No Carbon Economy By 2100
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
Okay, . . . thanks for the clarification.
Mom. I think I found one of your lost children
CAPTION CONTEST: What Are These Brave Ukrainian Liberators Thinking?
Next time they ask where our balls are we can show them.
Mom. I think I found one of your lost children
Am I 'off-center' because my submission to this offer of adding a caption didn't make it through the mods and I think it was funny as hell really? What say the Judge?
CAPTION CONTEST: What Are These Brave Ukrainian Liberators Thinking?
Next time they ask where our balls are we can show them.
Happy hour brings out all sorts of 'odd questions',
It will be interesting to see if Harper can keep a straight face
It’s more reliable to judge politicians by what they do rather than what they say.
At their now-completed summit in Germany this week, the heads of seven leading industrialized nations -- the G7 -- called for the end of fossil fuel use, or “decarbonization," by 2100.
This to combat man-made climate change caused by the industrial burning of fossil fuels.
But German Chancellor Angela Merkel, summit host and the driving force behind the declaration, has been increasing her nation’s use of coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, to power Germany.
As a result, 45% of Germany’s electricity now comes from coal -- and much of that from a particularly dirty form called lignite -- compared to 30% for renewables.
U.S. President Barack Obama also signed the decarbonization declaration.
But Obama recently approved oil drilling in the Arctic.
Under his administration, the U.S. has become the world’s biggest producer of oil and natural gas.
Obama has boasted about approving enough oil and gas pipeline during his presidency to more than encircle the Earth, except, hypocritically, for the Keystone XL.
Under Obama, U.S. coal exports to Asia and Europe hit record levels in 2012. (They’ve since fallen back somewhat).
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who also endorsed the G7 communique, has been a fierce defender of developing Canada’s oilsands and said it would be “crazy economic policy” to regulate them when oil prices are dramatically down.
While Canadian Alliance leader in 2002, Harper expressed skepticism about man-made global warming and its link to industrial fossil fuel emissions in a fundraising letter to party members.
He called the Kyoto accord -- the United Nations’ emissions reduction treaty which expired in 2012 and which Canada legally withdrew from at the end of 2011 -- “essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”
He said enacting Kyoto would “cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia."
Lest there be any doubt, Harper’s letter added: “THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD.”
He called carbon dioxide (a byproduct of burning fossil fuels) “essential to life” and described the science of global warming as “tentative and contradictory.”
Harper may have had a sincere conversion to belief in man-made global warming since then, but I suspect he remains a skeptic.
In any event, given Harper’s fierce, contemporary defence of the oilsands -- despite global criticism -- why would he agree to a document calling for the end of fossil fuel use by 2100?
The answer is that calling for decarbonizing the global economy 85 years from now costs him nothing politically, just as it costs Merkel, Obama and the other leaders of the G7 (the U.K., France, Italy and Japan) nothing.
The declaration is meaningless given that the G7 leaders provided no road map for getting to a decarbonized world by 2100, long after they will all be dead.
For Harper, joining the call for decarbonization is a political tactic for the October election, enabling him to appear to be on side with political opponents Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau, no matter how much he disagrees with them on carbon pricing, which they support and he opposes.
Harper plays the climate game | GOLDSTEIN | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun
It’s more reliable to judge politicians by what they do rather than what they say.
At their now-completed summit in Germany this week, the heads of seven leading industrialized nations -- the G7 -- called for the end of fossil fuel use, or “decarbonization," by 2100.
This to combat man-made climate change caused by the industrial burning of fossil fuels.
But German Chancellor Angela Merkel, summit host and the driving force behind the declaration, has been increasing her nation’s use of coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, to power Germany.
As a result, 45% of Germany’s electricity now comes from coal -- and much of that from a particularly dirty form called lignite -- compared to 30% for renewables.
U.S. President Barack Obama also signed the decarbonization declaration.
But Obama recently approved oil drilling in the Arctic.
Under his administration, the U.S. has become the world’s biggest producer of oil and natural gas.
Obama has boasted about approving enough oil and gas pipeline during his presidency to more than encircle the Earth, except, hypocritically, for the Keystone XL.
Under Obama, U.S. coal exports to Asia and Europe hit record levels in 2012. (They’ve since fallen back somewhat).
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who also endorsed the G7 communique, has been a fierce defender of developing Canada’s oilsands and said it would be “crazy economic policy” to regulate them when oil prices are dramatically down.
While Canadian Alliance leader in 2002, Harper expressed skepticism about man-made global warming and its link to industrial fossil fuel emissions in a fundraising letter to party members.
He called the Kyoto accord -- the United Nations’ emissions reduction treaty which expired in 2012 and which Canada legally withdrew from at the end of 2011 -- “essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”
He said enacting Kyoto would “cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia."
Lest there be any doubt, Harper’s letter added: “THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD.”
He called carbon dioxide (a byproduct of burning fossil fuels) “essential to life” and described the science of global warming as “tentative and contradictory.”
Harper may have had a sincere conversion to belief in man-made global warming since then, but I suspect he remains a skeptic.
In any event, given Harper’s fierce, contemporary defence of the oilsands -- despite global criticism -- why would he agree to a document calling for the end of fossil fuel use by 2100?
The answer is that calling for decarbonizing the global economy 85 years from now costs him nothing politically, just as it costs Merkel, Obama and the other leaders of the G7 (the U.K., France, Italy and Japan) nothing.
The declaration is meaningless given that the G7 leaders provided no road map for getting to a decarbonized world by 2100, long after they will all be dead.
For Harper, joining the call for decarbonization is a political tactic for the October election, enabling him to appear to be on side with political opponents Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau, no matter how much he disagrees with them on carbon pricing, which they support and he opposes.
Harper plays the climate game | GOLDSTEIN | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun
Just lots of needless gun-fire.
We really should make him the permanent Ambassador to the Ukraine where he can see Russia from his front porch. Give him a reason to keep living and all that.
Walter can be his side-kick.
We really should make him the permanent Ambassador to the Ukraine where he can see Russia from his front porch. Give him a reason to keep living and all that.
Walter can be his side-kick.
Last edited: