Author Topic: Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread  (Read 601229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,086
  • Freespeecher
Re: Inuits seek global warming ruling against U.S.
« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2005, 13:05:59 »
So you are going to vote Green then? ;D

Commander's intent: we are seekig the same end state, I have just selected a different means of approaching it!
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,086
  • Freespeecher
Re: Inuits seek global warming ruling against U.S.
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2006, 23:31:14 »
Putting it all into perspective:

Quote
Mark Steyn: Climate change myth

11jan06

MICHAEL Crichton's environmental novel State Of Fear has many enjoyable moments, not least the deliciously apt fate he devises for a Martin Sheenesque Hollywood eco-poseur. But, along the way, his protagonist makes a quietly sensible point: that activist lobby groups ought to close down the office after 10 years. By that stage, regardless of the impact they've had on whatever cause they're hot for, they're chiefly invested in perpetuating their own indispensability.

That's what happened to the environmental movement. Denouncing this week's meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership, starting today in Sydney, the eco-tists sound more than a little squaresville: fossils running out of fuel. "Clearly, the short-term profits of the fossil fuel companies count for more in Canberra than the long-term health and welfare of ordinary Australians," says Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute, disregarding the fact that the "long-term health and welfare" that ordinary Australians enjoy is not unconnected to fossil fuels.

"Relying solely on technology to deal with greenhouse emissions is like trying to empty a puddle while the tap is still running: you simply cannot do it," says Labor's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese. So Labor's policy is to turn off the tap?

Even if it wasn't driving the global environmental "consensus" bananas, the Asia-Pacific Partnership would still be worth doing. In environmental politics, the short-term interests of the eco-establishment count for more than the long-term health and welfare of ordinary Australians, or New Zealanders, or indeed Indians and Nigerians. They count for more than the long-term reputation of scientific institutions.

Hence, the famous "hockey stick" graph purporting to show climate over the past 1000 years, as a continuous, flat, millennium-long bungalow with a skyscraper tacked on for the 20th century. This graph was almost laughably fraudulent, not least because it used a formula that would generate a hockey stick shape no matter what data you input, even completely random, trendless, arbitrary computer-generated data. Yet such is the power of the eco-lobby that this fraud became the centrepiece of UN reports on global warming. If it's happening, why is it necessary to lie about it?

Well, the problem for the Kyoto cultists is that the end of the world's nighness is never quite as nigh as you'd like. Thirty years ago, Lowell Ponte had a huge bestseller called The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?

Answer: No, it hasn't. Yes, we can. So, when the new ice age predicted in the '70s failed to emerge, the eco-crowd moved on in the '80s to global warming, and then more recently to claiming as evidence of global warming every conceivable meteorological phenomenon: lack of global warmth is evidence of global warming; frost, ice, snow, glaciers, they're all signs of global warming, too. If you live in England, where it's 12C and partly cloudy all summer and 11.5C and overcast all winter, that dramatic climate change is also evidence of global warming.

That's the new buzz phrase these days: climate change. We've got to stop it, or change it back before it destroys the planet. And, if it doesn't destroy the planet, circa 2011 the Kyotocrats will be citing lack of climate change as evidence of climate change. They are, literally, a church, and under the Holy Book of Kyoto their bishops demand that the great industrial nations of the world tithe their incomes to them. So they're never going to take Crichton's advice.

That being so, the next best thing is the Asia-Pacific Partnership, or the "coalition of the emitting": Australia, the US, India, China, Japan, and South Korea. These nations are responsible for about half of greenhouse gas emissions and, by 2050, will account for roughly 75 per cent of global gross domestic product. In other words, these are the players that matter. And, unlike the Kyotophiles, their strategy isn't a form of cultural self-flagellation. America and Australia will be making Western technology available to developing nations to accelerate their development, so they don't have to spend a century and a half with belching smokestacks glowering over grimy cities the way the first industrialised nations did.

My only problem with this is that, in a government notable for its blunt, healthy disdain for the transnational pieties, Australia's Environment Minister seems to have been spending way too much time snorting the ol' CO2 at the eco-lobby parties. As Matt Price reported in these pages last year:

"Emerging from a bushwalk through the Tarkine forest in northwest Tasmania, Environment Minister Ian Campbell told The Australian that argument about the causes and impact of global warming had effectively ended: 'I think the Australian Government owes it to the public to tell it like it is."'

Oh, dear. By "telling it like it is", he means telling it like we've been told for the past 30 years: "Australia and other industrialised nations need to take urgent action to avert environmental disaster."

Really? You know, I don't like to complain but maybe that Tarkine forest is part of the problem. Here's a headline from the National Post of Canada last Friday: "Forests may contribute to global warming: study." This was at Stanford University. They developed a model that covered most of the Northern Hemisphere in forest and found that global temperature increased three degrees, which is several times more than the alleged CO2 emissions. Heat-wise, a forest is like a woman in a black burka in the middle of the Iraqi desert. In my state of New Hampshire, we've got far more forest than we did a century or two ago. Could reforestation be causing more global warming than my 700m-per-litre Chevrolet Resource-Depleter? Clearly I need several million dollars to investigate further.

I said above that any day the Kyotophiles will be citing lack of climate change as evidence of climate change. But, in essence, that's what they've been doing for years. For example, just before Christmas, Rutgers University put out a press release headed "Global Warming Doubles Rate of Ocean Rise".

Whoa, sell that beachfront property now! If things keep up like this, Sydney's excitable "youths" will be having to rampage in diving suits. But hang on, what exactly do they mean by the "rate" "doubling"? Kenneth Miller claims to have proved that from 5000 years ago to about 200 years ago the global ocean rise was about 1mm a year.

But since 1850 it's been rising at 2mm a year. In other words, it doubled sometime in the early 19th century and has stayed the same ever since, apparently impervious to the industrialisation of Europe, China, India and much of the rest of Asia, as well as to the invention of the automobile, the aerosol deodorant and the private jet Barbra Streisand used when she flew in to Washington to discuss global warming with president Clinton.
Yet nobody thought to headline the story "Rate of ocean rise unchanged for over a century and a half".

If the present rate continues, the Maldives will be under water by 2500. Of course, by then, if the present rate of demographic decline continues, most of Russia and Europe will be empty, and we could resettle the 350,000 residents of the Maldives on the Riviera.

Or we could cripple the global economy now.

One day, the world will marvel at the environmental hysteria of our time, and the deeply damaging corruption of science in the cause of an alarmist cult. The best thing this week's conference could do is inculcate a certain modesty, not least in Senator Ian Campbell, about an issue that is almost entirely speculative. We don't know how or why climate changes. We do know it's changed dramatically throughout the planet's history, including the so-called "little Ice Age" beginning in 600, when I was still driving a Ford Oxcart, and that, by comparison, the industrial age has been a time of relative climate stability. But, of course, as with that "hockey stick", it depends how you draw the graph.

Question: Why do most global warming advocates begin their scare statistics with "since 1970"?

As in, "since 1970" there's been global surface warming of half a degree or so.

Because from 1940 to 1970, temperatures fell.


Now why would that be?

Who knows? Maybe it was Hitler. Maybe world wars are good for the planet.

Or maybe we should all take a deep breath of CO2 and calm down.

