Canada won't confirm Kyoto withdrawal


mentalfloss
#1
Canada won't confirm Kyoto withdrawal

Environment Minister Peter Kent wouldn't confirm or deny Monday that Canada plans to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, as talks on the accord's future got underway in Durban, South Africa.

"I won't comment on a speculative report," Kent said in response to questions about a report that Canada will announce it is pulling out shortly before Christmas.

But South Africa's high commissioner to Canada said in an interview with CBC News that there has been speculation for weeks about the Conservative government's planned withdrawal and about it wanting other countries to follow suit.

"It's disturbing and very disapppointing that a country like Canada would pull out after having given leadership in this particular UN convention which is so important for the world," Mohau Pheko said.

"It will, of course undermine the process going into Durban because obviously they have not only just planned their own withdrawal, which we are speculating upon, but they have actively lobbied other countries to do the same.


"I think that this is part of what is disturbing as well. That while you hold your own position then withdraw and allow others to continue with the process. So it's a very disappointing position I think that Canada has taken and as I said not only for the world but for Canadians themselves," she added.

Pheko said reports about Canada withdrawing don't come as a surprise, given the government's approach to negotiations leading up to the Durban conference.

She also said it makes sense for Canada to rally support around its position of withdrawing from the Kytoto protocol, if that is what is announced in the coming weeks.

“There is speculation that Canada has been lobbying other countries too, of course you don't want to move on your own and be seen as a 'pariah' of the world on climate change, so obviously you may need a few friends to move along with you," she said.

Kent was asked several times earlier in the day at a news conference in Ottawa, and opposition parties also pressed him in question period Monday afternoon, to confirm the report about pulling out of Kyoto but he did not give a definitive answer.

Kent was making an announcement in Ottawa about continued funding for the Conservative government's clean air agenda – $600 million over the next five years.

The environment minister said that in Durban he will try to convince the other parties that signed the protocol that a new international agreement is needed, one that includes the world's major polluters. He leaves for the two-week conference later this week.

"We're going to Durban to work in common cause with the other parties to the convention to advance a new climate change agreement, binding eventually, which will engage all emitters in both the developed and the developing countries," Kent said.

He called the international agreement "one of the biggest blunders" the Liberal government ever made and said his government is committed to a "realistic" plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"Kyoto is the past, Copenhagen and Cancun are the future,” Kent said, referring to the commitments made at climate change talks in those cities in recent years.

Negotiators and political leaders from 190 countries, including Canada, are participating in the conference, and are seeking new ways to cut carbon dioxide emissions and pollution and also trying to resolve differences between rich and poor countries on how to fight climate change.

The UN climate secretariat Christiana Figueres said future commitments by industrial countries to slash greenhouse gas emissions is "the defining issue of this conference." She is hoping for a decision at the meetings on extending emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto accord. The protocol called on nations to reduce carbon emissions five per cent below 1990 levels by the end of next year and some of the commitments are due to expire next year.

Canada won't confirm Kyoto withdrawal - Politics - CBC News
 
Walter
#2
Yes!
 
Nuggler
+1
#3
According to today's Ottawa Citizen, we're outa there.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+3
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Nuggler View Post

According to today's Ottawa Citizen, we're outa there.

About time. We should have never been involved in this ridiculous tax grab anyway.
 
mentalfloss
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

About time. We should have never been involved in this ridiculous tax grab anyway.

I take it you're not a fan of the Green Climate Fund then, lol


Financing Green Fund Expected to be a Hot Topic at Climate Change Talks

At the COP talks in Cancun, Mexico, last year, there was international consensus on the Green Climate Fund to help developing countries begin to move away from the harmful practice of burning coal for energy.

The fund, it was agreed, would raise and disburse $100 billion a year to protect poorer countries against the negative effects of global warming and to help them build cleaner energy sources, such as wind and solar power stations.

“The argument is that the developed countries, especially the United States and Western Europe, built their economies on dirty energy – principally coal. So they’re chiefly responsible for the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, that are causing climate change,” said Olivia Langhoff of Greenpeace Africa. “Yet the worst of the climate change impacts are being felt in least developed countries. So there is definitely a strong argument for the developed countries to greatly help poorer countries to switch to renewable energies.”

Financing Green Fund Expected to be a Hot Topic at Climate Change Talks | Pan Africa | English
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

I take it you're not a fan of the Green Climate Fund then, lol


Financing Green Fund Expected to be a Hot Topic at Climate Change Talks

At the COP talks in Cancun, Mexico, last year, there was international consensus on the Green Climate Fund to help developing countries begin to move away from the harmful practice of burning coal for energy.

The fund, it was agreed, would raise and disburse $100 billion a year to protect poorer countries against the negative effects of global warming and to help them build cleaner energy sources, such as wind and solar power stations.

