Durban Climate Change Conference 2011
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Ahh, so you're only interested enough to ask questions without wanting to know the answers to any questions. Wouldn't want to burst the bubble you live in or anything.
It's funny that you only chose one part of the abstract to bold, skipping the main take home point "Multivariate analyses of climate, soil, and population showed that temperature most significantly (P < 0.001) explained tree cover changes."
Like all the rest of the contrarians, you can't pull strings together. The climate is changing, and the dominant forcing is the enhanced optical thickness of our atmosphere.
What would you like to fail to discredit next?
[/quote]Stone Age graveyard shows Sahara was once green | Reuters
Now what were Iron Age humans doing to the climate to turn the once green Sahara into the world's largest desert over 10,000 years ago?[/QUOTE]
Who said they were doing anything to change the climate? Strawman arguments can be added to the list of logical fallacies you'll use to ignore reality.
Never mind, this debate is circular has always been circular and promises to remain circular, moving forward. We will have to go to war cuz I ain't paying no carbon tax so your buddies can get new suits.
That's a bit hypocritical ....comming from the animated gifs answer man...
Mine are funny.
It doesn't really look like they are. I guess they want Green Sharia Law imposed first.
But But....It would have to pay first...This is why the owners of wind farms and those who instal dozens of solar panel with grants from the government do it.....and all on the taxpayer's dime....Ill bet that my carbon footprint is much smaller than Al Gore or Suzuki.
So they should just STFU and quit preaching down to me from their elitist pulpit............
Oh please, what does this prove exactly?
That the Sub-Saharan is in flux as it has been for over 10,000 years?
Yes we agree...climate does change.
Fail to discredit?
Newsflash... your side is losing.
Oh but the climate changed! How on earth could climate change if man lacked the capabilities to change it in the Iron Age?
Based on what? The fact that we continue to pollute and increase the opacity of our atmosphere to infrared radiation? I'd agree to that. Reality doesn't care about the political winds.
So? Again, this is your strawman, find any instance you can where I said the climate only changes and will only ever change because of human activities.
You were a fan boy of those stolen emails, I'm sure you can find something to take out of context.
In In 1945 there was an entire nation in Europe with a confused looked on their faces wondering "how the **** did we fall for that?"
There is a simple answer. A false science called eugenics and really really good propaganda.
The reason behind that propaganda was nationalism.
This is a global problem.
But, hey, I could have just called you a conspiracy theorist.
Last edited:
Canada hits bottom with withdrawal from Kyoto
This week’s announcement by federal Environment Minister Peter Kent of Canada’s intention to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol marks the country’s lowest point in the 40-year history of modern global environmental diplomacy. The protocol, which Canada signed in 1997 and ratified in 2002, committed Canada to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent relative to their 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 period.
Kent rolled out a familiar chain of excuses: that Canada’s original targets were unreachable; that it was really the fault of the previous Liberal governments for failing to implement effective emission reduction strategies; and that action by Canada was pointless unless the United States and rapidly developing economies like China and India were also subject to binding emission targets. The reality is that on the whole Kyoto has been far more a success than failure. Most of the parties that were subject to binding emission targets under the protocol have either met or exceeded their goals. Canada is among a relatively small number of countries, along with Australia, Norway, Spain and Ireland, that failed to do so.
As for Kent’s other excuses, whatever the failings of the governments of prime ministers Chrétien and Martin, the one thing that is certain is that Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has never really tried to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. The government has proposed a succession of strategies and plans, but the only significant action it has actually taken has been to adopt more stringent vehicle fuel economy standards. Those rules only came into being because the government’s hand was forced by the incoming Obama administration in the United States.
The Prime Minister’s antipathy toward action on climate change was well known before he took office, having once described the Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist plot.” Until this spring the Conservative government’s hands were tied by the combination of persistently high levels of public concern for environmental issues, a minority government situation, the arrival of a new administration in the United States that was apparently intent on taking some sort of serious action on climate change, and the threat of climate change legislation coming out of the U.S. Congress that would impose penalties on U.S. trading partners if they didn’t adopt greenhouse gas emission control regimes comparable to those put in place south of the border.
The decline in top-of-mind public concern for the environment as economic uncertainly has grown, the majority Conservative government produced by this May’s federal election, the disarray of both the federal NDP and Liberal opposition as both parties search for new leaders, and the hamstringing of the Obama administration and elimination of the threat of U.S. climate change legislation as a result of the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives produced by the 2010 mid-term elections all combined to provide the opportunity for the government to make its long-dreamed-of move on Canada’s international climate change commitments.
The costs of the government’s actions are likely to be high. Clearly the chances of any serious effort from the federal government to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have become more remote than ever. The international reaction — Canada’s decision is being given much more prominent play in the international media than in Canada itself — has been overwhelmingly negative from both developed and developing countries. It certainly looks like the Harper government has made a serious miscalculation if it expected to have any company in its decision to formally withdraw from the protocol.