Mark Steyn, a columnist with the Telegraph Group, is a regular contributor to The Australian's opinion page.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,086
  • Freespeecher
Re: Inuits seek global warming ruling against U.S.
« Reply #27 on: February 13, 2006, 13:07:20 »
Well, who would have thought......

http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r

Quote
NewsTrack
Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age'
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.

The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.

Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.

The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline GO!!!

  • Fallen Comrade
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 0
  • Posts: 1,851
  • Often have I regretted my speech, never my silence
Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2006, 23:14:27 »
Hello all,

It is assignment time again, and I am looking for a bit of peer review on this paper. This is unfinished, (running out of time) and the citations are in "austere" form, I am looking for a critique of the conclusions stated, and of the writing.

Canada and the Kyoto Protocol; A Dangerous Combination of Good Intentions and Opportunism

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is, at heart, a fine document, conceived by individuals with only the best of intentions for the future of our world, and the condition of the natural environment, worldwide. There was no malice when it was written, only an idealistic slant that was either unaware of, or perhaps believing that environmental concerns transcended the historical and economic conditions that would come into play when the time to sign it came. These conditions are precisely why the Kyoto Protocol is a terrible idea for Canada and Canadians.

The Kyoto Protocol is an addition to the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The basis for it lies in the concept of a certain level of pollution of the atmosphere by eight gasses considered by the UN to be the major contributors to the global “greenhouse effect”, which is human activity creating a rise in the earth’s overall temperatures by releasing gasses into the atmosphere that break down the ozone layer (a naturally formed layer of gas that blocks harmful UV rays from the sun) and holds more of the sun’s radiated heat on earth, as opposed to allowing it to dissipate into space, as was previously the case. The protocol aims to achieve this by placing restrictions on countries that have large amounts of heavy industry, which emits large amounts of these gasses, and instituting a system of international “emissions credits” the possession of which allows the holder to pollute to a set limit, at which point he must buy more. In the interests of the global economy, the writers of the protocol proposed that the emissions levels be set for the declared level of emission of 1990, as a benchmark, with the eventual goal being for all countries to lower national emissions of the eight gasses to 5.2% below 1990 levels. Nations that are above this level would have to purchase emissions credits on the global market, in order to stay below their set limit. The Kyoto Protocol sets no limits on the emission of greenhouse gasses by undeveloped signatory nations, and there are no reliable methods of ascertaining the levels at which many nations emit these gasses now, or at any point in the past. The “exempt” signatory nations of the Protocol have no timeline to become adherents to it, and the Protocol specifies only that the levels at which undeveloped countries will be permitted to emit will be ascertained “in the future”. The protocol also leaves some participant nations with the option to increase their emissions, due to economic and political factors that will be covered later. The Protocol came into effect on the 15th of February, 2005, after it had been ratified by 55 “Annex 1” nations, whose emissions totaled 55% or more of the world emissions. Developing nations were not counted as members of the annex 1 group. In short, the Kyoto Protocol is an extremely complicated document that does not apply to any two signatories equally.

Kyoto and the Environment

The effects of Kyoto on the environment are also difficult to ascertain, and given the present wording of the document, possibly very small. At the present time, the five largest national emitters of Kyoto protocol gasses are the United States, China, Russia, Japan and India.  Interestingly, only the US and Japan would be expected to curtail their industrial activity or purchase emissions credits from the developing world, while China and India, with their rapidly expanding economies and surging use of fossil fuels would be permitted to pollute with impunity, and simultaneously enjoy exempt status from the protocol, as well as large amounts of foreign exchange from the industrialized signatory nations. Russia would also benefit from the Protocol, given that after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990-91, industrial production fell sharply, and emissions with it. This has placed the Russians in the enviable position of having enormous emissions in 1990, the benchmark for the Protocol, that fell off immediately afterwards, and are currently approximately 35% below the level set by the Protocol. This means that Russia would profit handsomely from the implementation of the Protocol, being Russia is a net energy exporter, and could now profit from both the sale of energy, and of the use of energy as well! The effect on the environment that a reduction or stabilization of emissions in the industrialized world would almost certainly be dwarfed by the massive increases that will occur in the developing world, given that they are not subject to the reduction standards, would be profiting from the sale of emissions credits, and would also benefit from an additional competitive edge, given that industry in industrialized nations would still have to be profitable, even with the added burden of supporting their unrestrained competition. This would have the additional effect of creating even more industrialization in the undeveloped nations and increasing their levels of emissions even further! The environmental effects of the Kyoto Protocol in the present form are likely to be small initially, and even worse over the long term, as the emitters of greenhouse gasses fight to keep their “exempt” status as they industrialize further.

Canada should wholeheartedly reject the Kyoto Protocol, and publicly state the reasons why. These reasons encompass the full spectrum of national interests, from the effects on the Canadian and international environments, to the effects of an enforced Kyoto Protocol on the Canadian economy, the implications for national unity and domestic politics and the loss of Canadian independence and sovereignty in the economic and strategic spheres.

A Roaring Economy Reduced to a Whimper
   
Canada as a nation has a widely diversified economy, but is still one that places an emphasis on natural resources and the export of them, primarily to the United States. This has created an extremely wealthy, skilled and educated Canadian population, and one that enjoys one of the highest standards of living on the planet. This natural resource based export economy has an environmental price though, and combined with the high living standards, this has become quite high, with Canadians driving larger and more vehicles, residing in larger homes, and consuming more goods, which require transport, sale and climate controlled space. As a result, Canadians are among the worst per capita polluters in the world,  and the goods that provide the source of Canadian wealth, hydrocarbons especially, contribute to this even further, both in the production of them, and the subsidies which encourage even greater use in certain Canadian provinces, as a matter of public policy. The rising price of all hydrocarbons, in addition to the rise in the price of many natural resources, from iron to diamonds has created an even more successful economy in Canada, but one that requires extensive use of petroleum to maintain it. For example; the Canadian mining sector has made great advances in recent years, but the entire mining industry relies on the use of diesel engines to operate, and thus the use of diesel fuel. The Canadian economy relies on polluting the air with impunity, and must be allowed to continue to do so to.
The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would remove the profitability of nearly every Canadian industry, and effect savage cuts to the standard of living in Canada – for all citizens. If Canada was to be required to reduce emissions to 1990 levels, and this was to be enforced, the industrial emissions alone would have to drop by 24%.  Given that this 24% increase in emissions has effected a 43% increase in Gross Domestic Product, (as of 2003)  the question must be asked, if Canada’s rise in GDP and prosperity is directly tied to the emissions of Kyoto Protocol gasses, why on earth would any politician supposedly acting in the national interest attempt to implement it?

The effects of implementing Kyoto on the Canadian public would be severe as well. If every Canadian were to be assigned a “carbon credit” and forced to purchase more, they would quickly command a premium, and enforcement would be nearly impossible. A more likely scenario is that an added tax would be applied to all forms of energy, as a method of discouraging use and raising capital to pay for the right to emit. This money would then be sent to the national governments of undeveloped countries. In essence, this would be a global tax on Canadian citizens, with all of the proceeds leaving the country. Simultaneously, the cost of producing every good in Canada would rise substantially, as producers attempted to remain profitable in the face of enormous increases in their costs of production. Canadian citizens would watch their costs of living skyrocket, with no end in sight, as energy resources are getting scarcer, and demand for many types is only rising, and will continue to do so, especially given the surge in wealth and industrial activity that would occur in the developing world. The damage to the resource based Canadian economy would be catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians would be put out of work as their places of employment were bankrupted by a combination of crushing Kyoto taxes, energy costs and competition from an unrestrained developing world. One study places the cost of Kyoto at a conservative $2700 per household, per year, based on information available in 2002.  This information is telling, but the costs of many items have risen significantly since 2002 (oil, for example, was worth approximately $25/US a barrel in 2002, it is now worth approximately $60! ) and given that there are approximately 14 million households in Canada, this cost (in 2002) dollars amounts to a total drain gargantuan proportions, especially considering that there is no perceivable benefit! All of this money would be spent in other countries! In short, the Canadian public would be expected to suffer enormous increases in the cost of nearly every good and service, increased taxation, and job losses, to cut emissions by an amount that Kyoto exempt nations like Mexico, India and China could wipe out in a fiscal quarter of solid economic growth.

Paying Others to Pollute Here
   
Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would, in essence, mean that Canada would be participating in a massive wealth re-distribution scheme, in which Canada would be the number one spender, and in which other participants would be spending far less, if anything at all!   The “benchmark” for Kyoto emissions was set at 1990. This was a standard of great advantage to both the Europeans and Russians, but punitive to Canada. In 1990, the former Soviet states were in a state of vicious industrial decline due to the collapse of the command economies of the former Soviet Union, as such, their emissions were startlingly low. East and West Germany had also recently reunited, and the horribly inefficient Eastern industrial base had largely become quiet, along with the collapse of the East German coal industry, and the factories which it supplied, which had fallen victim to the ruthlessly efficient west in the new, free market economy. In Britain, the Iron Lady, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had worked and succeeded to break the powerful coal mining unions in her country, and as a result, inefficient and polluting mines were shut down, simultaneously inspiring industry to switch to cleaner alternatives and raising the price of that commodity for foreign trade. As a result of these timely reformations, European (both eastern and western) and Russian emissions were at a low ebb, and falling immediately after the benchmark was decided upon in 1990, due to new nations calculating new amounts, and reformations which were healthy and ultimately necessary taking place. Canada is in the opposite situation. Canadian emissions were low in 1990, and have been on a steady rise ever since, especially with the signing of the North American Free Trade agreement in 1994, and the rising costs of oil, of which Canada is a net exporter. The benchmark of 1990 highly advantageous to most signatories of the Kyoto protocol. With 1990 as the benchmark, all of the annex 1 signatory nations have significant emissions “room” in which to expand their emissions, with the exception of Canada and Japan. The Japanese only signed the Protocol after it was ascertained that there would be no enforcement mechanism put in place, because they have no intention of enforcing it themselves, realizing the terrible economic costs it would have! Canada has the most ambitious of the Kyoto targets, and the most to lose by fulfilling their “obligation”. Nations like Russia and the Ukraine are likely to become net emissions credits exporters, so for them, the Kyoto Protocol was a great idea; they only had to sign, continue planned economic recovery, and sell a good (emissions credits) with no cost to themselves, but which would provide a large source of foreign exchange – in short, the ideal commodity for export! Canada is the only nation to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol who will actually have to pay the significant costs associated with it. Canadians will be paying Russians and Ukrainians to pollute Canada under Kyoto.

Kyoto Across Canada – Well, Most Of It

One of the first moves the Liberal government made in 2003, when the plans for how the Kyoto Protocol could be met were being drawn up, was to exempt the southern Ontario automotive manufacturers from any emissions cuts or regulations under the agreement.  This vital bastion of liberal electoral support is to be shielded from Kyoto cuts while the natural resource producing (but right leaning and conservative voting) west will bear the full brunt of this agreement. This means that Canadians will bear the full costs of Kyoto, but their place of residence will play a major part in just how much they pay, or whether they will have a job at all in the first place! While the issue of western alienation has always been a problem in Canada, this single action, even more than Pierre Trudeau’s wealth redistribution plan, the NEP (National Energy Plan), demonstrated to residents of western Canada that they were destined to forever be the “drawers of water and hewers of wood” for eastern Canada unless a sympathetic government could be voted in. The exemption of Liberal friendly ridings from Kyoto was perhaps the most telling action that proved that Canada has no plans to distribute the pain of Kyoto evenly, preferring to concentrate the negative effects in areas that are not traditional supporters of the Liberal party.

Comments please!!

No leader was ever hated for being too hard, but a great many were for attempting to appear that way.

Offline blergblergblerg123

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 531
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2006, 03:16:53 »
Oh dear, I've managed to avoid politically charged topics for a while here.... ah screw it, here it goes

I Given that this 24% increase in emissions has effected a 43% increase in Gross Domestic Product, (as of 2003)  the question must be asked, if Canada’s rise in GDP and prosperity is directly tied to the emissions of Kyoto Protocol gasses, why on earth would any politician supposedly acting in the national interest attempt to implement it?

Can you prove causation between these two figures?

Quote
Hundreds of thousands of Canadians would be put out of work as their places of employment were bankrupted by a combination of crushing Kyoto taxes, energy costs and competition from an unrestrained developing world. 

(....the following is not really constructive advice for developing your paper, but some things I hope you take into consideration...)

That would require us accepting your predictions of it being horribly expensive. Two confounding things here, to me at least. Firstly, the cost of reducing it... I am more on the side that it won't be that bad, especially when I see figures that point out that five coal fired power generating stations in Ontario are responsible for 5% percent of our TOTAL :o emissions in an entire year (2002 stats, read Environment Canada's "Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2002", Annex 10, and compare it to the emissions of the five coal fired plants operated by Ontario Power Generation, this is freely availible, but you can get it from CleanAir). And there are more, especially here in Alberta!

These together, total, generate about seven and a half gigawatts of electricity. The cost of replacing these stations with relatively clean nuclear energy would have run us, very roughly 15 billion dollars (10 CANDU 6 reactors - 5 times the Quishan cost... we'd have to tac on some inflation of course), assuming we used older technology, and not the newer, advanced, 1000 or 1500 megawatt designs that reduce cost per kilowatt. If we spread this out over the construction period, it equals about 2, maybe 3 (if we want to add 50% to the cost for inflation or whatever), oh hell lets just make it 4 ... for the middleman, and the fact we will have to hire Canadians that aren't paid 5 cents an hours... billion dollars a year (approx. 7 years construction time). Regardless, put this in perspective of our trillion dollar a year economy... and it's pennies.

Now, the second big objection is this entire "cost" thing.

The solution I just put forth for reducing our total emissions in a year by 5% would have required a capital expendure, yes, but this is also on Canadian reactors, which are going to be built(mostly) by Canadians (even if they don't come from AECL), with the profits from their eventual generation (assuming we don't let them get bought up by, oh, the British or something) going towards Canadian shareholders... my point is that there really isn't a "cost" per se. Like any "cost" in our economy, it will just end up paying for someone elses supper.

I mean, using the same logic as these people who are predicting the death of the Canadian economy due to the "cost" of kyoto, you could say that the "cost" of running our national economy is many hundreds of billions of dollars a year (building new buildings, paying workers, paying for resources, etc. etc. etc.)! Certainly a horrific number... but we all know that's not how the economy really works.

Given this I am more inclined to believe the reports that say going after Kyoto will in fact result in a net benefit  :o to our national economy, both in terms of cash floating around, and the residual benefits that come from investing in high tech development (...avoiding competing with developing countries 5 cent an hour labour, for one). But that's just me I suppose.

Quote
especially considering that there is no perceivable benefit!

Not having it snow in August (screws up crops because they get cold), or +15 in December (screws up crops because the soil won't be moist from snow) is nice for me.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2006, 03:24:51 by couchcommander »

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,416
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2006, 15:09:04 »
I agree there aren't "hundreds of thousands" jobs at stake, but "my point is that there really isn't a "cost" per se" isn't true.  This isn't an unused pile of cash in someone's mattress you are writing about.  What you propose means a diversion of funding from something else, which means something else must be foregone.

>with the profits from their eventual generation

How profitable has Ontario Hydro been these recent years?

>Given this I am more inclined to believe the reports that say going after Kyoto will in fact result in a net benefit

We'll get the benefits eventually anyways without interfering directly in the market in pursuit of a goal which doesn't have any easily demonstrable purpose.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"Yet another in a long line of books about how libertarians are plotting to enslave you by devolving power to the individual and leaving you alone" - Warren Meyer, author of Coyote Blog

Offline blergblergblerg123

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 531
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2006, 15:45:00 »
I agree there aren't "hundreds of thousands" jobs at stake, but "my point is that there really isn't a "cost" per se" isn't true.  This isn't an unused pile of cash in someone's mattress you are writing about.  What you propose means a diversion of funding from something else, which means something else must be foregone.
Fair enough. My point was that it's not like we are just taking the money and giving it to "someone" never to be seen again, akin to the traditional connotation of the term "cost".

You are right it would require diverting funding from some other project, but another way to look at is these coal fired plants all date from the late sixties early seventies, and are in need of replacement anywho. We would just be doing it in a timely manner. As well, they contribute a very very large proportion of the air pollution in Ontario (I don't have the exact number in front of me, i can get it if you want), which has been estimated (very late nineties I think) to cost Ontario 10 billion dollars a year...

Quote
How profitable has Ontario Hydro been these recent years?
There are plenty of profitable nuclear operations worldwide. Just because we were too dumb to do it correctly doesn't mean it's not possible.

Quote
We'll get the benefits eventually anyways without interfering directly in the market in pursuit of a goal which doesn't have any easily demonstrable purpose.

Ah it's doing our bit. On the grand scheme of things, we only produce 2 percent of the worlds emissions... but that shouldn't stop us from pulling our own weight (and hopefully more). Taking responsibility for our actions is a principle, in my opinion, that defines this country (or at least it should). "Because everyone else is doing it" isn't an excuse to me.

*edit* Oh, to the essay as well GO!!!!... I'm not too certain that a major focus of Kyoto is ozone depletion. It was my understanding that this was the primary focus of the montreal protocols (??) back in the eighties when they banned CFC's.. I think the big concern is just the entire greenhouse effect. I could be wrong on this though, I'd just advise checking it.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2006, 20:54:34 by couchcommander »

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,086
  • Freespeecher
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2006, 16:02:37 »
Couple of points:

1. The assumption that global climate change is a result of human activity is built into the Kyoto accords, but is not proven one way or the other. Indeed, historical evidence shows large climactic swings occured when humans had very little control over the environment. Vikings colonized Greenland and lived as "croft" farmers in the Dark ages, something which is impossible today since Greenland is colder than it was then. During the "Little Ice Age", the Thames river was frozen hard enough to hold fairs on, and many battles in the American Revolutionary War were decided by the ability to cross frozen rivers with the logistics and artillery train, so it was far colder than it was today. To suggest Kyoto was driven by scientific concerns is a bit difficult to believe given the widely available evidence in the historical record.

2. The motivation to "deindustrealize" the United States seems implicit in the way the accord is structured (i.e. India and China are exempt, Russia gains net wealth transfers). A more thourough discussion on costs, including sources would strengthen that part of your argument. I believe when the accord was signed by Canada, there were predicitons that up to 500,000 jobs would be affected, which should be findable.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline blergblergblerg123

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 531
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2006, 16:49:35 »
1. The assumption that global climate change is a result of human activity is built into the Kyoto accords, but is not proven one way or the other. Indeed, historical evidence shows large climactic swings occured when humans had very little control over the environment. Vikings colonized Greenland and lived as "croft" farmers in the Dark ages, something which is impossible today since Greenland is colder than it was then. During the "Little Ice Age", the Thames river was frozen hard enough to hold fairs on, and many battles in the American Revolutionary War were decided by the ability to cross frozen rivers with the logistics and artillery train, so it was far colder than it was today. To suggest Kyoto was driven by scientific concerns is a bit difficult to believe given the widely available evidence in the historical record.

No, it's not proven (nothing ever really is), but it is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. Indeed, there was drastic climatic shifts in past, but the last 150 year trend has been rather unique. It is particularily pronounced. Yes, the sun, our orbit, dust, etc. etc. all play a role, but not to the extent required. And yes, some places get colder, others warmer. In fact during the last 150 years, the earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles every decade or so. However the net effect on the whole globe, over the long term, is what matters, and this net effect, which just so happens to coincide with humans starting to release unheard of amounts of CO2, is drastic. This graphic http://www.ghgonline.org/images/ipcc1aandb.gif illustrates it well. THe first one just shows the warming and cooling trends, compared to the 1961-1990 average, but the second, b) is the really interesting one. This graphic is from the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and yes, I know the Fraser Institute and a couple of climatologists from the U of T object to the report... to name a few, but they are a deviation from the norm).

Offline c_canuk

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,585
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 410
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2006, 17:30:42 »
Quote
No, it's not proven (nothing ever really is), but it is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community

in the 70s it was accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community that we are heading into the next ice age... a lot of the so called scientific community that is studying "Global warming" is a very small fraction of the scientific community and if you look at the data its a pretty slim argument that man is causing it by releasing green house gasses when active volcanoes spew forth more in a year than man has since the industrial revolution. the increase in CO2 is in the parts per million, and CO2 is a very small fraction of our atmoshere, which was not the case millions of years ago when it was a major componet.

A good book to read which really made things clear to me, though it is fiction, it's backed up on solid sources(ie The whole of Antarctica has been melting for 3000 years, but only recently has this stopped and only parts of it continue to melt while the rest of it continues to thicken), is State of Fear by Michael Crighton. I believe that humans can have an effect on our local environments, but to think that we cause every change in the environment is ignorant at best. Nature is one continuous changing journey which we've only been a part of for a very short time, and has endured through catastrophes worse than we've ever seen in our blink of an existence within it.

The reason I'm very skeptical about our role in "Global Warming" is that the same crowd that protests soldiers and thinks that the mission in Afghanistan is a wasted effort overlap quite a bit with those carrying the "Global Warming" flag. I hear a lot of "everyone agrees" and "The scientific community accepts that" but I don't hear sources, I do however find a lot of sources saying nothing of the sort.

Some people say contradictory sources are funded by Energy Corps and are therefore biased, but don't see a problem with these same people chairing and largely funding the Environmental research groups that are trying to find alternate sources of renewable energy.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-John Stewart Mill

Offline MoOx

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -10
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 98
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2006, 20:38:23 »
in the 70s it was accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community that we are heading into the next ice age

not in any peer-reviewed scientific journals, it wasn't.

