Kyoto Protocol

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

I have a couple of problems here, Rev.

:lol: Really?

It is my understanding that the US economy is booming.

You should check again. Bush presided over the most job losses since the Great Depression. The recovery has brought low-paid, no-benefit jobs to replace high-paid, high-benefit jobs. White collar jobs are now being off-shored. The auto sector is in shambles, the housing bubble is making the mainstream media, the wage and wealth gaps are huge and increasing, the debt and deficit are out of control.

The US economy is hanging by a badly-frayed thread.

Bush didn't get in the way much, if the US has done so much better than Canada.

He fired anybody in the government that backed climate change or change. He loosened emissions rules. He put the polluters in charge of environmental policy.

I don't understand the trade reference.

That's been the number one excuse for not doing more on Kyoto. "The US is our largest trading partner and they don't have to meet goals." Martin has used it to keep all of his plans toothless and Harper has used it to criticise even those lax plans.

And, you have to admit Martin's attack on the USA was incredibly hypocritical.

Not nearly as hypocritical as the Conservatives attacking Martin after the anti-environmental stance they have taken.

You also have to keep in mind that the US has actively tried to undermine Kyoto outside of their own borders, including trying to keep other countries from joining and trying to derail the Montreal conference. Martin may have failed domestically, but he hasn't been pressuring other countries not to join and he hasn't tried to f*ck up talks on the issue.

I know you never defended him, but you have attacked the US on this issue.

You bet I have, and I'll contiue to do so until they meet or exceed Kyoto targets whether they join up or not. I'll continue to go after Martin until he meets our targets too. I'll continue to go after Harper and the rest of his party, especially Mills and Solberg, until they issue an apology for being backwards hillbillies who would choke their own children for a quick profit today too.

 

[Colpy]

Re: Kyoto

I'll continue to go after Harper and the rest of his party, especially Mills and Solberg, until they issue an apology for being backwards hillbillies who would choke their own children for a quick profit today too.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: At this point, I think it is the Rev who owes an apology........not that One would ever expect THAT to happen :? :?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

An apology to who, Colpy? I've seen these bastards in action while pretending to represent Canadians. Solberg's performance in committee was a national embarrassment. My description is based on that.

 

[#juan]

Re: Kyoto

I don't believe the U.S. figures but if they reduced emissions anywhere, it was because they moved their emissions elsewhere.



http://tinyurl.com/7k6ko

 

[Karlin]

Re: RE: Kyoto

First, the good stuff -
" the most extreme example of global warming on the planet."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3940399.stm

"Sea engulfing Alaskan village" - now those people are the first refugees of global warming.


---------------Now for the apology : ------------------------------

Karlin, You jumped over my point and went on another tangent.

The scam was the one putting down Nuclear Power so that fossil fuels could take market share of energy sales.
.

Boy, I sure did, sorry iamcan. :? Tangent indeed < Industry VS Agriculture, lol, where is my headspace eh? >

The scam of putting down nuclear energy, by the fossil fuels industry, is certainly realistic.
They don't let any alternative to crude and natural gas have an easy time of it, so true.

One thing though - the fossil fuels industry people tend to cross-invest* - I've heard where they have some corner on uranium or plutonium supply, so they get in on it anyway.
{ * For eg. they have made an agreement with PM Martin that "all hydrogen must be produced using fossil fuels" , so they will not be left out if we switch to a hydrogen economy.]

But there I go on a tangent again, ha ha lol.


As for nuclear power, I prefer our investments to be in windmills and solar - there is no "post contruction" supplies needed, other than wind and sun.
Nuclear requires both input of uranium [or whatever, as 'fuel' ] AND has the waste problem too [ty Rev]

The economics of "free energy once it is installed" has never been fully laid out for all to see how great that idea really is. Imagine 50 years of electricity from one $10,000 investment. I bet the fossil fuels industry keeps that info from being widely distributed, just like Nuclear power's advantages were, as you said.

Karlin

 

[MMMike]

Re: Kyoto

Report flags deteriorating air quality, gas emissions
By TERRY WEBER

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 Posted at 9:26 AM EST

Globe and Mail Update

Trends in air quality and greenhouse-gas emissions deteriorated in Canada through much of the past decade, while pollution levels in lakes and rivers remained troublesome, a new federal report said Wednesday.

The report, prepared by Environment Canada, Statistics Canada and Health Canada, and looked at three indicators – freshwater quality, air quality and greenhouse-gas emissions – between 1990 and 2003.

Over that period, air quality and gas emissions worsened, the report said. As well, it suggested, pollution guidelines for water were exceeded – at least occasionally – at most of the monitoring sites across the country.

According to the findings, the national concentration of ground-level ozone – the key component in smog – rose 16 per cent over the study period, with parts of Ontario suffering the worst.

Globe and Mail

THE CONSCIENCE OF THE WORLD, ACCORDING TO PAUL MARTIN!! :twisted:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Yeah, but just like keeping Quebec in Canada, the only thing worse for Canada's environment than Paul Martin would be Stephen Harper.

Can you imagine if Solberg and Mills were writing our environmental policies? Christ, they'd be trying convince us that pollution was good for us and global warming was a positive development.

 

[Jay]

Re: Kyoto

Report flags deteriorating air quality, gas emissions
By TERRY WEBER

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 Posted at 9:26 AM EST

Globe and Mail Update

Trends in air quality and greenhouse-gas emissions deteriorated in Canada through much of the past decade, while pollution levels in lakes and rivers remained troublesome, a new federal report said Wednesday.

The report, prepared by Environment Canada, Statistics Canada and Health Canada, and looked at three indicators – freshwater quality, air quality and greenhouse-gas emissions – between 1990 and 2003.

Over that period, air quality and gas emissions worsened, the report said. As well, it suggested, pollution guidelines for water were exceeded – at least occasionally – at most of the monitoring sites across the country.

According to the findings, the national concentration of ground-level ozone – the key component in smog – rose 16 per cent over the study period, with parts of Ontario suffering the worst.

Globe and Mail

THE CONSCIENCE OF THE WORLD, ACCORDING TO PAUL MARTIN!! :twisted:

It's just spin and rhetoric at election time.....to bad Liberal supporters can't see that. I think they actually believe Martin when he says things like that....

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: Kyoto

Yeah, but just like keeping Quebec in Canada, the only thing worse for Canada's environment than Paul Martin would be Stephen Harper.

Can you imagine if Solberg and Mills were writing our environmental policies? Christ, they'd be trying convince us that pollution was good for us and global warming was a positive development.

A day like yesterday, -15 plus windchill, I could almost be convinced that global warming is a good thing.

 

[no1important]

Re: Kyoto

Temperatures climb as global warming talks stall

A teaser:

NEW YORK — In the high Arctic, deep in the Atlantic, on Africa's sunbaked plains, climate scientists are seeing change unfold before their eyes. In the global councils of power, however, change in climate policy is coming only slowly.

In Geneva on Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported that 2005 thus far is the second warmest year on record, extending a trend climatologists attribute at least partly to heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" accumulating in the atmosphere.

In New York, NASA's Goddard Institute projected that 2005 will surpass 1998 to end as the hottest year globally in the 125 years since reliable records have been kept. It said warming has accelerated and is now boosting the mercury every decade by more than 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. [/end of teaser]

And people still deny global warming? :roll:

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Kyoto

Actually the scientists are debating the causes of it,
but such debate is so politically charged that no one
can discuss it rationally anymore --- except for
the scientists privately figuring out what all the causes
are and which causes are greater than the other.

Overall global warming can cause actual cooling
in other climes such as changing the course of
the Gulf Stream.