“The argument is that the developed countries, especially the United States and Western Europe, built their economies on dirty energy – principally coal. So they’re chiefly responsible for the greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, that are causing climate change,” said Olivia Langhoff of Greenpeace Africa. “Yet the worst of the climate change impacts are being felt in least developed countries. So there is definitely a strong argument for the developed countries to greatly help poorer countries to switch to renewable energies.”

Financing Green Fund Expected to be a Hot Topic at Climate Change Talks | Pan Africa | English

Not in the least. I am all in favor of burning coal. We have a couple of hundred years worth to export. Coal can be burned very clean but the greenies only show pictures of 1920s coal plants, not modern ones.
 
mentalfloss
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Not in the least. I am all in favor of burning coal. We have a couple of hundred years worth to export. Coal can be burned very clean but the greenies only show pictures of 1920s coal plants, not modern ones.

It's those 1920s plants that helped caused the destruction occurring in those poorer countries today, unfortunately.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

I take it you're not a fan of the Green Climate Fund then, lol

What sane person from the west IS in favour???
 
mentalfloss
+1 / -1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

What sane person from the west IS in favour???

Christians.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

I take it you're not a fan of the Green Climate Fund then, lol

I'm all in favour .... assuming Canada or myself will not be asked to contribute. Its a great idea if you can find funders.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

It's those 1920s plants that helped caused the destruction occurring in those poorer countries today, unfortunately.

Can't do much about the 1920's plants now except ensure any still running have been modernized. All we can do is work in the 2010s.

To what destruction are you refering?
 
Colpy
Conservative
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Christians.

LOL Really....

FINE!!!!
 
mentalfloss
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

To what destruction are you refering?




Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

LOL Really....

FINE!!!!

Okay, sorry.. I meant the real christians - agnostics/atheists.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Oh right, you are one of those that believes that all the climate change that happens in the world is man's doing.
 
mentalfloss
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

Oh right, you are one of those that believes that all the climate change that happens in the world is man's doing.

Along with 97% of climate scientists, yes.
 
TenPenny
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

Oh right, you are one of those that believes that all the climate change that happens in the world is man's doing.

Are you one of those who believe that NONE of it is man's doing?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Are you one of those who believe that NONE of it is man's doing?

I believe there are natual cycles and man may alter it slightly. I believe we should take reasonable precautions but most of the hype is just that. I also believe that if you are going to do enter into agreements to do something about it, it should be the whole world not excluding some countries for various reasons.

I also don't feel any moral obligation for my grandfather's sins of burning unclean coal.
 
mentalfloss
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

I believe there are natual cycles and man may alter it slightly.

That's fine. In fact, that's actually a very good line of thinking.

I would rather someone at least accept that we do have influence and the disagreement be with the scope of that influence, than assume there is no influence at all.

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

I also believe that if you are going to do enter into agreements to do something about it, it should be the whole world not excluding some countries for various reasons.

You can't be a leader by waiting for everyone else.

Do you guys realize we pay $1.4 Billion in tax dollars EVERY YEAR to the oil sands and do not receive one cent to show for it at the pumps?

Now that's a failed resource.
Last edited by mentalfloss; Nov 29th, 2011 at 11:47 AM..
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
+2
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Christians.


He asked which sane group would support it.
 
JackPhast
Free Thinker
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

I believe there are natual cycles and man may alter it slightly. I believe we should take reasonable precautions but most of the hype is just that. I also believe that if you are going to do enter into agreements to do something about it, it should be the whole world not excluding some countries for various reasons.

I also don't feel any moral obligation for my grandfather's sins of burning unclean coal.

Yes, there are natural cycles, and it is impossible to say how much we actually alter (although most scientists believe that we do significantly). But why take that risk? Why not err on the side of caution?

If we act, and man made climate change wasn't real, we still have a better world - less pollution, which solves other environmental problems, such as ocean acidification, and we will be less dependent on oil and other resources that are going to run out anyway. Yes, it would be costly to make the change, but since non-renewable resources will run out anyway, we have to make the change sometimes, and sooner is probably easier than later.

However, if we don't act, and man made climate change is real, then the consequences could be devastating.

Why would we seriously want to take that chance?

And for all its drawbacks, Kyoto is the best treaty that we have come up with for a solution to climate change. And the reason some countries are exempted is simply. We (the west) is in the privileged position that we are in, because of our use of coal and oil - how can you say to a poorer country that they aren't allowed to use the same tools to wealth as we did? We created the problem, and are living with the rewards of it, so we should be the ones cleaning it up.
 
Walter
+1
#20
CO2 is not a pollutant.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by JackPhast View Post

And for all its drawbacks, Kyoto is the best treaty that we have come up with for a solution to climate change. And the reason some countries are exempted is simply. We (the west) is in the privileged position that we are in, because of our use of coal and oil - how can you say to a poorer country that they aren't allowed to use the same tools to wealth as we did? We created the problem, and are living with the rewards of it, so we should be the ones cleaning it up.

