Durban Climate Change Conference 2011

[petros]

It's been decent on the prairies so far this winter. We'll be burning far less nat gas to heat our homes, business and industry. And the giant pinwheels are whirling away and the full to the top reservoirs are cranking out hydro power to make recycled steel into pipelines so we use even less nat gas and hydro.

Cool huh?

Our primitive infrastructure is going to become the best on the planet.

Grab a "green" shovel and start digging!

 

[Vaessen]

Right...it's the greens who are the nazis... I hope you don't own anything remotely analogous to a gas chamber, you sociopath.

It's the greens that think they have the right to impose their shyt on other people. Nobody else is trying to force BS taxes on people. Only them. Nobody else is belligerent and denies fair debate. Only the greens. Nobody else was involved in a cover up where they were admittedly lying about their data and getting good people fired at institutions because they oppose their regime. Only the greens do that. Nobody else has billionaires paying for their smear campaign around the globe either. only the greens do.

I made my comment as a joke. Because the way the green bastards act is very similar to how the Nazis spread their crap. complete with Hitler youth. The greens even brainwash children at school by out and out lying about what's going on in the world.

 

[mentalfloss]

Canadian Government has lost its moral compass on Climate Change

Canadian Government has lost its Moral Compass on Climate Change

On the first day of UN climate change negotiations in Durban South African, an open statement demands Canada should at least not impede progress in Durban towards an ambitious, equitable and binding international agreement on climate change.

“Canada has a track record of acting more in the interests of big oil companies than Canadians at UN climate negotiations,” says Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians. “We are the only country to have come out of the Copenhagen UN climate negotiations to return home and weaken our emission reduction targets, allowing more climate change pollution,” adds Barlow.

The statement endorsed by a diverse group of Canadian civil society organizations accuses the Canadian government of losing its moral compass on climate change, outlining key examples of Canadian government inaction and attempts to undermine climate change policy.

“Canada allowed the funding for the important EcoENERGY renewable energy programme to expire and threatened to end the EcoENERGY Retrofit - Homes program while continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry approximately $1.4 billion annually” says Patrick Bonin, climate and energy director at Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique (AQLPA).

“We hope the government takes a serious look at our statement and does not simply resort to name-calling those who oppose its position,” said Jim Britton, Western Region Vice-President of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, referring to Prime Minister Harper’s ‘no-brainer’ and ‘extremist’ comments during protests against the Keystone XL pipeline by environmental and labour groups.

The statement endorsers include Canadian environmental non-government organizations, social justice groups and unions, representing over one million people across Canada.

“It is time Canada's government started representing the desire of the majority of Canadians to participate in a binding international plan to reduce emissions, starting in Canada," said John Bennett, Executive Director of the Sierra Club Canada.

A number of Canadian organizations have representatives in Durban monitoring and responding to Canadian government actions.


Canadian Government has lost its moral compass on Climate Change | Polaris Institute

 

[Vaessen]

The majority of Canadians will not support this garbage when they lose their job because of it. This is pure stupidity. it's just about wealth transfer. Take from the west and give to the freeloading east. The canadian way. I'm glad harper doesn't buy into this crap as much as the idiot liberals do.

 

[Tonington]

People do not want to pay more taxes or lose their job. Its ok if Fred down the street loses his job and pays more taxes. When asked about climate change, people give the nice safe answer but if unemployment rose to 10% because of green laws, people would be screaming and occupying a park or something. I don't for a minute believe that if asked the question 'Would you support climate change accord even if it meant you would lose your job and have to pay more in carbon taxes?' that the answer would be favourable.

BC has a carbon tax, their unemployment is 7% (still below the National Average) in that province, and nearly 70% of BC residents support the carbon tax. The tax is offset by reductions in other taxes. Similar to Dion's green shift.

It's the greens that think they have the right to impose their shyt on other people. Nobody else is trying to force BS taxes on people. Only them. Nobody else is belligerent and denies fair debate. Only the greens. Nobody else was involved in a cover up where they were admittedly lying about their data and getting good people fired at institutions because they oppose their regime. Only the greens do that. Nobody else has billionaires paying for their smear campaign around the globe either. only the greens do.

I made my comment as a joke. Because the way the green bastards act is very similar to how the Nazis spread their crap. complete with Hitler youth. The greens even brainwash children at school by out and out lying about what's going on in the world.

What a pile of crap.

Just because students are smart enough to understand heat trapping physics doesn't mean they're being lied to. You're another one of those people like the research subjects Dunning and Kruger studied...and a conspiracy theorist to boot!

 

[Vaessen]

oh no, a conspiracy theorist. bringing out the big guns. I guess when people, literally, conspire to have scientists defunded and fired from institutions and knowingly lie about data that I'm a conspiracy theorist for bringing it up.