But like any scientific debate, it gets inevitably
constrained by politcal correctness.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

The scientists may be debating the specifics, but there is an overall scientific consensus that anthropomorphic climate is happening right now and that we are the seeing the effects of our actions, Jimmy.

We know the causes. Greenhouse gas emissions is the cause. We also know the answer...cut emissions. What to do about it is a political question and which corporations have their paws in the pockets of what politicins is the determining factor there.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

These animations show the change (relative to the average of 1971-1990) in the 5-year running mean surface air temperature simulated in the 1st member of the GHG+A transient climate change simulations with CGCM2. The details of the forcing can be found in the CGCM forcing section.

Note that surface air temperature changes accelerate with time and that there is more warming over land and polar regions than over the oceans. The rapidly varying jumpy features of the animation are caused by natural variations (year-to-year changes in weather patterns) that are simulated by the climate model. Natural variation is also the cause of the differences between the three simulations. These variations which are also part of the observed climate system, make it difficult to project possible future climate change in detail.

8O

 

[jimmoyer]

RE: Kyoto

There are many companies who see profit in
this coming green revolution and many are in America
exporting service and knowlege, and I hope each
Governor pushes his state to encourage companies
in this sector of the market.

 

[Anonymous]

world series of poker texas holdem pot odds calculator

<snip>
Cosmo

 

[bluealberta]

Re: Kyoto

Previous post by someome who has been banned? Hmmmmm.....

Andem, any idea who posted that crap?

 

[Canucklehead]

RE: Kyoto

Having some issue with me being allowed to delete in this new forum... pass along to Andem & Cosmo... I'm sure it'll be tidied up in short order

 

[Cosmo]

Re: Kyoto

Previous post by someome who has been banned? Hmmmmm.....

Andem, any idea who posted that crap?

Na ... I checked ... random crap out of somewhere in the UK, single post.

Thanks for the XReport, Five.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: Kyoto

Temperatures climb as global warming talks stall

A teaser:

NEW YORK — In the high Arctic, deep in the Atlantic, on Africa's sunbaked plains, climate scientists are seeing change unfold before their eyes. In the global councils of power, however, change in climate policy is coming only slowly.

In Geneva on Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported that 2005 thus far is the second warmest year on record, extending a trend climatologists attribute at least partly to heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" accumulating in the atmosphere.

In New York, NASA's Goddard Institute projected that 2005 will surpass 1998 to end as the hottest year globally in the 125 years since reliable records have been kept. It said warming has accelerated and is now boosting the mercury every decade by more than 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. [/end of teaser]

And people still deny global warming? :roll:

So how come the climate in Alberta millions of years ago was tropical? And what caused it to change? No human interaction with the environment back then, and after that, what caused the glaciers to retreat after the ice age?

 

[I think not]

Re: Kyoto

Kyoto Count Up!

February 16, 2005
Updated: August 22, 2005
Again: September 23, 2005

The seemingly interminable Kyoto countdown is over - now we begin to count UP (the cost).

Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about (see link below) while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is (see link below) (to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean) and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 °C.

So, how do we arrive at these incredible numbers?

Firstly, the now widely acknowledged "saving" (amount of warming avoided) potential for complete implementation of Kyoto is ~0.07 °C by the year 2050. Since skeptics (e.g. Pat Michaels) and advocates (Kevin Trenberth, for example) alike have signed off on the figure we see no need to dispute it (granted, many have pointed out that the potential "saving" is closer to 0.02 °C but who's quibbling - that's way less than error margin for trying to measure global temperature anyway). Further, even though the US and Australia have sense enough to stay clear of energy rationing schemes like this we are prepared to cut The Protocol a great deal of slack and pretend that figure is achievable by the EU and fellow travelers. Thus our potentially "saved" temperature figure is simply 0.07 °C/45 (the amount per year assuming a linear progression) further divided down to an accumulation per second. Granted, this is not likely a very accurate nor realistic representation but hey, we don't even know the absolute mean surface temperature of the planet within ±0.7 °C anyway.

Link