that estimate is conservative, experts say, because Chinese and Indian leaders face few political barriers to power-plant construction and big demands for more power.
Efficiency a key
Although US coal-fired plants are far more efficient than those in China or India, all three countries, presumably, would install state-of-the-art technology. The Monitor's estimates are based on the assumption that the new plants in all three nations will be 10 percent more efficient than today's US average - a conservative estimate, experts say.
The third uncertainty involves new technology. Having rejected Kyoto, President Bush says the US will pursue its own policy of voluntary carbon reductions and conduct research into technologies like "carbon sequestration" - burying CO2 rather than emitting it. To do that, the US Department of Energy hopes to develop new technologies by 2012 that would economically capture the greenhouse gas before it leaves the power plant.
One approach - called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology - aims to siphon off CO2 before it's sent up the stack. The largest US power company, American Electric Power in Columbus, Ohio, plans to build at least one commercial IGCC plant by 2010. Another coal-burning power company, Cinergy, in Cincinnati, this month said it also would build an IGCC plant.
But funding for a key billion-dollar federal IGCC experimental program called FutureGen is lagging. And unless the US sets a limit on CO2 emissions that creates a market for carbon-reducing technology, there is little financial incentive to invest in such technology, experts say. As a result, the technology appears unlikely to be deployed in time to make much difference in the coming surge of power-plant construction.
Without such technology, the impact on climate by the new coal plants would be significant, though not entirely unanticipated. They would boost CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by about 14 percent by 2012, Schmidt estimates. That's within the 1 to 2 percent annual range for CO2 growth expected in "high-growth" scenarios put forward by climate scientists. But it does not fall into the "maximum" scenario they use to evaluate the worst-case impact of greenhouse gases.
The power of six
"The point is that a relatively small number of countries holds the fate of the planet in their hands in terms of climate change," says David Hawkins, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center. "If the five or six countries building all these power plants were to come together to develop a strategy for carbon capture applied to coal, it would be a huge step toward cutting global warming."
Energy security is one factor driving the shift. With its 250-year supply of coal, the US is often called the "Saudi Arabia of coal." China, with similarly huge reserves, is even planning to convert coal into synthetic fuel for cars - even though such processes typically produce large amounts of greenhouse gases.
Coal's low price has been a powerful incentive, too. Chinese authorities are pushing for cleaner power. But gas pipelines in China aren't fully utilized because of that fuel's higher cost, experts say. And in the US, utility companies are shifting focus from natural gas to coal instead.
"There has been an abrupt about-face," says Robert McIlvaine, who heads his own Northfield, Ill., information company that tracks the construction of coal power plants globally. "Utilities that would not consider a coal-fired plant a year or two ago are now moving forward with coal-fired projects."
With natural gas prices expected to continue rising, 58 other nations have 340 new coal-fired plants in various stages of development. They are expected to go online in a decade or so. Malaysia, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, and Turkey are all planning significant new coal-fired power additions. Germany also plans to build eight coal plants with 6,000 megawatts capacity.
But China is the key. "The Chinese will surpass the coal-fired generating capacity and the CO2 emissions of the US in the next couple of years," Mr. McIlvaine says.
Hit by blackouts and power restrictions for 18 months, China has been scrambling to relieve that pressure. Scores of unauthorized power projects about which little is known have sprouted nationwide - along with hundreds of official projects, McIlvaine says. Because of this, even careful estimates could be low, both he and Bergesen say.
"Environmental optimists were assuming the world was going to switch to gas, but when you're short of gas you use your own coal," says Philip Andrews-Speed, a China energy expert at the University of Dundee, in Scotland. "What you're seeing with China and the others is the cheapness and security of coal just overwhelming the desire to be clean."

COAL'S KNOCKOUT BLOW TO KYOTO: By 2012, expected cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions under the Kyoto treaty will be swamped by emissions from a surge of new coal-fired plants built in China, India, and the United States
SOURCES: UDI-PLATT'S, US ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, AND INDUSTRY ESTIMATES; SCOTT WALLACE - STAFF www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html (external - login to view)

Last edited by CDNBear; Feb 27th, 2007 at 05:05 PM..
 
EagleSmack
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That green technology will be negated by the shear quantity of coal fire plants.

Yes and I wish I had that stat on how many they are currently building.

Get it through your heads. If ANY Green Technology impedes China's economy, China will simply not comply.

THEY DON'T CARE... THEY ARE LAUGHING AT YOU.

The Kyoto Group showed weakness wrt China. Bad move.
 
Avro
#100
Something I'm already aware of Bear.
 