If it wasn't a scam, there would be no need for them to have to lie about it and snake around bullying everyone that disagrees with their BS.

And BTW, students believe everything they're told, they are the least informed segment of society because they are so damned gullible. Students can be sold an anything. If you just use the term "peer reviewed" they'll believe anything you say. It's an institutional dictatorship, the truth is, no real science is conducted at schools of any kind anymore. Only hypotheses that are supporting the political, economical and in 99% of the cases, globalist agenda of the institution are funded.

 

[Tonington]

oh no, a conspiracy theorist. bringing out the big guns. I guess when people, literally, conspire to have scientists defunded and fired from institutions and knowingly lie about data that I'm a conspiracy theorist for bringing it up.

No, you're a conspiracy theorist for believing there is a conspiracy when investigations have routinely found this to be untrue.

If it wasn't a scam, there would be no need for them to have to lie about it and snake around bullying everyone that disagrees with their BS.

Logical fallacies too, the bread in butter of conspiracy theorists! This is called begging the question.

And BTW, students believe everything they're told, they are the least informed segment of society because they are so damned gullible.

Maybe you were, I wonder how much you have questioned the so-called skeptics. I questioned my teachers from the beginning. Like my grade 7 science teacher who said robins won't feed at a bird feeder. He even called me a liar in front of the class when I said I knew this to be untrue, as many robins feed at our bird feeders.

Maybe you were never taught this important lesson by your parents.

If you just use the term "peer reviewed" they'll believe anything you say.

Just how much schooling do you have? This is complete crap.

It's an institutional dictatorship, the truth is, no real science is conducted at schools of any kind anymore.

:roll:

Only hypotheses that are supporting the political, economical and in 99% of the cases, globalist agenda of the institution are funded.

Oh, and I suppose you can provide evidence for this? I just graduated from a science program less than two years ago. Does funding traditional agricultural practices, with traditional cultivars in drought stricken areas like Ethiopia count as part of the globalist agenda?

Conspiracy bull $hit. You'll fit in very well on CanCon for science discussions.

 

[Vaessen]

look at how mad you losers get when people point things out. I didn't read what the "investigators" concluded about climategate. I read the actual emails. The emails leave doubt as to the collusion to change data to support a climate change agenda when the actual numbers suggested otherwise, and leave no doubts as to whether certain people with opposing viewpoints were denied funding and/or fired because of it.

They can pretend otherwise all they want, it's in their best interest to do so, and morons like you will always believe them anyways.

Scientists, like you claim to be, all get bent out of shape because they want to be relevant. If the truth, which is that you've wasted your life helping bankers to screw the middle class with a bullshyt tax, is something you can't handle, then don't handle it. I don't care but the truth is the truth and there's no such thing as global warming.

 

[mentalfloss]

Good news. The EU might actually be influencing the rest of the western world. If they make progress on this, it will be kind of embarrassing for us to have missed the opportunity to be a leader on this issue.

EU Claims Progress on Climate 'Roadmap' at Durban

As the first week of negotiations at the U.N. climate change conference in South Africa comes to a close, the European Union says support is growing for a new legally-binding agreement to cut emissions. But the United States and other countries remain strongly opposed to the idea.

EU negotiators are urging other parties at the COP17 climate talks in Durban to agree to a “roadmap” that would lead to a climate treaty that would legally bind governments to cut emissions blamed for climate change.

The Polish head of the EU delegation, Tomasz Chruszczow, said there is growing support for such a measure.

"Many parties see that the goal of keeping the global warming within the limits, within two degrees, requires urgent action," said Chruszczow." And extreme weather events on the ground and that warning contained in the recent spate of reports from international institutions and organizations made it very hard to escape this kind of conclusion.”

The EU proposal would follow the current legal framework established under the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year. The EU wants the parties at COP17 to agree to establish a new treaty by 2015 that would go into effect by 2020.

Recent reports support the EU's argument that further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, like carbon dioxide, are necessary to keep global temperatures from increasing to dangerous levels.

The International Energy Agency has warned that the world has about five years left to significantly cut carbon emissions in order to prevent irreversible climate change.

The European Union is trying to convince developing countries to sign on to such an agreement.

EU negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger noted the EU's success with the current program, saying the EU's emissions have dropped below 1990 levels while overall, the continent's economy has continued to grow.

“Because a lot of fear that is in this process is about 'I can either fight climate change or I can grow my economy,' but we can show, and that's a big example here, that we can do both at the same time," he said.

The United States did not adopt the Kyoto Protocol, and U.S. climate negotiators have said they will not support a legal mandate to cut emissions without knowing the details of such an agreement.

Commenting on the EU's proposed roadmap, U.S. deputy climate change envoy Jonathan Pershing said it would have to bind all parties equally.

