Grits' Kyoto Plan Would Have Worked!

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
what does this mean "unanimous support" for "reluctance"?

does that mean everyone agrees Ambrose wants to welch? (I'll bet that didn't take long)

what?

I suppose it depends on who's telling the story

Delegates at a United Nations sponsored-conference on climate change have agreed on how to pursue negotiations on further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, officials who participated in the first round of talks concluded in Bonn, Germany, today, said in a statement.

Describing the meeting as “successful,” officials said it has set an “ambitious agenda,” which focuses on a sound process leading towards science-based emission reduction targets on the part of industrialized countries with in the next few years.

“There is a strong sense of urgency and there’s a clear consensus that there should be no cap after 2002 when the first commitment period ends,” said Michael Zammit Cutajar, who chairs one of the working groups under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Protocol requires 36 industrial countries to reduce to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below levels specified for each of them. Overall, according to officials, this should amount to reductions of at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

Developing countries, which will be hit hardest by climate change, are pushing for rapid agreement on deeper emission cuts, according to officials. “This is the message we have also been hearing from business leaders meeting here in Bonn,” said Richard Kinley, acting head of the Climate Change Secretariat. “They have underlined the importance of speedy process from their perspective. Obviously, the carbon market needs clear signals.”

The talks in Bonn also included discussions on new technologies and the role of the private sector, officials said, adding that the first round of the “Dialogue on long-term cooperative action” was open to all 189 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which is the Kyoto Protocol’s parent treaty.

“Industrialized countries have emphasised the importance of these negotiations based on the latest scientific data and taking into account new technological solutions available today,” explained Feng Gao, the Convention’s Deputy Executive Secretary for Implementation.

Mr. Gao said negotiations on the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol and the “Dialogue on the long-term cooperative action” are “mutually reinforcing” in shaping international action to fight climate change.

Noting that much progress has been made in the Convention’s subsidiary bodies during the talks in Bonn, Halldor Thorgeirsson, Deputy Executive Secretary for scientific and technical advice, added: “Representatives have been excited by the prospects offered by the new technologies such as carbon capture and storage. Countries agreed to take forward the work on reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries.”

The next round of negotiation on Kyoto Protocol and the Convention on Climate Change will at take place in Nairobi, Kenya, in November.

sounds to me like everything's right on schedule even WITH Rona on her knees.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Please excuse the long paste...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta

Open Kyoto to debate


Special to the Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational

headlines, they are no basis for mature policy

formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

- - -

Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Puts this quote in a new light.
Global warming is more than just a political issue, it is one of the biggest moral challenges facing our planet. — The Right Hon. Paul Martin, PC, MP
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Unless I am mistaken, another such letter was sent some weeks ago to The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada — one which advocated for the Kyoto Protocol to be respected. Furthermore, unless I am further mistaken, that letter was signed by dozens of scientists, too.
 

Graeme

Electoral Member
Jun 5, 2006
349
1
18
Re: RE: Grits' Kyoto Plan Wou

Vicious said:
The two letters put together tell me that there is hardly a scientific concensus on the issue.

This is kinda weird but I am going to quote myself from another feed:

while yes there is loads of evidence for global warming, as in the thermometer, what there isn't is loads of evidence that it is due to CO2, you see at current levels of CO2 (well under 500 ppm) there is no real explanation for the amount of temperature increase, nor why it is only affecting certain areas (most of Russia is experiencing far lower than normal temperatures) (highest estimated amount of CO2 is in the area of 2000 ppm during a very active volcanic era many many many many years ago. (oh and human created CO2 accounts for only 2% or .2% of the current amount I can't remember which)

The way it works is you have something called a Trigger, and then you have Amplifiers.

A good example of this is the water temperature and melting ice in the North Atlantic/Artic Ocean there is a hot spot in the middle of a huge ICE Cap, the reason it is growing at the rate it is due to its own internal amplification. As the ice melts, the water being darker in colour than the ICE absorbs more light and heat, and therefore further increases the temperature, melting more ICE and absorbing more heat, eventually equilibrium will be hit. No one on any side of the global warming argument denies that most of the melting is due to amplification. The problem is they can't agree on what is (are) the trigger(s).

Many many scientists say it has to do with the fact that currently we are experiencing a LOT of sun spots. They also note that within 20 years we should have a calmed period on the sun at which time the earth is in for a very cold number of years.

Just so you all know the most effective green house gas (which is in abundance in the air) is uncondensed water vapor and not CO2. Water vapour is actually what accounts for most of the .6 degrees of heating. Again the water vapor is the amplifier as the temperature gets a little warmer, more water vapor is in the air the warmer it gets, and thus the more water vapor is created, again this will reach equilibrium.

Again, all scientists agree with this fact, they again are arguing about what the trigger is. CO2 or Sunspots (or possibly less sensational triggers).

Many humans like to think we are more in control of our lives than we really are, I think that is why the media is so big on promoting the Human caused global warming theories. The fact is we can't do anything about the SUN, and hell we don't have to. So it really doesn't make great news.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Graeme, welcome aboard! I hope you hang around. We look forward to your contribution.
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
Graeme, I had heard that about water vapor as well.

What all this tells me is that neither side is sure, and therefore, governments should not automatically jump to the worst case scenario.

I have wondered what the scientists said about the dirty thirties when the dust bowls happened. What caused that to happen, and was it due to climate change caused by..............what?

To me, it is another example of natural climate changes, and while there are certainly pollution issues which needed to be dealt with, as our technology evolves, the rates of pollution will decrease.

I also fully believe that it is time we looked seriously at nuclear power as an alternate source. Chernobyl was the result of shoddy work by the Russians, but everyone seems to forget that the Three Mile reactors did exactly what they were supposed to do when they had the problem. Surely cleaner nuclear power should be explored?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

Precisely, there is no consensus on the issue, from which we can only ask, why were the Liberals pushing this through....to what gain? Why are they so eager to spend billions of our dollars on this and hurt the economy when there is no consensus?

Why has debate been stifled in Canada on this? Who are these Liberals anyways and who do they work for?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Jay... that was a super post. Typically intellectuals are reluctant to challenge activist because they pretty much travel in the same circles.

IMO Kyoto was a ploy to rob money from western nations. Just like a previous poster said "A wealth sharing" agreement. Meaning nations like Canada, in all its good will would shell out money to developing countries.

When a nation like China gets a pass because it is a developing country shows that the whole agreement was a farce. China has one of the largest and fastest growing economies in the world. China knew this agreement would fail and they would not be asked in 2010 to sign on as they promised. Even if Kyoto is still around they will never sign on.
 

bluealberta

Council Member
Apr 19, 2005
2,004
0
36
Proud to be in Alberta
Jay said:
When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

Precisely, there is no consensus on the issue, from which we can only ask, why were the Liberals pushing this through....to what gain? Why are they so eager to spend billions of our dollars on this and hurt the economy when there is no consensus?

Why has debate been stifled in Canada on this? Who are these Liberals anyways and who do they work for?

Exactly. IMO, Kyoto is plain and simply a wealth transfer scheme, done under the auspices of environmental reasons. We have gone so crazy in this country, that to disagree with anything that purports to be an environmental issue is seen as evil. Instead, we should be looking at all the information, and until there is a rational and reasoned discussion, then nothing radical should be done. I have still not been told how buying credits from another country will reduce Canadian emissions. Someone provided a link, I read it, and it still did not give any answers. Until someone can show me how buying a credit from Russia will cause Canadian emissions to go down, I remain skeptical of Kyoto, and fully convinced this is a wealth transfer scheme. Call it the worldwide equivalent of Canadian equalization. I still maintain we should spend the Kyoto money in Canada to reduce Canadian emissions. To do otherwise is simply lining some other countries pockets. Like the third world needs more gold plated faucets and toilets. :x
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Canada should be spending its money on Canada and not sending millions overseas to be used by countries to do whatever they want with it. Believe me, once Canada lets that money out of the Canadian Bank and into some "Developing" nations bank it is GONE. They'll spend it as they see fit and divy it out amongst the elite of these countries as they always have.