Domestically, the government is operating on an assumption that its own core voters have limited concern for environmental issues and, unlike the majority of Canadians, accept the government’s consistent zero-sum framing of the relationship between environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. The government’s environmental performance is an obvious potential wedge issue against the Conservatives in the hands of a new Liberal or NDP leader. If such a person can also persuade Ontario, Quebec, and B.C. voters that a federal government whose fundamental economic strategy is promoting fossil fuel exports from Alberta and Saskatchewan does not serve their interests well, the Conservatives could be in serious electoral trouble.
The basic elements of a cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy for Canada have been well understood and articulated for some time. Carbon pricing, either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, needs to be established; subsidies for fossil fuel development eliminated; progressively stronger energy efficiency standards for vehicles, buildings, equipment and appliances adopted; better integration of land-use and transportation planning achieved in urban areas to reduce automobile dependency; the massive carbon storage capacity of Canada’s boreal forest protected; and major investments made in low-impact renewable energy technologies.
A meaningful adaptation strategy to deal with the climate change that is already happening is needed as well. What is clearly missing is the political leadership to implement such a strategy and put Canada on a path toward environmental sustainability and economic prosperity.
Canada hits bottom with withdrawal from Kyoto
This week’s announcement by federal Environment Minister Peter Kent of Canada’s intention to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol marks the country’s lowest point in the 40-year history of modern global environmental diplomacy. The protocol, which Canada signed in 1997 and ratified in 2002, committed Canada to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent relative to their 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 period.
Kent rolled out a familiar chain of excuses: that Canada’s original targets were unreachable; that it was really the fault of the previous Liberal governments for failing to implement effective emission reduction strategies; and that action by Canada was pointless unless the United States and rapidly developing economies like China and India were also subject to binding emission targets. The reality is that on the whole Kyoto has been far more a success than failure. Most of the parties that were subject to binding emission targets under the protocol have either met or exceeded their goals. Canada is among a relatively small number of countries, along with Australia, Norway, Spain and Ireland, that failed to do so.
As for Kent’s other excuses, whatever the failings of the governments of prime ministers Chrétien and Martin, the one thing that is certain is that Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has never really tried to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. The government has proposed a succession of strategies and plans, but the only significant action it has actually taken has been to adopt more stringent vehicle fuel economy standards. Those rules only came into being because the government’s hand was forced by the incoming Obama administration in the United States.
The Prime Minister’s antipathy toward action on climate change was well known before he took office, having once described the Kyoto Protocol as a “socialist plot.” Until this spring the Conservative government’s hands were tied by the combination of persistently high levels of public concern for environmental issues, a minority government situation, the arrival of a new administration in the United States that was apparently intent on taking some sort of serious action on climate change, and the threat of climate change legislation coming out of the U.S. Congress that would impose penalties on U.S. trading partners if they didn’t adopt greenhouse gas emission control regimes comparable to those put in place south of the border.
The decline in top-of-mind public concern for the environment as economic uncertainly has grown, the majority Conservative government produced by this May’s federal election, the disarray of both the federal NDP and Liberal opposition as both parties search for new leaders, and the hamstringing of the Obama administration and elimination of the threat of U.S. climate change legislation as a result of the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives produced by the 2010 mid-term elections all combined to provide the opportunity for the government to make its long-dreamed-of move on Canada’s international climate change commitments.
The costs of the government’s actions are likely to be high. Clearly the chances of any serious effort from the federal government to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have become more remote than ever. The international reaction — Canada’s decision is being given much more prominent play in the international media than in Canada itself — has been overwhelmingly negative from both developed and developing countries. It certainly looks like the Harper government has made a serious miscalculation if it expected to have any company in its decision to formally withdraw from the protocol.
Domestically, the government is operating on an assumption that its own core voters have limited concern for environmental issues and, unlike the majority of Canadians, accept the government’s consistent zero-sum framing of the relationship between environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. The government’s environmental performance is an obvious potential wedge issue against the Conservatives in the hands of a new Liberal or NDP leader. If such a person can also persuade Ontario, Quebec, and B.C. voters that a federal government whose fundamental economic strategy is promoting fossil fuel exports from Alberta and Saskatchewan does not serve their interests well, the Conservatives could be in serious electoral trouble.
The basic elements of a cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy for Canada have been well understood and articulated for some time. Carbon pricing, either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, needs to be established; subsidies for fossil fuel development eliminated; progressively stronger energy efficiency standards for vehicles, buildings, equipment and appliances adopted; better integration of land-use and transportation planning achieved in urban areas to reduce automobile dependency; the massive carbon storage capacity of Canada’s boreal forest protected; and major investments made in low-impact renewable energy technologies.
A meaningful adaptation strategy to deal with the climate change that is already happening is needed as well. What is clearly missing is the political leadership to implement such a strategy and put Canada on a path toward environmental sustainability and economic prosperity.
Canada hits bottom with withdrawal from Kyoto