Tonington
#101
China did sign onto Kyoto, only with different obligations because of the classification of the country as developing. When Russia signed, the treaty had enough members from one of the Annexes(can't remember which Annex) to put the treaty into effect. Kyoto needed China and other developing nations to be under a different set of rules, otherwise the trading of carbon credits would take place how? You need a growing country to finance the infrastructure (a carbon credit). The country becomes more affluent, and in the process they have actually a leg up on us. We will have to replace our infrastructure, whereas developing nations are getting cleaner technology cheaper. The only other way to my knowledge to get carbon credits(without greedy industry having licenses to create them...) is to plant trees.

So, we can all admit there are problems with the treaty, it comes back to concessions. They had to be made, can you honestly think of any treaty where one country isn't trying to get the best deal for themselves? What is good about Kyoto, besides being international, is the economics involved is a powerful incentive. Nothing speaks like money in this issue.

Why these discussiona always come back to Kyoto, I'll never know. Maybe I can formulate my own law where as posts pile up in an environmental discussion, the probability that Kyoto will come up approaches 1.000 . To be honest I'm getting sick of hearing about it and sometimes I think we might be better off just doing it ourselves, that is if we could even get a consensus here in Canada which is probably as difficult as the international treaty henceforth known as "For those with no imagination, insight or original ideas" Protocol.

Obviously I'm being foolish. We can reduce pollution without using the K word, maybe we just need a little more (B-word, pl.)
 
CDNBear
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

China did sign onto Kyoto, only with different obligations because of the classification of the country as developing. When Russia signed, the treaty had enough members from one of the Annexes(can't remember which Annex) to put the treaty into effect. Kyoto needed China and other developing nations to be under a different set of rules, otherwise the trading of carbon credits would take place how? You need a growing country to finance the infrastructure (a carbon credit). The country becomes more affluent, and in the process they have actually a leg up on us. We will have to replace our infrastructure, whereas developing nations are getting cleaner technology cheaper. The only other way to my knowledge to get carbon credits(without greedy industry having licenses to create them...) is to plant trees.
So, we can all admit there are problems with the treaty, it comes back to concessions. They had to be made, can you honestly think of any treaty where one country isn't trying to get the best deal for themselves? What is good about Kyoto, besides being international, is the economics involved is a powerful incentive. Nothing speaks like money in this issue.
Why these discussiona always come back to Kyoto, I'll never know. Maybe I can formulate my own law where as posts pile up in an environmental discussion, the probability that Kyoto will come up approaches 1.000 . To be honest I'm getting sick of hearing about it and sometimes I think we might be...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
I know we always go around and come back to Kyoto, but in this thread, Suzuki is a Kyoto shill. So it was only a matter of time. lmao.
 
Avro
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post


To be honest I'm getting sick of hearing about it and sometimes I think we might be better off just doing it ourselves

If we do it ourselves it dosen't solve the Global problem.

That is why an international agreement is needed and as you know this is a only the first step.
 
Tonington
#104
The way I see it, we can spend money on ourselves now to clean up our act, and then help out the other nations. Or we can spend our money elsewhere and then spend money here cleaning things up. I'm sure in the second round we'll have to step it up, I think it's better if we're on the move ourselves when that time comes, rather than having all of our obligations met in foreign countries. Of course that's not to say we can't be mixing it up, personally I'd rather see more money spent here in Canada rather than over-seas.
 
CDNBear
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

If we do it ourselves it dosen't solve the Global problem.

That is why an international agreement is needed and as you know this is a only the first step.

Ummm, if you are aware of the issue I just brought up, then who is working on the global problem. Need I post the stats on the EU's failure to meet targets, all while purchasing or schmoozing credits?

No one is meeting the targets, no one is going to, many EU consumers have already seen a 65% jump in there electric bills.

Kyoto is not the answer. If they all got together tomorrow and rewrote it, so as all polution is covered and every country is accountable, with no credits at all. Then we'ld be gettin' somewhere.

Odd, how it seems to be only the socialists pushing this so hard. That only fuels my theory, that it's global welfare.
 
L Gilbert
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

so you expect Suzuki to plan his entire tour around the kindness of strangers

not much of a business plan.

What the f are you talking about? What business? Look, pilgrom, there's three ways of funding his tour he can take,; kindness of nice folks like me, gov't funding, and using his own pocket money.

Quote:

the point is there's no infrastructure to support a nation-wide tour based on electric power. you guys are expecting Suzuki to make bricks out of straw.