Quote
if you look at the data its a pretty slim argument that man is causing it by releasing green house gasses when active volcanoes spew forth more in a year than man has since the industrial revolution

the USGS says humans produce 22 billion tons of co2 a year, volcanoes only 230 million, at most.
volcanoes also produce particles that should have a cooling effect.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html


Quote
The reason I'm very skeptical about our role in "Global Warming" is that the same crowd that protests soldiers and thinks that the mission in Afghanistan is a wasted effort overlap quite a bit with those carrying the "Global Warming" flag. I hear a lot of "everyone agrees" and "The scientific community accepts that" but I don't hear sources, I do however find a lot of sources saying nothing of the sort.

no consensus? this is a partial list of major institutions that find in favour of the manmade global warming theory (while the naysayers come overwhelmingly from the arts and humanities):

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

google them if you don't believe me. i'm not sure what their take on our afghan mission is, though. (does the fact that i support it 100% have any bearing on anything i have just said?)


Offline MoOx

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • -10
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 98
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2006, 21:10:08 »
GO, i didn't mean to derail this thread about your essay, so ...
you might want to clarify just how the emissions trading scheme is intended to work, and focus on why you think it won't work. as a derivatives market (something i take a semi-professional interest in), the carbon markets are pretty straightforward. you can even look up the latest prices if you have access to a bloomberg terminal. (i believe the function is <NGY><Go>)

the most obvious potential flaw with the kyoto trading mechanism, i think, is in the enforcement . in fact, you could probably even make the argument that the prices and the volatility of these emissions credit markets should reflect the extent to which it is (a) a wealth-redistribution scheme (larger fluctation in prices) or (b) a perfectly efficient market (smaller fluctuations). no need for much financial theory, just a qualititve appraisal of how it compares with other derivatives markets, such as energy futures or options.

you can find more info on these markets at http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php

Offline GO!!!

  • Fallen Comrade
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 0
  • Posts: 1,851
  • Often have I regretted my speech, never my silence
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2006, 21:49:11 »
Thank you all for your thoughtful insight, particularly Squeeliox and Brad for their suggestions on how it might be improved.

Work continues, I will post the rest tomorrow (14 March)

GO!!!
No leader was ever hated for being too hard, but a great many were for attempting to appear that way.

Offline Makaveli

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2006, 22:39:10 »
Also take into account the medical costs, air pollution costs Ontario alone over $1 billion a year in hospital visits, emergency room visits, medication, family physician visits and time off work usually for respiratory problems. Not to mention the estimated 1900 deaths per year in Ontario caused by air pollution, and the lower quality of life for people with chronic respiratory problems such as asthma.
http://www.oma.org/phealth/icap.htm
http://www.cleanair.web.net/whatsnew/response.html

Offline GO!!!

  • Fallen Comrade
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 0
  • Posts: 1,851
  • Often have I regretted my speech, never my silence
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2006, 23:44:06 »
Closer to the finished version.

CC,

I am aware of the Ontario power crisis, but the left seems to have convinced that province that all forms of power generation are bad. This has not quelled their desires for power though, and recent studies, as mentioned, have stated that support for nuclear power is "soft"

All,

There are numerous issues not explored in my paper, (carbon trading, for example) but I am already approximately 1/3 over the word limit, which is verboten in all but the most extraordinary cases, so I have to cut somewhere!

This is v2. There are some major changes to the beginning (Brad, thanks) so I posted the whole thing again, comments please!

Canada and the Kyoto Protocol; A Dangerous Combination of Good Intentions and Opportunism

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is, at heart, a two documents; one conceived by individuals with only the best of intentions for the future of our world, and the condition of the natural environment. The other, a declaration of economic warfare enticingly cloaked in environmentalism, but bearing only difficulty and even danger for those foolhardy enough to answer the siren call. There was malice when it was written, combined with an idealistic slant that was either unaware of, or perhaps believing that environmental concerns transcended the historical and economic conditions that would come into play when the time to sign it came. These conditions are precisely why the Kyoto Protocol is a terrible idea for Canada, Canadians, and the entire developed world.

The Kyoto Protocol is an addition to the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The basis for it lies in the concept of a certain level of pollution of the atmosphere by eight gases considered by the UN to be the major contributors to the global “greenhouse effect”, which is human activity creating a rise in the earth’s overall temperatures by releasing gases into the atmosphere hold more of the sun’s radiated heat on earth, as opposed to allowing it to dissipate into space, as was previously the case. It should be noted that this is only a theory as to the reasons behind climate change, and there is a large group of prominent dissenters who claim that human activity has little or no effect on climate change. The Protocol aims to achieve this reversal or stoppage of climate change by placing restrictions on countries that have large amounts of heavy industry, which emits large amounts of these gases, and instituting a system of international “emissions credits” the possession of which allows the holder to pollute to a set limit, at which point he must buy more. In the interests of the global economy, the writers of the Protocol proposed that the emissions levels be set for the declared level of emission of 1990, as a benchmark, with the eventual goal being for all countries to lower national emissions of the eight gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels. Nations that are above this level would have to purchase emissions credits on the global market, in order to stay below their set limit. The Kyoto Protocol sets no limits on the emission of greenhouse gases by undeveloped signatory nations, and there are no reliable methods of ascertaining the levels at which many nations emit these gases now, or at any point in the past. The “exempt” signatory nations of the Protocol have no timeline to become adherents to it, and the Protocol specifies only that the levels at which undeveloped countries will be permitted to emit will be ascertained “in the future”. The Protocol also leaves some participant nations with the option to increase their emissions, due to economic and political factors that will be covered later. The Protocol came into effect on the 15th of February, 2005, after it had been ratified by 55 “Annex 1” nations, whose emissions totaled 55% or more of the world emissions. Developing nations were not counted as members of the annex 1 group. In short, the Kyoto Protocol is an extremely complicated document that does not apply to any two signatories equally.

Kyoto and the Environment

The effects of Kyoto on the environment are also difficult to ascertain, and given the present wording of the document, possibly very small, especially given that Canada is responsible for approximately 2% of global Kyoto Protocol gas emissions  At the present time, the five largest national emitters of Kyoto Protocol gases are the United States, China, Russia, Japan and India.  Interestingly, only the US and Japan would be expected to curtail their industrial activity or purchase emissions credits from the developing world, while China and India, with their rapidly expanding economies and surging use of fossil fuels would be permitted to pollute with impunity, and simultaneously enjoy exempt status from the Protocol, as well as large amounts of foreign exchange from the industrialized signatory nations. Russia would also benefit from the Protocol, given that after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990-91, industrial production fell sharply, and emissions with it. This has placed the Russians in the enviable position of having enormous emissions in 1990, the benchmark for the Protocol, that fell off immediately afterwards, and are currently approximately 35% below the level set by the Protocol. This means that Russia would profit handsomely from the implementation of the Protocol, being as Russia is a net energy exporter, and could now profit from both the sale of energy, and of the use of energy as well! The effect that a reduction or stabilization of emissions in the industrialized world would almost certainly be dwarfed by the massive increases that will occur in the developing world, given that they are not subject to the reduction standards, would be profiting from the sale of emissions credits, and would also benefit from an additional competitive edge, given that industry in industrialized nations would still have to be profitable, even with the added burden of supporting their unrestrained competition. This would have the additional effect of creating even more industrialization in the undeveloped nations and increasing their levels of emissions even further! The environmental effects of the Kyoto Protocol in the present form are likely to be small initially, and even worse over the long term, as the emitters of greenhouse gases fight to keep their “exempt” status as they industrialize further.