It was just another way for these countries to rob good natured countries like Canada.
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Re: RE: Grits' Kyoto Plan Would Have Worked!

EagleSmack said:
Jay... that was a super post. Typically intellectuals are reluctant to challenge activist because they pretty much travel in the same circles.

IMO Kyoto was a ploy to rob money from western nations. Just like a previous poster said "A wealth sharing" agreement. Meaning nations like Canada, in all its good will would shell out money to developing countries.

When a nation like China gets a pass because it is a developing country shows that the whole agreement was a farce. China has one of the largest and fastest growing economies in the world. China knew this agreement would fail and they would not be asked in 2010 to sign on as they promised. Even if Kyoto is still around they will never sign on.

That's just plain stupid. China has ratified the Kyoto Accord. And why are you targetting China anyway when Canada produces an order of magnitude more ghg emmissions per capita than does China?
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
bluealberta said:
Exactly. IMO, Kyoto is plain and simply a wealth transfer scheme, done under the auspices of environmental reasons. We have gone so crazy in this country, that to disagree with anything that purports to be an environmental issue is seen as evil. Instead, we should be looking at all the information, and until there is a rational and reasoned discussion, then nothing radical should be done. I have still not been told how buying credits from another country will reduce Canadian emissions. Someone provided a link, I read it, and it still did not give any answers. Until someone can show me how buying a credit from Russia will cause Canadian emissions to go down, I remain skeptical of Kyoto, and fully convinced this is a wealth transfer scheme. Call it the worldwide equivalent of Canadian equalization. I still maintain we should spend the Kyoto money in Canada to reduce Canadian emissions. To do otherwise is simply lining some other countries pockets. Like the third world needs more gold plated faucets and toilets. :x

Nobody ever said buying credits abroad will reduce Canada's emissions. But it will reduce overall global emissions. Since climate change is a global problem it needs a global solution. Undoubtably there may be some 'low hanging fruit' in other countries where emission reductions are cheaper and easier to realize, but ultimately the bulk of the investments (yes, these are investments that will pay off) will be made here at home.
 

Vicious

Electoral Member
May 12, 2006
293
4
18
Ontario, Sadly
MMMike said:
Nobody ever said buying credits abroad will reduce Canada's emissions. But it will reduce overall global emissions. Since climate change is a global problem it needs a global solution. Undoubtably there may be some 'low hanging fruit' in other countries where emission reductions are cheaper and easier to realize, but ultimately the bulk of the investments (yes, these are investments that will pay off) will be made here at home.

I don't think so. There is a reason for emissions targets being based on 1990 levels. That was about the time that most of the communist states started to collapse. After that point the emissions levels of alot of eastern europe and Russia started to go down as a result of their collapsing economies. Countries like Russia are well below there targets because of this. So buying credits from them has no impact on emissions over all, it just puts money in their pockets.
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Vicious said:
MMMike said:
Nobody ever said buying credits abroad will reduce Canada's emissions. But it will reduce overall global emissions. Since climate change is a global problem it needs a global solution. Undoubtably there may be some 'low hanging fruit' in other countries where emission reductions are cheaper and easier to realize, but ultimately the bulk of the investments (yes, these are investments that will pay off) will be made here at home.

I don't think so. There is a reason for emissions targets being based on 1990 levels. That was about the time that most of the communist states started to collapse. After that point the emissions levels of alot of eastern europe and Russia started to go down as a result of their collapsing economies. Countries like Russia are well below there targets because of this. So buying credits from them has no impact on emissions over all, it just puts money in their pockets.

The baseline was set at 1990 levels not because the eastern bloc countries had an economic meltdown, but just because some arbitrary baseline had to be chosen. Your correct in that buying these excess credits does not impact emissions, but recognize that this is only a temporary phenomenom. That doesn't mean Kyoto is bad, or emission credits trading is bad.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Why are you so eager to ship our money off to foreign countries MMMike and make our lives more expensive? It’s like the units are a new product they just invented and now we have to purchase them.

It's a welfare scheme, and I’m surprised your supporting this, especially since the evidence isn't as squeeky clean as it should be.

Did you see the link I provided in the other thread?