“We're not looking for a mechanism in which we would have an obligation to reduce emissions of a legal form and the major emerging economies would have a voluntary program," said Pershing. "That's kind of the Kyoto structure. We are not a party to Kyoto, in no small measure, because of that constraint.”

EU Claims Progress on Climate 'Roadmap' at Durban | News | English

 

[Tonington]

look at how mad you losers get when people point things out.

Lol, I'm not mad, just calling you on your bull $hit. Don't flatter yourself.

I didn't read what the "investigators" concluded about climategate. I read the actual emails.

Yeah, I did too. Except I also read the emails that weren't quoted, the earlier emails in the string, which give context.

The emails leave doubt as to the collusion to change data to support a climate change agenda when the actual numbers suggested otherwise, and leave no doubts as to whether certain people with opposing viewpoints were denied funding and/or fired because of it.

There was no fudging of data, none. Even the skeptics darling who evaluated the surface temperature record replicated the results... The people in the emails don't control the funding...they were scientists who apply for funding. If you can't even get that right, then that doesn't speak very well to your reading comprehension abilities.

Scientists, like you claim to be, all get bent out of shape because they want to be relevant.

I said I got a degree. I never claimed to be a scientist.

If the truth, which is that you've wasted your life helping bankers to screw the middle class with a bullshyt tax, is something you can't handle, then don't handle it. I don't care but the truth is the truth and there's no such thing as global warming.

Yeah yeah, sheesh you nutters

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

BC has a carbon tax, their unemployment is 7% (still below the National Average) in that province, and nearly 70% of BC residents support the carbon tax. The tax is offset by reductions in other taxes. Similar to Dion's green shift.

See, I don't trust the government to actually reduce the other taxes by an equivalent amount.

 

[Tonington]

See, I don't trust the government to actually reduce the other taxes by an equivalent amount.

Well, it is required by law.

Nevertheless, how very prudent of you, BC actually cut taxes by more than they needed to make the tax scheme revenue neutral. Their carbon tax is revenue negative. The horror! :roll:

Go to page 105 of BC's 2010 budget plan, carbon tax revenue for 2009/10 is $542 million. Reductions of Income tax (corporate and personal) and the low income supplement add up to $767 million. The tax measures end up being net negative, by $225 million.

Go to page 45 of BC's 2011 budget plan, carbon tax revenue for 2010/11 is forecast to be $740 million, with tax reductions forecast to be $862 million. More deficit!

Again, ohh the horror!

 

[taxslave]

Who cares?

We should be making a commitment on our own moral grounds, not following in the footsteps of the worst offenders.

Climate change fight could cost Canadians big

OTTAWA - Helping poorer countries deal with the feared results of global warming could come straight out of Canadians' pockets.

The agenda for the Durban Climate Change Conference in South Africa includes figuring out how to raise $100 billion annually from developed economies for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) Canada and other countries agreed to create in 2009.

A draft agreement says the GCF will "receive financial inputs from a variety of other sources, public and private, including alternative sources."

While Environment Minister Peter Kent is reported to have expressed some concern about the GCF, his office refused to say what position he would take on the fund or how it should be financed.

Climate change fight could cost Canadians big | Canada | News | Toronto Sun


Banks 'lent 232 bn euros to coal industry'

DURBAN, South Africa — Leading banks around the world lent 232 billion euros ($308 billion) to the coal industry, one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases, from 2005 to 2010, campaigners said here on Wednesday.

The figures, presented on the sidelines of November 28-December 9 UN climate talks in Durban, come from a trawl through the lending portfolios of 93 of the world's leading banks, they said.

The total value of financing for 31 major coal-mining companies and 40 producers of coal-fired electricity amounted to 232 billion over the five years.

"Our figures clearly show that coal financing is on the rise," said Tristen Taylor of Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, one of four groups that combined to compile the report, "Bankrolling Climate Change."

"Between 2005 and 2010, coal financing almost doubled. If we don't take banks to task now, coal financing will continue to grow."

Coal has emerged as the biggest single area of concern about greenhouse-gas sources.

Emissions from coal-fired plants have rocketed as emerging giants, led by China and India, turn to a fuel that is cheap, plentiful and free of geopolitical risk, but also a massive emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2).

The top three banks lending to the coal industry, according to the report, are JP Morgan Chase, which funded 16.5 billion euros; Citi (13.7 billion) and Bank of America (12.6 billion).

They were followed by Morgan Stanley (12.11 billion); Barclays (11.51 billion); Deutsche Bank (11.47 billion); Royal Bank of Scotland (10.94 billion); BNP Paribas (10.69 billion), Credit Suisse (9.49 billion) and UBS (8.21 billion).

Three Chinese banks -- Bank of China, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and China Construction Bank -- were also listed in the top 20 lenders.