Canada should wholeheartedly reject the Kyoto Protocol, and publicly state the reasons why. These reasons encompass the full spectrum of national interests, from the effects on the Canadian and international environments, to the effects of an enforced Kyoto Protocol on the Canadian economy, the implications for national unity and domestic politics and the loss of Canadian independence and sovereignty in the economic and strategic spheres.

A Roaring Economy Reduced to a Whimper
   
Canada as a nation has a widely diversified economy, but is still one that places an emphasis on natural resources and the export of them, primarily to the United States. This has created an extremely wealthy, skilled and educated Canadian population, and one that enjoys one of the highest standards of living on the planet. This natural resource based export economy has an environmental price though, and combined with the high living standards, this has become quite high, with Canadians driving larger and more vehicles, residing in larger homes, and consuming more goods, which require transport, sale and climate controlled space. As a result, Canadians are among the worst per capita polluters in the world.  The goods that provide the source of Canadian wealth, hydrocarbons especially, contribute to this even further, both in the production of them, and the subsidies which encourage even greater use in certain Canadian provinces, as a matter of public policy. The rising price of all hydrocarbons, in addition to the rise in the price of many natural resources, from iron to diamonds has created an even more successful economy in Canada, but one that requires extensive use of petroleum to maintain it. For example; the Canadian mining sector has made great advances in recent years, but the entire mining industry relies on the use of diesel engines to operate, and thus the use of diesel fuel. The Canadian economy relies on polluting the air with impunity, and must be allowed to continue to do so to.

The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would reduce the profitability of nearly every Canadian industry, and effect savage cuts to the standard of living in Canada – for all citizens. If Canada was to be required to reduce emissions to 1990 levels, and this was to be enforced, the industrial emissions alone would have to drop by 24%.  Given that this 24% increase in emissions has effected a 43% increase in Gross Domestic Product, (as of 2003)  the question must be asked, if Canada’s rise in GDP and prosperity is strongly related to increased emissions of Kyoto Protocol gases, why on earth would any politician supposedly acting in the national interest attempt to implement it?

The effects of implementing Kyoto on the Canadian public would be severe as well. If every Canadian were to be assigned a “carbon credit” and forced to purchase more, they would quickly command a premium, and enforcement would be nearly impossible. A more likely scenario is that an added tax would be applied to all forms of energy, as a method of discouraging use and raising capital to pay for the right to emit. This money would then be sent to the national governments of undeveloped countries. In essence, this would be a global tax on Canadian citizens, with all of the proceeds leaving the country. Simultaneously, the cost of producing every good in Canada would rise substantially, as producers attempted to remain profitable in the face of enormous increases in their costs of production. Canadian citizens would watch their costs of living skyrocket, with no end in sight, as energy resources are getting scarcer, and demand for many types is only rising, and will continue to do so, especially given the surge in wealth and industrial activity that would occur in the developing world. The damage to the resource based Canadian economy would be catastrophic. Thousands of Canadians would be put out of work as their places of employment were bankrupted by a combination of crushing Kyoto taxes, energy costs and competition from an unrestrained developing world. One study places the cost of Kyoto at a conservative $2700 per household, per year, based on information available in 2002.  This information is telling, but the costs of many items have risen significantly since 2002 (oil, for example, was worth approximately $25/US a barrel in 2002, it is now worth approximately $60! ) and given that there are approximately 14 million households in Canada, this cost (in 2002) dollars amounts to a total drain of gargantuan proportions, especially considering that there is no perceivable benefit! All of this money would be spent in other countries! Canadian industries could be further damaged as producers, unable to manufacture goods domestically at a profit, moved their facilities to Kyoto – exempt nations. This could make Canada an exporter of raw materials only, as value was added in nations whose economies operated without the loadstone of emissions taxes. In short, the Canadian public would be expected to suffer enormous increases in the cost of nearly every good and service, increased taxation, and job losses, to cut emissions by an amount that Kyoto exempt nations like Mexico, India and China could wipe out in a fiscal quarter of solid economic growth.

Paying Others to Pollute Here
   
Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would, in essence, mean that Canada would be participating in a massive wealth re-distribution scheme, in which Canada would be the number one spender, and in which other participants would be spending far less, if anything at all!   The “benchmark” for Kyoto emissions was set at 1990. This was a standard of great advantage to both the Europeans and Russians, but punitive to Canada. In 1990, the former Soviet states were in a state of vicious industrial decline due to the collapse of the command economies of the former Soviet Union; as such, their emissions were startlingly low. East and West Germany had also recently reunited, and the horribly inefficient Eastern industrial base had largely become quiet. This, along with the collapse of the East German coal industry and the factories which it supplied, which had fallen victim to the ruthlessly efficient west in the new, free market economy. In Britain, the Iron Lady, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had worked and succeeded to break the powerful coal mining unions in her country, and as a result, inefficient and polluting mines were shut down, simultaneously inspiring industry to switch to cleaner alternatives and raising the price of that commodity for foreign trade. As a result of these timely reformations, European (both eastern and western) and Russian emissions were at a low ebb, and falling immediately after the benchmark was decided upon in 1990, due to new nations calculating new amounts, and reformations which were healthy and ultimately necessary taking place. Canada was in the opposite situation. Canadian emissions were low in 1990, and have been on a steady rise ever since, especially with the signing of the North American Free Trade agreement in 1994, and the rising costs of oil, of which Canada is a net exporter. The benchmark of 1990 is highly advantageous to most signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. With 1990 as the benchmark, all of the annex 1 signatory nations have significant emissions “room” in which to expand their emissions, with the exception of Canada and Japan. The Japanese only signed the Protocol after it was ascertained that there would be no enforcement mechanism put in place, because they have no intention of enforcing it themselves, realizing the terrible economic costs it would have! Canada has the most ambitious of the Kyoto targets, and the most to lose by fulfilling their “obligation”. Nations like Russia and the Ukraine are likely to become net emissions credits exporters, so for them, the Kyoto Protocol was a great idea; they only had to sign, continue planned economic recovery, and sell a good (emissions credits) with no cost to themselves, but which would provide a large source of foreign exchange – in short, the ideal commodity for export! Canada is the only nation to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol which will actually have to pay the significant costs associated with it. Canadians will be paying Russians and Ukrainians to pollute Canada under Kyoto.

Kyoto Across Canada – Well, Most Of It

One of the first moves the Liberal government made in 2003, when the plans for how the Kyoto Protocol could be met were being drawn up, was to exempt the southern Ontario automotive manufacturers from any emissions cuts or regulations under the agreement.  This vital bastion of liberal electoral support is to be shielded from Kyoto cuts while the natural resource producing (but right leaning and conservative voting) west will bear the full brunt of this agreement. This means that Canadians will bear the full costs of Kyoto, but their place of residence will play a major part in just how much they pay, or whether they will have a job at all in the first place! While the issue of western alienation has always been a problem in Canada, this single action, even more than Pierre Trudeau’s wealth redistribution plan, the NEP (National Energy Plan), demonstrated to residents of western Canada that they were destined to forever be the “drawers of water and hewers of wood” for eastern Canada unless a sympathetic government could be voted in. The exemption of Liberal friendly ridings from Kyoto was perhaps the most telling action that proved that Canada has no plans to distribute the pain of Kyoto evenly, preferring to concentrate the negative effects in areas that are not traditional supporters of the Liberal party, and consolidate their hold on power even further.
 