China is a poorer country? They produce more and more CO2 as they are continuously adding coal power plants online almost weekly.

You make good points to a point. And I am not saying that we should go out and pollute willy nilly. But there is no need to throw ourselves into an [bigger] economic downturn in order to radically alter the amount of CO2 in the air. If there are cheap gains, take them. But that is as far as I am willing to support without more evidence.
 
mentalfloss
#22
China decries Canada's 'bad example'

Beijing - Canada's failure to deny reports that it is about to ditch the Kyoto Protocol is "setting a bad example" to other developed nations as global climate change talks enter their third day, China's official news agency said on Wednesday.

Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent said on Monday that Kyoto was "the past", but he would not confirm media reports that Ottawa was planning to formally withdraw from the treaty, one of the main topics of global climate talks now under way in Durban, South Africa.

Canada says it backs a new global deal to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, but insists it has to cover all nations, including China and India, which are not bound by Kyoto's current targets.

The commentary published by Xinhua news agency accused Canada of undermining global efforts against climate change and damaging its own reputation in pursuit of short-term interests.

"While delegations from every country attend the Durban climate conference to discuss a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, one can imagine the damage done by this 'rumour'," Xinhua said.

"Some are angry and some are depressed, but whatever the expression made by each delegation, they are united in their criticism of Canada."


The commentary said Canada's failure to meet its Kyoto Protocol targets had encouraged it to write off the protocol and thereby "smash a pot to pieces just because it is cracked".

The Kyoto Protocol obliged signatory countries from the developed world to make mandatory cuts in their total greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, when the first commitment period ends.


Breakthrough


Canada was obliged to slash CO2 by 6% compared to 1990, but by 2009, the total was still 17% higher.

Canada was also likely to be using the rumours to try to secure a favourable breakthrough during the Durban talks, Xinhua said, and "as soon as the negotiations do not meet its expectations, it will allow the rumours to become reality".

If Canada pulls out of Kyoto, it will join the United States on the sidelines of a treaty originally designed to force rich nations with far higher historical levels of greenhouse gas emissions to take on most of the burden when it comes to handling climate change.

Developing nations like China and India were not under any obligation to make binding CO2 cuts under the treaty, and also received funding for clean projects through Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism.

Russia and Japan have refused to support an extension of Kyoto beyond 2012, saying that the treaty is meaningless if the biggest emitters - China and the United States - do not sign up for binding cuts.


China decries Canada's 'bad example' | News24
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Russia and Japan have refused to support an extension of Kyoto beyond 2012, saying that the treaty is meaningless if the biggest emitters - China and the United States - do not sign up for binding cuts.

Bingo.
 
mentalfloss
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

Bingo.

No Bingo.

The countries that developed earlier have a greater onus to take responsibility.

So you can point the finger at the U.S., but not so much on China.

Either way, you lead by example.

Canada is failing miserably on the environment.
 
petros
#25
Coal schmoal, are you prepared to give up copper?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

No Bingo.

The countries that developed earlier have a greater onus to take responsibility.

So you can point the finger at the U.S., but not so much on China.

Either way, you lead by example.

Canada is failing miserably on the environment.

I disagree with this statement entirely. Until 10-20 years ago, global warming was not really something people knew about or developed for. If you want to have an effective treaty, it must be everybody entirely. You can help poorer countries (China is not poor) by providing funding etc. But all countries must participate. You don't get a free pass because you got to the party late. The leading by example is a crock -- nobody would actually follow because you did something.

The US, as I understand, did not sign the treaty but actually did make some carbon reductions. China on the other hand has been putting out CO2 like there was no tommorow (and taking the free Kyoto money too I am sure). Doesn't matter who puts the CO2 in the air it would have whatever effect it will have (extent of those effects in dispute).

Canada is only failing based upon Creitien's photo op signing of the treaty which we had no ability to comply.
 
mentalfloss
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

I disagree with this statement entirely. Until 10-20 years ago, global warming was not really something people knew about or developed for. If you want to have an effective treaty, it must be everybody entirely.

Who said anything about having to sign a treaty?

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

Canada is only failing based upon Creitien's photo op signing of the treaty which we had no ability to comply.

No, we chose not to comply with that treaty.

The EU actually met and exceeded targets.

They're leading the way on the moral ground.
 
petros
#28
Was it a legally binding contract?
 
mentalfloss
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Was it a legally binding contract?

Of course.

That's why we're not supposed to exit before 2012.
 
petros
#30
Is it really? Under UCC? Or?
 

Similar Threads

21
Democrats: 3-6 month withdrawal Iraq
by Curiosity | Nov 17th, 2006
8
Enacting a hasty withdrawal
by Retired_Can_Soldier | May 4th, 2006