"Interestingly, almost all of the top 20 climate-killer banks in our ranking have made far-reaching statements regarding their commitment to combatting climate change," said Yann Louvel of BankTrack, an NGO that monitors the activities of banks.

"However, the numbers show that their money is not where their mouth is."

Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) surged by 2.3 parts per million (ppm) between 2009 and 2010, according to the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

They have risen by around a third since pre-industrial times and are now at their highest in 650,000 years, say climate scientists.

A German environmental group, urgewald, and a South African campaign group, groundWork, also contributed to the report.

AFP: Banks 'lent 232 bn euros to coal industry'

Would you rather have a nuke in every community? Coal is good. We got lots of it and other countries are willing to pay big bucks for it.
Or would you rather cancel all the expensive social programs we take for granted?

 

[Colpy]

Rex Murphy in defence of Canada’s oil sands

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Well, it is required by law.

Nevertheless, how very prudent of you, BC actually cut taxes by more than they needed to make the tax scheme revenue neutral. Their carbon tax is revenue negative. The horror! :roll:

Go to page 105 of BC's 2010 budget plan, carbon tax revenue for 2009/10 is $542 million. Reductions of Income tax (corporate and personal) and the low income supplement add up to $767 million. The tax measures end up being net negative, by $225 million.

Go to page 45 of BC's 2011 budget plan, carbon tax revenue for 2010/11 is forecast to be $740 million, with tax reductions forecast to be $862 million. More deficit!

Again, ohh the horror!

I am glad it is working for BC. This is a truly rare experience and one I would not expect repeated in the next 100 or so years. If they truly do cut out other taxes and shift to a carbon tax, I would actually support that. Give me control on whether or not to pay taxes.

One observation. If the Carbon Tax is based upon carbon usage (more carbon used, more tax revenue) do you find it odd that the 2011 budget gets more carbon tax revenue that 2009? Have they increased the rate or added it to more stuff? I believe one of the hopes of the Carbon Tax is to reduce carbon usage by making it more expensive. If the tax rate and items are the same in 2009 and 2011, the opposite has happened.

 

[Tonington]

I am glad it is working for BC. This is a truly rare experience and one I would not expect repeated in the next 100 or so years. If they truly do cut out other taxes and shift to a carbon tax, I would actually support that.

Well, that is exactly what is happening. I don't know how rare it is, there aren't actually that many places that have carbon taxes, because people assume like you do that jobs will be killed. Not really true, but then that's the whole point of disinformation.

One observation. If the Carbon Tax is based upon carbon usage (more carbon used, more tax revenue) do you find it odd that the 2011 budget gets more carbon tax revenue that 2009?

Not really, don't forget there was a recession, lower consumption of goods, so lower consumption of fuels, and lower tax revenue on that fuel...

 

[mentalfloss]

Well, it is required by law.

Nevertheless, how very prudent of you, BC actually cut taxes by more than they needed to make the tax scheme revenue neutral. Their carbon tax is revenue negative. The horror! :roll:

Go to page 105 of BC's 2010 budget plan, carbon tax revenue for 2009/10 is $542 million. Reductions of Income tax (corporate and personal) and the low income supplement add up to $767 million. The tax measures end up being net negative, by $225 million.

Go to page 45 of BC's 2011 budget plan, carbon tax revenue for 2010/11 is forecast to be $740 million, with tax reductions forecast to be $862 million. More deficit!

Again, ohh the horror!

Didn't BC just scrap the HST and yet they have a carbon tax?

While, I may disagree partly with that province's stance on a VAT, at least they have their priorities straight.

 

[damngrumpy]

All this carbon credit stuff and buying and selling provides profits for wall street
and nothing more. We have a consumer economy and it is not in our interests
to sign a deal that will hamper manufacturing. China, India, America, and we
will not be part of this at the end of the day regardless of how much horse trading
goes on.

 

[Colpy]

All this carbon credit stuff and buying and selling provides profits for wall street
and nothing more. We have a consumer economy and it is not in our interests
to sign a deal that will hamper manufacturing. China, India, America, and we
will not be part of this at the end of the day regardless of how much horse trading
goes on.

And is typically corrupt to the core.........

Big surprise there! The government supplies huge vast piles of our money to pay for...........nothing.

Thievery seems just the order of the day.

Insanity.

BTW, I love Rex.

New Suzuki Foundation website exploits a beloved Christmas icon to raise funds | Full Comment | National Post

Click it just for the title....Suzuki skewered.

 

[Tonington]

All this carbon credit stuff and buying and selling provides profits for wall street
and nothing more.

Which is why the carbon tax with offset reductions in income taxes is fair. Nobody get's permits for free, everyone pays, and if you reduce your carbon consumption, you actually pay less in taxes.