The resource based economy of the west would also suffer even more under Kyoto, due to the nature of many of the economic activities in western Canada. The production of liquid oil from oil wells produces significant amounts of gases linked to climate change, which are either burned off or simply vented into the atmosphere as “fugitive gases”. While the practice of burning off natural gas was common a decade ago, the price of this resource has risen to the point where it is now worth it to capture it for sale. Even with this capture of a valuable by-product, however, the mechanics of the chief propellant of the western Canadian economy must be discussed to fully understand the implications of Kyoto as envisaged by the liberal party of Canada. The oil sands, centered in northern Alberta in the area to the north and west of the town of Fort McMurray, are the number one source of jobs, royalties and economic activity in western Canada. The process by which the bitumen (crude oil) is separated from the sand it lies in, involves the raw product being heated, then filtered, before being refined. This heating is largely done with natural gas, leading to the specter of a possible five levels of taxation on what are already the most expensive costs of oil production in the world. The first is the provincial royalties that must be paid on the resource as it is removed from the ground. The second is the cost of paying the Kyoto emissions cost for the fugitive gases that are produced, the third, the Kyoto tax levied on the natural gas used to separate the sand from the bitumen, the fourth on the fugitive gases produced by the refining process, and the fifth and final taxes being levied by the provincial and federal governments “at the pump” or source of purchase. Even in an industry as profitable as the oil industry currently is, the level of taxation mentioned here would strain any industry. Most disturbingly, all of the Kyoto “taxes” would be siphoned right out of the Canadian economy, providing plenty of local negative effects, with no tangible positives for Canadians. The combination of a possible five layered taxation scheme for western Canada and an exemption from Kyoto targets for the major economic activities in eastern Canada would be potent ammunition for disgruntled westerners, already disillusioned with the eastern – centric nature of the federal government. Kyoto is not only bad for the Canadian economy, it is also bad for Canadian unity, and has the potential to create a three way split of Canada, as opposed to the current French – English rift.

A Sovereign State – No Higher Authority

The final set of arguments against the Kyoto Protocol center on the ramifications of subordinating so many aspects of the lives of Canadian citizens to a collective of nations who are participants in a globally competitive marketplace, and the strategic and military consequences of handing over control of national economic machinery to organizations that do not act in the best interests of Canadians. The act of Canada subordinating itself to such a flawed treaty as the Kyoto Protocol with no national debate invalidates the purpose of Canadians voting or having representation in a federal system due to the fact that it is, in essence, creating a higher form of legitimate government. The difference is, that the Kyoto Protocol does not have elected representatives, it is merely a document. Canadians may well be justified in demanding their government take action to study or prevent climate change, but the impetus, plan, costs and benefits should be Canadian in source and destination. There is simply no excuse to pay Russians for the right to pollute Canada, that money could be better spent improving the efficiency of Canadian industry, or researching alternative sources of propulsion, power and profit. Canada probably should attempt to reduce emissions of Kyoto gases, but it should do so on Canadian terms.

The strategic implications of a post – Kyoto world are no less startling than the economic. China and India are two of the world’s fastest growing states. Both are nuclear powers, have massive human resources, and a strong desire to achieve the “prestige, power and influence” that Louis St. Laurent spoke of. These effects are directly tied to a national ability to raise two items; a large and ongoing source of foreign exchange, and a powerful military, capable of projecting power to areas where it can be used to further national objectives. China has made large strides in this area in recent years, modernizing the People’s Liberation Army, Navy and Air Force to the extent that it will soon be capable of challenging US supremacy in the Pacific. Canada adhering to the Kyoto Protocol would facilitate Chinese strategic goals in two ways. The first is that it would drive down the demand for sources of energy within Canada and depress the price of these commodities as the Canadian public consumed them less due to the high costs associated with them. The second is that since China (being a developing nation) is not subject to the Protocol, it would be able to purchase these resources at a reduced cost, further expanding the Chinese economy and the sources of foreign exchange. Canadians, would, in essence, be subsidizing the economic and military advancement of a state which does not share Canadian values or goals and simultaneously, is a rival of the staunch, long standing and faithful Canadian ally, the United States. The Kyoto Protocol is the opening volley of economic warfare against Canada and any other state foolhardy enough to sign it.

Canada should wholeheartedly reject the Kyoto Protocol, and publicly state the reasons why. The Kyoto Protocol is a global wealth and economic growth re-distribution scheme, disguised as an environmental protection treaty. Canadians under Kyoto would be poorer, and the benefactors of Canadian sacrifice would be in the undeveloped nations who took advantage of a deviously worded environmental treaty. Canada would be weak under Kyoto. Industrial production would lower and eventually outsourced, and the economy based almost solely on resource extraction and export, and as such, subject to the wild shifts of the commodity markets. The Canadian economy would enter an eternal “boom-bust” cycle as a result, guaranteeing the maintenance of a highly mobile, unskilled workforce constantly pursuing work in different parts of the nation. This stands in stark contrast to the Canadian economy of 2006, diversified, with a solid base in resource extraction and refinement, and an expanding knowledge based category. There are no benefits to the Kyoto Protocol which could not be achieved in Canada, with Canadian innovation, without the damage to the economy that the developing world demands.






No leader was ever hated for being too hard, but a great many were for attempting to appear that way.

Offline blergblergblerg123

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 531
Re: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol ESSAY
« Reply #40 on: March 14, 2006, 01:02:56 »
The introduction is very well done, it explores the basis of you are talking about in a (what comes across as) balanced fashion, while still making your point. On that note, I would look at bringing this exploration of issues to your entire paper. Describe where, in the body of research and opinions, the viewpoints you are expousing lie, and importantly, acknowledge prominent dissenting theories or ideas (where appropriate on major points). In the end, it strengthens the document, as it shows it is well researched and grounded.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,086
  • Freespeecher
Re: Inuits seek global warming ruling against U.S.
« Reply #41 on: March 19, 2006, 22:30:52 »
"Most" scientists have a "consensus" about global warming, we are always told. Perhaps they have a consusus on where their funding comes from and don't want to rock the boat:

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_part_ii&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/

Quote
Science vs. political power,
or, Why should we expect that scientists are any different than the rest of us?
The issue of man induced climate change involves not the likelihood of dangerous consequences, but rather their remote possibility.

So begins the abstract to Understanding Common Climate Claims (available in .pdf) http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060126/20060126_13.pdf , an articulate and challenging study of the politicization and alarmist claims of climate science and, by extension, popular environmental beliefs and education. The study was presented at the 22nd International Seminar on Global Emergencies in Erice, Italy in 2005 — the link is to a draft of the paper that will appear in the conference proceedings. Richard S. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and was previously Burden Professor of Dynamic Meteorology and Director of the Center for Earth and Planetary Physics at Harvard University. Particularly illuminating are the 8th and 9th sections, "Scientific V. Political Discourse " and "Science and Policy." From his summary:

    [A] significant part of the scientific community appears committed to the maintenance of the notion that alarm may be warranted. Alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding. The argument is no longer over whether the models are correct (they are not), but rather whether their results are at all possible. Alas, it is impossible to prove something is impossible.

