Kyoto Protocol

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

If you just took the subsidies away from the fossil fuel industry and gave them to the alternative energy industry it would acheive the same as raising taxes, MMMike. It would be revenue neutral though, so more acceptable to the general public.

The NDP plan is not really a political plan, that's part of why it is good. Instead it is based on the science and technology that is available.

 

[Aizlynne]

Re: RE: Kyoto

If you just took the subsidies away from the fossil fuel industry and gave them to the alternative energy industry it would acheive the same as raising taxes, MMMike. It would be revenue neutral though, so more acceptable to the general public.

The NDP plan is not really a political plan, that's part of why it is good. Instead it is based on the science and technology that is available.

Good morning Rev. I am absolutely for green energy. They do have some windmill generated power in Southern Alberta. It's so windy in most parts here they would benefit from even further investments in windmills. They aren't even that bad to look at either and are very quiet to operate.

I don't know how fair Koyoto is when other countries can "buy" credits but still pollute pollute pollute. Any thoughts?

 

[MMMike]

RE: Kyoto

Buying pollution credits from abroad is definitely the worst option available for meeting our requirements, and does the least in reducing GHG. What it does do, however, is assign a cost to greenhouse gas emmission, thereby providing incentive to reduce these emmissions.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

The pollution credits were something that was insisted on by the United States. They most likely wouldn't have made it into the agreement at all if it wasn't for that. They had some support, but not from any single country with so much pull.

You'll notice that the US pulled out after being given several such concessions.

The way the credits stand though, they will contribute to a net reduction in greenhouse gas. A clear real world example of that is a situation in Brazil. In a remote area that has no power there is a village. There is no power or anything there. There is also a refuse dump that emits huge amounts of GHG. Brazil has credits and is not going to do anything about it.

Japan needs credits. They go in and set up a plant that captures and burns those GHGs, using them to provide power to the village. Fewer GHGs reach out atmosphere, Japan earns a credit, the village benefits.

It is also not economically sustainable to continue buying credits with cash (which can and will happen) in the long run. It is one of the main problems with the Liberal plan, and it's there mainly because they are afraid to anger their corporate paymasters.

It isn't ideal, but there is still a benefit if used properly. The end result of abusing the system is ever-increasing costs.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Then you won't mind giving us your scientific credentials, a list of your previously published peer-reviewed papers, a detailed review of what you consider to be the problems with Mann's hockey stick, and a revised version of his work showing different results?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Let's see..... Credentials required to read a graph...well I got that education in elementary school. Ability to read english.... elementary school too. Detailed problems with Manns hockey stick? Already posted them. See if you can follow my elementary school educated reasoning:

By employing my ability to read, I learned of the little ice age. By employing my ability to read a graph, I can clearly see that Mann's omits the little ice age. That's a pretty glaringly obvious problem.

If you weren't so funny in your attempts to insist that black is white you'd be pathetic.

You've just shown a complete ignorance of peer review.

I understand completely how the peer review system works. I also understand human nature.

You are just looking at the graph without knowing the method used to create it, the data chosen and why that data was chosen, and at least a basic understanding of scientific statistical analysis and the different methods and computer programs used to complete that analysis.

Why do I need to know all the background stuff to determine whether the graph is wrong or right? When the conclusion so flies in the face of the facts it doesn't take a scientist to know it's wrong.

You then claim to be using some sort of common sense to reach your conclusion. Common sense would dictate that if you reach a conclusion without knowing or understanding the facts, but reject the views of people who do know and understand the facts, then you have no common sense.

Let's see.... The graph says there was no little ice age, even though there was, and you're suggesting that common sense would indicate that the graph is right?????? Do you even know what the word "logic" means? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

The discussion on the Hockey Stick is over, Extra Fire. I posted several links to support my position. There are links within those links. They depend on the work of real scientists, not somebody with a grade 8 education who thinks that repeating his nonsense over and over makes it somehow more valid.

You lose, little buddy.

 

[mrmom2]

Re: Kyoto

Heres a little grist for the thread :x
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/041805_world_stories.shtml#1
What do you think?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

On the bright side, it's a sign that the low-hanging fruit is drying up...the oil that's left is increasingly harder to get and costs more to pump That will push up prices and encourage people to use other forms of energy.

