Just wait until the arthritis set in on these kids. They'll be cranking the heat and bitching about the high costs.
lol
Like how those geezers do the same from Alberta? Tsk tsk tsk..
Alberta to face the heat in Durban talks
Province must answer to criticisms of rising carbon-emission levels
According to the Alberta government, taxpayers will spend more than $10,000 to send Environment Minister Diana McQueen and her executive assistant to the climatechange conference this week in Durban, South Africa.
It is money well spent. Her trip promises to be a learning experience.
Not only will McQueen learn first-hand that other countries see human-induced climate change as a significant threat, she will learn how empty her rhetoric sounds when she brags about Alberta being a "leader" in reducing emissions.
It's a lesson all her cabinet colleagues should learn first-hand. In fact, they should all go to Durban, all 20 of them, even if it cost taxpayers $200,000 (with a little money tossed in to pay for carbon offsets for their jet flights).
Same goes for the federal government which on Monday announced Canada will not sign on to Phase 2 of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases.
The announcement was not a surprise. We've been expecting it for months, if not years. Canada has failed to meet its initial Kyoto targets to reduce emissions. That's not just the fault of the federal Conservatives but the previous Liberal government that, when it came to the Kyoto accord, talked loudly and carried a very small stick.
There was no way Canada was going to sign on to Phase 2 if it hadn't really signed on to Phase 1. Canada is no longer a leader on the world stage. Environmentally speaking, it is in the cheap seats throwing peanuts.
Both Alberta and the federal government insist they accept the science of climate change. However, if actions speak louder than words, Canada is sadly mute on reducing emissions.
When the Alberta government pats itself on the back for reducing emissions, it's really congratulating itself for reducing the intensity of emissions.
While it's true we are producing less carbon dioxide per barrel of oil produced, we are producing more oil. Therefore, our emissions overall are increasing. Imagine if you were putting less garbage in your garbage bags, but were putting out many more garbage bags for pickup. Your "intensity" of garbage in each bag would be going down, but the amount of garbage you would be putting out would be going up.
And while it's true emissions in jurisdictions all over North America are increasing, Alberta's emissions are increasing more than anybody else thanks largely to the oilsands.
According to a study by the Calgary-based Pembina Institute, Alberta's emissions increased from a total of 171 million tonnes (that's 171 megatonnes) of carbon dioxide in 1990 to 234 megatonnes in 2009 - an increase of 63 megatonnes. That was the largest increase of any province or state. Texas was second with an increase of 50 megatonnes of CO2 (increasing from 556 million tonnes in 1990 to 606 megatonnes in 2009).
Yes, Texas does produce more CO2 in absolute terms, but Alberta is a faster-growing source of emissions.
Alberta's argument, one McQueen is taking to Durban, is that Alberta's oilsands account for only "one-tenth of one per cent" of global emissions of greenhouse gases. That doesn't sound like much and indeed if your boss offered you a 0.1-per-cent raise you wouldn't be particularly thrilled.
But if someone told you one-tenth of one per cent of the world's population was coming to your house for dinner tonight, you might be a bit panicked at the thought of seven million people dropping by. Onetenth of one per cent of anything on a global scale is huge, especially if it's coming from one corner of Alberta.
Another argument from Alberta is that the Kyoto agreement was deeply unfair because it did not include major emitters such as China and India.
What that argument fails to take into account is it was Canada and other western industrialized countries that created the climate-change problem in the first place. (The United States did not sign on to the Kyoto accord, but that only means the U.S. in some ways should be even more embarrassed than Canada.)
We in the industrialized countries have been happily burning fossil fuels, warming the climate and getting rich doing so. Third World countries have been left to suck on our exhaust pipes and deal with the environmental consequences. And we in Canada continue to be among the largest-per-capita emitters, even when you factor in the emerging economies of India and China.
While China pumps out about six tonnes of CO2 per person each year, we emit about 23 tonnes per Canadian. Break that down by province and Alberta annually pumps out a whopping 72 tonnes per person, making us arguably the largestemitting jurisdiction on the planet on a per-capita basis.
Canada should be demonstrating leadership by reducing emissions. Instead, our country's reputation continues to suffer a self-inflicted beating. On the weekend, Mohau Pheko, South Africa's high commissioner to Canada, accused our federal environment minister, Peter Kent, of "bullying" Third World countries who disagreed with Canada's stand on Kyoto.
In the 2009 climate-change talks in Copenhagen, critics called Canada the "dirty old man" of climate change. Now, we're the "bully."
We can only hope that by going to Durban, Kent and McQueen will learn first-hand how the world sees us. And hear first-hand what the world is calling us.
Alberta to face the heat in Durban talks