    As you can see, the global warming issue parts company with normative science at a pretty early stage. A very good indicator of this disconnect is the fact that there is widespread and even rigorous scientific agreement that complete adherence to the Kyoto Agreement would have no discernible impact on climate. This clearly is of no importance to the thousands of negotiators, diplomats, regulators, general purpose bureaucrats and advocates attached to this issue.

    At the heart of this issue there is one last matter: namely, the misuse of language. George Orwell wrote that language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.” There can be little doubt that the language used to convey alarm has been sloppy at best. Unfortunately, much of the sloppiness seems to be intentional.

    A question rarely asked, but nonetheless important, is whether the promotion of alarmism is really good for science? The situation may not be so remote from the impact of Lysenkoism on Soviet genetics. However, personally, I think the future will view the response of contemporary society to ‘global warming’ as simply another example of the appropriateness of the fable of the Emperor’s New Clothes. For the sake of the science, I hope that future arrives soon.

Source: Dr. Graham Smith. For more on the subject of climate science alarmism, see also Taken By Storm, coauthored by UWO's Dr. Christopher Essex and Dr. Ross McKitrick.

edit to include link from Scientific American
« Last Edit: March 20, 2006, 00:56:13 by a_majoor »
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline bbbb

  • Officer-Cadet
  • Banned
  • Member
  • *
  • -75
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 115
  • 3rd Year History
Re: Inuits seek global warming ruling against U.S.
« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2006, 01:53:57 »
I have not read 'State of Fear' by Micheal Crichton. What is it about?
Truth Duty Valour

...and a lot of lying about where I go to school.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,086
  • Freespeecher
Re: Inuits seek global warming ruling against U.S.
« Reply #43 on: April 06, 2006, 10:24:04 »
More from the Manor house:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view408.html#global

Quote
Tuesday, April 4, 2006   
 
For a different view of Hansen the Global Warming Spokesman:

Novak on Hansen

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak03.html

- Roland Dobbins

My position remains the same: real scientists will admit that they have no models that cover all the data, and know that our understanding of climate is insufficient to justify recommending expensive measures to compensate when we do not yet know whether to expect warming (and how much) or a new ice age.

The Sun is a variable star. How variable we do not know, and it might be worth knowing such things. The oceans have warming and cooling cycles (El Nino and La Nina) that we can't predict with any accuracy but which have enormous climate consequences.

My position continues to be that we need to know more and we ought to be spending more money to find it out; and those grants and studies ought NOT to be supervised by people like Hansen who have already made up their minds and will not spend a dime on gathering evidence that doesn't support their positions.

From the link:

Quote
But it is not a matter of industry's allies in government nullifying unanimous scientific opinion. The scientists are divided, and Hansen and his friends are using political tactics to try to prevail.
and
Quote
Hansen sounded much the same alarm in 1988, when he energized the global warming movement by predicting a temperature rise of 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 10 years. When the actual rise in surface temperatures over the decade was only 0.2 degrees, Hansen stepped back from his earlier predictions.

Yet he is making pretty much the same prediction now ("the temperature will rise by 10C in ten years"). Given his record, I wonder why anyone takes him seriously?







Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline COBRA-6

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 5,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,477
Re: Inuits seek global warming ruling against U.S.
« Reply #44 on: April 06, 2006, 15:33:33 »
Given his record, I wonder why anyone takes him seriously?

Because the environmental lobby groups and media reports it as fact, and make it seem like global warming/climate change is huge, terrible *crisis*  :o  Just like they did with DDT, and the power-line cancer scare, etc etc... and by the time it's proved to be bunk, they'll have already moved on to the next terrible crisis, or catastrophe, etc etc...
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Offline zipperhead_cop

  • Much work remains to be done before we can announce a total failure to make any progress...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 5,866
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,206
  • Gotta kick at the darkness till it bleeds daylight
Re: Inuits seek global warming ruling against U.S.
« Reply #45 on: April 06, 2006, 15:51:03 »
Ever since someone got paid to look into cow farts ruining the ozone layer, I have been a bit skeptical of "pure science". 

http://www.agr.gc.ca/policy/environment/eb/public_html/pdfs/aei/Chap14E.pdf

Our tax dollars hard at work. ::)
God loves stupid people.  That's why He made so many of them.

Of course forests contribute to climate change - you pointless, vacuous wankers.

Offline exsemjingo

  • Member
  • ****
  • -120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 202
  • Waitin' at the end of time for you...
Al Gore vs. Arithmetic
« Reply #46 on: July 04, 2006, 23:32:13 »
Worried about failing math?  That's okay, you're still qualified to be (former) Vice President of the United States.  If you haven't heard the story yet, here it is from www.630ched.com

ALBERTA/630 CHED - Not all influential Americans are thrilled by the tremendous reserves in the Oil Sands near Fort McMurray.
Global warming opponent and former US Vice President Al Gore says what's happening in northern Alberta is "totally nuts".
In an interview for next week's issue of Rolling Stone magazine Gore slams our oil sands mega projects. He says: "For every barrel of oil they extract there, they have to use enough natural gas to heat a family's home for four days.
And they have to tear up four tons of landscape, all for one barrel of oil".
Gore compares the extraction process to drug addiction and adds "junkies find veins in their toes.
It seems reasonable, to them, because they've lost sight of the rest of their lives".
- Ed Mason

But how much natural gas is that?  Heating bills vary, so let's use a generous estimate of $80/month.  Divide by 30 days, multiply by 4, and that equals $10.67 worth of natural gas.  At the end of last month, one barrel of crude cost this much:
 
Crude oil NYMEX 73.93 +0.41 +0.55% 6/30/2006
1:28:00 PM

Now, I haven't factored in exchange rates, but isn't $73.93 far more than $10.67?  I'm no junkie, but I think that sounds economical.  Maybe Al Gore forgot that all industrial processes require energy, even energy extraction ones.  I guess he also forgot to look at a map of Northern Alberta, since we've preserved plenty of landscape in Wood Buffalo National Park, one of the largest national parks in the world.
Or maybe he's just being blindly partisan, and thinks that we are the ones who flunked math. ::)



« Last Edit: July 05, 2006, 00:57:22 by exsemjingo »
"Syria should (have) stop(ed) this crap" 

"Not all of us conservatives are Jonny Hate-Mongers, Charlie Bible-Thumps, or, God forbid, George Bushes."
-Sideshow Bob

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,843
Re: Al Gore vs. Arithmatic
« Reply #47 on: July 04, 2006, 23:39:02 »
Plus from what I have seen of the areas no longer in production, they have backfilled, and landscaped to the point you would never know that the area was once a vast pit.... ::)
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -1,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,777
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: Al Gore vs. Arithmatic
« Reply #48 on: July 05, 2006, 00:28:51 »
But at least he can spell, unlike a certain other former Vice President of the US.

Or certain forum posters.  ;D  ;)
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

Offline Code5

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 463
Re: Al Gore vs. Arithmetic
« Reply #49 on: July 05, 2006, 01:44:00 »
i wonder exactly, where you're getting he figure of 80 bucks a month to heat a house.  I've, in the past, paid close to 500 bucks a month for heating (granted it was an old house), and (500/30)*4 = $66.67 which is close to what  the price of crude is.

However, what Gore is trying to illustrate (and says quite plainly) is that we are junkies when it comes to Oil and we really need to start weaning ourselves off of it.  The sooner we get feasible alternative energy sources the better.