My point was that if he was so conscientious towards the environment, he'd have come up with a more conscientious method of getting around, Rick Hansen got around Canada in a wheelchair to get his point across.
Infrastructure? Geeee. Maybe in your section of the planet there's no electricity, but I even have electricity in my workshop that powers my 220 volt welder. 220 volts coupled with 30 amps can pack a lottta juice into yer batteries in a short period of time.
Personally, I don't care what Suzuki does with his straw.
 
L Gilbert
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Actually I think they just expect him to lead by example.

You got it, Avro.
 
L Gilbert
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

he is

its called carbon neutrality. like I said at the outside its a concept that's too difficult for some to grasp, let alone be good enough for those out to put him down.

What's so tough? Minimize CO emmissions is the goal, right? Suzuki could reduce his by a whopping pile if he'd go electric rather than diesel.
 
L Gilbert
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

I can't speak for Harper but Bush isn't the one screaming

"THE SKY IS FALLING!"

With regards to GW. This guy Suzuki is a liar and a hypocit. I particularly like the new Carbon Credit scam. Polute all you want and put a dollar amount to it... then invest that money in a green industry (or whatever).

Gore just got bagged pulling the same stuff. His household uses twice the power of an average American household.

"No worries" says Gore "I buy Carbon Credits."

These wealthy eco-nuts will never put a stop to their lifestyles or restrict their comfort in the least.

........ until it becomes more expensive to pollute than to be envirowise.
 
L Gilbert
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I want real change across the board, land, sea and air. No trading of credits, not singluar visions of GHG as the worlds biggest issue. Total global anti polution action and now. Not some trumpt up global welfare scheme.

Me, too.
 
L Gilbert
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

You don't know Suzuki and you don't have the education to criticize him. You sure as hell are not qualified to call him a liar. You are welcome to your opinions, but opinions based on ignorance don't carry a hell of a lot of weight. While Suzuki didn't invent Kyoto, the accord had some good points, namely getting the world to work together on GW. It needs improvement but so do we all.

Nuts. The thing needs to be scrapped and a less political one developed.
 
L Gilbert
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Developing... like China? lol

Another cowardly action by the Kyoto. Giving one of the worlds biggest economies and industrial base a developing nation status. What a crock. They knew China would tell them to stick it if they tried to get "green" tough with them. China could care less about the environment or what these green people think and the green people know that. So they gave a nation that has a manned space program a "developing" nation status.

That's about the size of it, Eag. It's poltics more than concern for being green.
 
L Gilbert
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Considering China's infastructure and level of poverty I'd say it is a developing country.

Well, then in that sense, EVERY country is developing. After almost 30 years, we are still developing our marriage, my wife and I. Isn't the US trying to develop into something better? Canada? GB?
 
Tonington
#114
Something to ponder, when does a developing nation become developed, and what happens to a developed nation when a former developing nation surpasses you? Can a developing nation really cause the stock markets across the world to meltdown?
 
L Gilbert
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

good post. Suzuki isn't perfect but, I mean, get serious. The guy's over 70 years old. If you ask me after all those years he's earned the right to pass all the gas he wants. at least he's ponying up.

Ah, old age: the penultimate excuse for being able to do whatever one wants whether one walks the talk or not.
 
L Gilbert
#116
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Good man Suzuki, anybody slagging him deserves a punch in the head.

Nothing but fear and common sense holding you back, windy.
 
L Gilbert
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

We can reduce pollution without using the K word, maybe we just need a little more (B-word, pl.)

Exactly. Forget the political crap in the Kyoto batch of a$$wipe and just develop something of our own. That twit Gordon Campbull & Co. did, I'm sure the rest of Canada could.
 
L Gilbert
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

If we do it ourselves it dosen't solve the Global problem.

That is why an international agreement is needed and as you know this is a only the first step.

So you think leaving our own backyard in a mess while telling and helping someone else fix theirs is a good way to do it? Last I heard, that was a good way for someone to find a reason to call you a hypocrite. There's no honor in being one, lemme tell ya.
 
L Gilbert
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

..........personally I'd rather see more money spent here in Canada rather than over-seas.

Ditto.
 
Avro
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

So you think leaving our own backyard in a mess while telling and helping someone else fix theirs is a good way to do it? Last I heard, that was a good way for someone to find a reason to call you a hypocrite. There's no honor in being one, lemme tell ya.

We can do both can't we?
 

Similar Threads

0
70
Global Warming And David Suzuki's Lies
by CDNBear | Mar 1st, 2007
0
Rock my world!
by I think not | Mar 13th, 2006
no new posts