Support NeoGAF

[Buba Big Guns]

Of all the things the Conservatives have done that fly in the face of science and data, this is the least important thing to me.

I don't care if they pull out of Kyoto, it's a relic that needs a modern replacement anyways.

So why not keep kyoto until a new agreement gets made? Lets face it, a new agreement wont be made for a long long time thanks to so many nations dragging their feet.

When you look at the data, it's crazy how many lives would be saved from cleaner air (and as a result, health care costs). At the current rate, action will only be taken when the effects of climate change start becoming more and more obvious to the people who dont understand it, and more and more people start being effected by it (ie. more deaths). It'll be much too late by then.

 

[BocoDragon]

So why not keep kyoto until a new agreement gets made? Lets face it, a new agreement wont be made for a long long time thanks to so many nations dragging their feet.

The worst part is that the apparent failure of Kyoto will bolster pessimism towards any future environmental effort.

I'm pretty worried that Kyoto has demonstrated that a fragmented planet of multiple ideologies cannot negotiate itself into any real environmental plan.

 

[IrishNinja]

I don't understand, OP. i get all my conservative news from here, and somehow they missed this one.

 

[ToxicAdam]

I don't understand, OP. i get all my conservative news from here, and somehow they missed this one.

Hey, he used to be a frequent Usenet poster (RSPW) years ago.

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=r3xYDxAAAAAVSjhJ_jak2hYCixzMxDsm

 

[Cereal KiIIer]

That's about $223 333 per Canadian.

 

[cajunator]

How many countries actually FOLLOW the Kyoto protocol or give any more than a facade of caring about it?

 

[Meadows]

Who cares about poor brown people on Islands getting flooded!!! More poutine and bagged milk!

 

[cajunator]

Islanders are kind of asking to be flooded, with the whole living on tiny pieces of land 5 feet above sea level and completely surrounded by water.

 

[Slavik81]

How many countries actually FOLLOW the Kyoto protocol or give any more than a facade of caring about it?

Mostly ones that got handouts. Kyoto perversely rewarded countries that were heavy polluters in 1990. Britain and Germany chief among them.

The date was clearly picked to correspond prior to German reunification (after which CO2 pollution from East Germany dropped dramatically). That met HALF their required reduction under the Kyoto protocol. And, unlike Canada, Britain had still been using very inefficient power generation in 1990. Following that year, they modernised their equipment to the standards that everyone else was using. That was about HALF of their required reduction.

The entire Kyoto protocol agreement was political theatre. The only countries that are going to meet the requirements are the ones that rigged the criteria in their favour.

We just got Harper'd.

The Liberals did next to nothing to meet Kyoto requirements, despite that they were the ones who signed on for it. At least the Conservatives have been honest in saying that they had no intention of following through with it.

That's about $223 333 per Canadian.

6 700 000/3 300 000M = $203.03

 

[Kinyou]

Gotta get that delicious oilsand somehow

 

[lupinko]

Knowing our government, the saved 6.7 Billion will end up being infused into more fighter jets.

There ya go.

 

[Large Professor]

Doesn't Canada have a lot to gain with the earth warming up?

Won't this make a lot of land that was previously to cold to do anything with available for natural resources exploitation?

That India, Bangladesh and a lot of third world countries are screwed with this, isn't their problem I guess.

 

[guidop]

Islanders are kind of asking to be flooded, with the whole living on tiny pieces of land 5 feet above sea level and completely surrounded by water.

Fucking LOL are you kidding me? Come on say this about japan? say this about people living in tornado alley

Derp they are kinda asking for it, don't you know bout them there fault lines or tornados

 

[Ripclawe]

The same can be said for you. "Because they aren't doing it!" is a poor rebuttal.

actually its not considering it would be stupid for canada to do it and bigger polluters and developing countries are saying fuck it. Plus the fact Kyoto is not the end all of agreements.

I don't understand, OP. i get all my conservative news from here, and somehow they missed this one.

Neogaf gets exclusives every once in a while plus I need to reformat that damn site or move to Google plus...

Hey, he used to be a frequent Usenet poster (RSPW) years ago.

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=r3xYDxAAAAAVSjhJ_jak2hYCixzMxDsm

That place used to be awesome! Then everyone moved on to message boards.

 

[Gaborn]

Good for Harper. Kyoto was a JOKE. There is no excuse for it's excluding China and India from emissions requirements. Because of that Kyoto would not have significantly dropped emissions below the target levels.

I'm not impressed. And the Conservative government excuse of "if they're not doing it (China and US) why should we?" is bullshit. They are fucking acting like kids and oil industry lobbyists.

Another person who never read Kyoto. China would not have had an emissions target like the US. It's a "developing" country after all!

 

[jchap]

How would Canada be hurt by global warming!? Hell they could potentially double their livable landmass and become a better nation with warming temperatures! More agriculture, access to more resources, better conditions for their populace. Invest in Canadian tundra land

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

Mostly ones that got handouts. Kyoto perversely rewarded countries that were heavy polluters in 1990. Britain and Germany chief among them.

The date was clearly picked to correspond prior to German reunification (after which CO2 pollution from East Germany dropped dramatically). That met HALF their required reduction under the Kyoto protocol. And, unlike Canada, Britain had still been using very inefficient power generation in 1990. Following that year, they modernised their equipment to the standards that everyone else was using. That was about HALF of their required reduction.

The entire Kyoto protocol agreement was political theatre. The only countries that are going to meet the requirements are the ones that rigged the criteria in their favour.

Britain has legally binding targets to cut emissions by 80%(from 1990 levels) by 2050, & I believe Japan also hit its targets.

 

[Gaborn]

Britain has legally binding targets to cut emissions by 80%(from 1990 levels) by 2050, & I believe Japan also hit its targets.

yes, and china.... does not. The hope was that FUTURE agreements would bind heavily polluting developing countries.

 

[Joel Was Right]

my mechanic told me I needed to pay $900 to replace my brakes. I showed him!

Rotfl

 

[ReBurn]

Who would get the $6.7B?

 

[elsk]

There are 52 million latin americans without food right now. 16% of that are kids under 5 years. And still the world keeps wasting money like they don't give a shit... good for Canada.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

yes, and china.... does not. The hope was that FUTURE agreements would bind heavily polluting developing countries.

I was responding to someone who claimed that handouts were the reason that Britain complied.
As for your hopes for future agreements(which was originally the plan), I would have thought that dream died when the country that had over a third of the world emissions(1990) didn't try to cut them(regardless of whether or not they ratified the Kyoto treatment) rather than allowing them to rise significantly.

 

[lunarworks]

There are 52 million latin americans without food right now. 16% of that are kids under 5 years. And still the world keeps wasting money like they don't give a shit... good for Canada.

Where does food come from?

The earth.

So let's continue ruining the earth, that way no one can eat.

 

[Gaborn]

I was responding to someone who claimed that handouts were the reason that Britain complied.
As for your hopes for future agreements(which was originally the plan), I would have thought that dream died when the country that had over a third of the world emissions(1990) didn't try to cut them(regardless of whether or not they ratified the Kyoto treatment) rather than allowing them to rise significantly.

I wasn't saying they were MY hopes. Actually I was making the opposite point. My point was that Kyoto was an irrational agreement because not only did it not do what the supposed goal was, it was basically going to be a sop to China, giving them an even BIGGER economic advantage while retarding the growth of the economies of developed countries.

 

[slider]

There's some bizarro script brewing in my tiny brain about a Green Super-power nation that wages a war on pollution rather than terror.

Meh, it's shit I guess but I'm bored.

 

[Wazzim]

The Kyoto Pact costs money, an earth without Kyoto Pact costs even more.

I don't understand, OP. i get all my conservative news from here, and somehow they missed this one.

Holy shit Riplclawe, hahahahaha

 

[gutter_trash]

Fuck Harper.

And by the way, fuck George Bush for pulling America out of Kyoto, rendering it useless.

South Ontario awarded him his majority on May 2nd 2011,

only 60% some people voted

how many Occupy Canada protesters bothered to vote when the time was right to vote?

we are stuck with him for 4 years and Canadian people are to blame for that either for their action or inaction

 

[SRG01]

South Ontario awarded him his majority on May 2nd 2011,

only 60% some people voted

how many Occupy Canada protesters bothered to vote when the time was right to vote?

we are stuck with him for 4 years and Canadian people are to blame for that either for their action or inaction

I've said many times that canada will get the government it deserves if the Conservatives won a majority. Looks like I was right.

And yes, southern Ontario went blue because of the Liberal collapse but mainly because of fears of a resurgent NDP.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

South Ontario awarded him his majority on May 2nd 2011,

only 60% some people voted

how many Occupy Canada protesters bothered to vote when the time was right to vote?

we are stuck with him for 4 years and Canadian people are to blame for that either for their action or inaction

Fuck that shit I blame those Western fucker Albertans!

 

[sangreal]

There's some bizarro script brewing in my tiny brain about a Green Super-power nation that wages a war on pollution rather than terror.

Meh, it's shit I guess but I'm bored.

 

[ToxicAdam]

That place used to be awesome! Then everyone moved on to message boards.

Yea, I was a frequent poster myself. I remembered you used to post a lot of videos to your website (you must have had that url for 13 years now) and occasional news stories.

 

[Tabris]

The great thing about Canada though is even though the conservative government will fuck things up, they still have a bit of reason, so they won't fuck it up that bad. We just need a charismatic Liberal leader. NDP had that but in hindsight that would have been a disaster (RIP Jack ) but NDP will never be able to get a majority. Things were simply better under a Liberal government and we are just reaping the benefit of policies put in place from those liberal governments.

 

[Kraut]

Who would get the $6.7B?

Hopefully that money gets invested towards developing cleaner and more cost-effective technologies. Pulling out of Kyoto is one of the smartest things Harper could do. