Canada won't confirm Kyoto withdrawal


IdRatherBeSkiing
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Who said anything about having to sign a treaty?



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.

This topic is about the Kyoto treaty is it not?

Creitien knew at the time of signing that Canada COULD NOT achieve those targets. But he also knew that his days as PM were numbered and the problem would wind up in Martin's hands not his. But it made a good photo op so he signed (in bad faith).

Good for the EU. Leading on the Moral Ground. Wonder if thats why their economy is in the toilet and ours isn't?

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Of course.

That's why we're not supposed to exit before 2012.

Its 2011. What is the difference in waiting a month or 2? We are not going to achieve the targets so what difference does it make?
 
mentalfloss
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Is it really? Under UCC? Or?

Let me google that for you - Kyoto Protocol


Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

What is the difference in waiting a month or 2? We are not going to achieve the targets so what difference does it make?

It sets a precedent about co-operation for Kyoto's replacement.
 
petros
#33
What's the difference between an agreement and a contract?
 
mentalfloss
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

What's the difference between an agreement and a contract?

Your mom?
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#35
[QUOTE=mentalfloss;1511618


Okay, sorry.. I meant the real christians - agnostics/atheists.[/QUOTE]
This is a nice map of Africa,it shows what will happen when the temperature goes up.
But what if you don't believe the predictions of the warmists.They are just hypothetical anyway.
With all the **** coming out of the IPCC and East Anglia and the past predictions of that Hansen guy from NASA
I think I will take all this with a grain of salt and support Canada's complete withdrall from Kyoto.
I do not feel sorry for the sins of my father,and do not want to saddle more debt onto our children.
 
petros
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Your mom?

Have a Coke and smile!
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Let me google that for you - Kyoto Protocol




It sets a precedent about co-operation for Kyoto's replacement.

I think that process is pretty much doomed with or without Canada's precident. I do agree that I don't see a good reason why we need to withdraw from a contract which expires next year and we are ignoring anyways.
 
mentalfloss
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

This is a nice map of Africa,it shows what will happen when the temperature goes up.
But what if you don't believe the predictions of the warmists.They are just hypothetical anyway.
With all the **** coming out of the IPCC and East Anglia and the past predictions of that Hansen guy from NASA
I think I will take all this with a grain of salt and support Canada's complete withdrall from Kyoto.
I do not feel sorry for the sins of my father,and do not want to saddle more debt onto our children.

AGW is real. The scope of change is what is in question.

Basically, it's scientifically agreed (97% of scientists and growing!) that carbon emissions are accelerating climate change, but the scope and degree of harm to the environment (at least in terms of timeframe) is difficult to predict.

There was an article not too long ago that said we're screwed by 2048 I think..
 
petros
+1
#39
It's not a contract just an agreement with no penalties or oblgation to commit.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

AGW is real. The scope of change is what is in question.

Basically, it's scientifically agreed (97% of scientists and growing!) that carbon emissions are accelerating climate change, but the scope and degree of harm to the environment (at least in terms of timeframe) is difficult to predict.

There was an article not too long ago that said we're screwed by 2048 I think..

How did we make it cool off post 1930's dust bowl?
 
mentalfloss
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

It's not a contract just an agreement with no penalties or oblgation to commit.

Countries that fail to meet their emissions targets by the end of the first commitment period (2012) must make up the difference plus a penalty of 30 per cent in the second commitment period. Their ability to sell credits under emissions trading will also be suspended.

CBC News In Depth: Kyoto and beyond
 
petros
#41
What second commitment period?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

What second commitment period?

The one they are trying to get everybody to sign in South Africa.
 
petros
+2
#43
It ain't gonna happen. When it comes to industry we are one of the ones still underdeveloped.
 
mentalfloss
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

It ain't gonna happen. When it comes to industry we are one of the ones still underdeveloped.

How so?
 
Walter
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

AGW is real. The scope of change is what is in question.

Basically, it's scientifically agreed (97% of scientists and growing!) that carbon emissions are accelerating climate change, but the scope and degree of harm to the environment (at least in terms of timeframe) is difficult to predict.

There was an article not too long ago that said we're screwed by 2048 I think..

Please read Michael Crichton's, "State of Fear" and you'll change your mind.
 
mentalfloss
-1
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Please read Michael Crichton's, "State of Fear" and you'll change your mind.

Please read Massimo Pigliucci's "Nonsense on Stilts" which is actually a credible assessment of scientific study and not a work of fiction.

Then get back to me and we can play parcheesy.

Or you can continue to neg rep me when you get your panties in a twist.
 
wulfie68
No Party Affiliation
+4
#47  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by JackPhast View Post

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?

It all depends on what you mean by "err on the side of caution". If you mean put resources into R&D of alternative energy sources, I'm with you. If you mean get into fake enviromentalist scams like Cap & Trade, I'm totally against you.

Quote: Originally Posted by JackPhast View Post

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.

If we act precipitously and throw the balance of nature out the other way, its just as bad as what the climate change alarmists are afraid of right now. Science isn't always of case of X = good, so 2 or 3 times X = better. Quite often that is NOT the case in chemistry.

Quote: Originally Posted by JackPhast View Post

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?

I want to clarify my stance: eliminating our emissions isn't a bad thing, IMO. It is something to work toward. We should not cut our throats economically to make it happen over night, however. The biggest issue I see is that climate change alarmism is based on shoddy/incomplete work: the models don't track like they should to support the conclusions too many are trying to make.

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.

BS: Kyoto is bad policy based on bad science, bolstered by a politically correct lack of backbone. If the planet was really in that much danger, allowing poorer nations to carry on practices that negate what the wealthier countries are trying to do to mitigate a disaster is ridiculous.

One thing that keeps coming up too, is the blame issued to fossil fuel consumption, and while I've seen papers claiming that fossil fuel emissions account for up to 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions, we ignore the impact that increasing population has on GHG emission, and that is arguably higher than our industrial emissions: we create CO2 by breathing, as do the animals we raise for food. If we are serious about penalizing industrial emissions, why is there basically a bonus to countries who do not control their populations (i.e. teach their people about birth control) and thus compound their "need" for more heavily polluting indutries to eliminate their poverty?

If its such a danger and we want to truly address "man made climate change", how come people want to ignore the most important contributor with agreements like Kyoto?
 
mentalfloss
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68 View Post

It all depends on what you mean by "err on the side of caution". If you mean put resources into R&D of alternative energy sources, I'm with you. If you mean get into fake enviromentalist scams like Cap & Trade, I'm totally against you.

Cap & Trade is definitely a scam. R&D is good, but we do need a carbon tax.

Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68 View Post

I want to clarify my stance: eliminating our emissions isn't a bad thing, IMO. It is something to work toward. We should not cut our throats economically to make it happen over night, however. The biggest issue I see is that climate change alarmism is based on shoddy/incomplete work: the models don't track like they should to support the conclusions too many are trying to make.

The alarmism is an unfortunate response to the blatant ignorance the public endures regarding the existence of AGW. Once the public can finally accept the science, the scope and timeframe for this kind of development will become more realistic.

Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68 View Post

BS: Kyoto is bad policy based on bad science, bolstered by a politically correct lack of backbone. If the planet was really in that much danger, allowing poorer nations to carry on practices that negate what the wealthier countries are trying to do to mitigate a disaster is ridiculous.

Kyoto's only real goal was to get industrialized nations on board as they are priority. It's not based on bad science or policy, but the industrialized nations (except for parts of the EU) did not keep up to their end of the deal.

Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68 View Post

If we are serious about penalizing industrial emissions, why is there basically a bonus to countries who do not control their populations (i.e. teach their people about birth control) and thus compound their "need" for more heavily polluting indutries to eliminate their poverty?

That's always been part of the discussion. You should check out the oneclimate.net coverage of the event, as they tackle a number of human factors that impact the climate. Carbon emissions are simply the most prominent and therefore given higher priority.

Quote: Originally Posted by wulfie68 View Post

If its such a danger and we want to truly address "man made climate change", how come people want to ignore the most important contributor with agreements like Kyoto?

Keep in mind that Kyoto was developed in 1997 and we still have people now who don't fully understand this dilemma. As the body of evidence continues to mount, the science becomes more credible and the policy can reflect that.
 
petros
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

but we do need a carbon tax.

Why? CO2 is a resource. An asset becuase it's needed to extract even more oil.
 
TenPenny
+2
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

They're leading the way on the moral ground.

Which means just about the square root of fuk all.
 
mentalfloss
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Why? CO2 is a resource. An asset becuase it's needed to extract even more oil.

It's a resource that we need to gradually stop using as we gradually increase our capability for renewables.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Which means just about the square root of fuk all.

To you.
 
petros
+2
#52
Welcome to "In The Mean Time Land".
 
TenPenny
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post



To you.

In order for 'moral high ground' to mean anything, the same set of morals would have to be agreed to by everyone involved.
 
Tonington
+2 / -1
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Please read Michael Crichton's, "State of Fear" and you'll change your mind.

Fiction is your forte, definitely.
 
mentalfloss
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Welcome to "In The Mean Time Land".

Except, in the mean time for you is simply a gap of time between the past and the future where we do nothing and ignore both the former and the latter.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

In order for 'moral high ground' to mean anything, the same set of morals would have to be agreed to by everyone involved.

Of course.

But someone has to bite the bullet and lead the way or else everyone will just point the finger.
 
petros
+2
#56
I don't think you understand the scale of industry being built in the west and the size of infrastructure and urban growth required to keep things shiny and polished out east.

Money is another thing you need to think about. Not money to industrialize in a green way but putting the Canadian dollar on the global market so it's actually worth something to do all this ****.

We are North America now BTW with integrated economies moving towards a single currency backed by black and pink gold.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+2
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by JackPhast View Post

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.

Erring on the side of caution is using best practices and technology. Blindly following the word of gloom & doomers with a vested interest in getting donations will destroy our economy and tax us to death.
 
mentalfloss
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

I don't think you understand the scale of industry being built in the west and the size of infrastructure and urban growth required to keep things shiny and polished out east.

You do understand the word "gradual", right?

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Erring on the side of caution is using best practices and technology. Blindly following the word of gloom & doomers with a vested interest in getting donations will destroy our economy and tax us to death.

Except in this case it would be taxing us to life.
 
petros
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

You do understand the word "gradual", right?

Do you want modern, efficient, green NSEW hi-speed rail for freight and passengers and infratstructure or not?

Have you ever considered that air freight is now more profitable than carrying passenger? How many air freighters equal trucks on the ground? How much time is saved? How much greener is it? Would people take hi-speed rail instead of the more expensive flying if they had a rail system to ride?

Would a Hub to Hub system work well making trucks only for short haul with majority by rail and air greener?

Get a grip on Toto and follow the Black and Pink Brick and Transmission Line Hub to Hub Corridors!

Another thing about gradual.

Every time you buy a Coke to save a polar bear you are funding a group that is "gradually" buying up vast tracts of land cutting off Native fishing and hunting rights.

To me that sounds like an attack being set up. It makes sense to have a beach head and attack from the north.

http://pnwerarchive.org/LinkClick.as...=1525&mid=2868
 
mentalfloss
+1
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Do you want modern, efficient, green NSEW hi-speed rail for freight and passengers and infratstructure or not?

Have you ever considered that air freight is now more profitable than carrying passenger? How many air freighters equal trucks on the ground? How much time is saved? How much greener is it? Would people take hi-speed rail instead of the more expensive flying if they had a rail system to ride?

Would a Hub to Hub system work well making trucks only for short haul with majority by rail and air greener?

Get a grip on Toto and follow the Black and Pink Brick and Transmission Line Hub to Hub Corridors!

Another thing about gradual.

Every time you buy a Coke to save a polar bear you are funding a group that is "gradually" buying up vast tracts of land cutting off Native fishing and hunting rights.

To me that sounds like an attack being set up. It makes sense to have a beach head and attack from the north.

http://pnwerarchive.org/LinkClick.as...=1525&mid=2868


If you want to believe whatever characterization of me you've made up in your head, I won't stop you, but please, keep the crazy to yourself.
 

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