The bad side is that we're so desperate for oil that we spend a lot on ways to get it even when it's harder to extract. We even burn cleaner energies, like natural gas, so that we can have oil. It's really bizarre behaviour.

The real solution isn't in oil-producing nations though. They mostly just export it. We need to quit using so much of it in the rich parts of the world.

 

[mrmom2]

Re: Kyoto

Hear,Hear what their doing makes zero sense a thing that article didn't mention is how much water those plants use.I heard they use huge amounts :x

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

That's not as bad in a place like Jakarta where the water is plentiful (although potable water is an issue). Consider places like Alberta or the Middle East or Africa though, where water is already an issue.

I really wonder about our species sometimes.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

The discussion on the Hockey Stick is over, Extra Fire.

You're so right. :lol: :lol: It was over the moment you started insisting that a graph that is wrong is right just because the "right" people made it. I know that you're intelligent enough to see that it's wrong (it doesn't take much to see that) but I also realize that you're astute enough to know that you can't afford to admit it :wink: , so I won't post any more on the subject.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Then you'd better provide some links that back you up that I cannot show to be wrong. Every reference you've bothered with so far is mistaken and many verge on being fraudulent.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: RE: Kyoto

Then you'd better provide some links that back you up that I cannot show to be wrong. Every reference you've bothered with so far is mistaken and many verge on being fraudulent.

Mmmmmmm.....tempting to continue, but nope, I said I wouldn't.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Windmills in China

 

[no1important]

RE: Kyoto

Well they seem to be trying. I think wind power is the future of electricity.

The problem in North America is the big oil and their strong lobby, but Bushies, Kleins and Harper's business buddies would lose to much money, they would never go for it.

The sad part is, North America had the capability to switch to this type of power years ago and I believe Big Oil and money is the reason we are not using "Windmills" on a large scale.

If we are more technology advanced than China as some people claim, why the hell aren't we using wind power, instead of token gestures here and there?

Maybe the BC Liberals (conservatives in disguise) should think of "Windmill" power instead of trying to lift moritorium on affshore drilling.

Like I said before all Conservatives and Republicans never mention conservation, just where do we drill next for more sources.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Kyoto

Well they seem to be trying. I think wind power is the future of electricity.

The problem in North America is the big oil and their strong lobby, but Bushies, Kleins and Harper's business buddies would lose to much money, they would never go for it.

The sad part is, North America had the capability to switch to this type of power years ago and I believe Big Oil and money is the reason we are not using "Windmills" on a large scale.

If we are more technology advanced than China as some people claim, why the hell aren't we using wind power, instead of token gestures here and there?

Maybe the BC Liberals (conservatives in disguise) should think of "Windmill" power instead of trying to lift moritorium on affshore drilling.

Like I said before all Conservatives and Republicans never mention conservation, just where do we drill next for more sources.

I think you answered your own question no1

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

It's all where the money for their campaigns comes from, No1. The decisions are made in the offices of Exxon, all else flows from that when it comes to energy policy.

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Kyoto

If the rich could make a buck on these alternative sources of energy they would do it, and they already have hedged their bets by investing already.

If you think there's enough will to have taxes pay for these investments in new alternatives than you might see voters tell you differently.

I wish that these new sources would really show the promise, but I think the oil prices are going to have to get a lot higher before any nation gets truly serious.

It's easier sending someone to the Moon than to do this.

And I think the economics are a lot more involved than most of the simplistic statements by voters.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

The rich have a vested interest in the status quo, Jim. We have an oil-based economy and they are at the top of the heap. Why would they endanger that?

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Kyoto

Reverend Blair, you know as well as I do that whatever business you are in is a darn sight more complicated than observed by outsiders.

Your statement that they have a vested interest is just the beginning of the conversation, but not the final thought, nor the final accurate truth of the economics of the matter.

I'm not sure how much you have read that leads you to think so simply.

To re-tool an industry, or to even change the computer system of a company is chock full of vested interests full of pros and cons.

The devil is in the details.

And it is very easy for us to imagine what is right for others to do, but so much harder if we have to do it ourselves, with our own money and with all the risk that change entails.

I know you know psychology, but you seem to ignore psychology completely when it comes to politics.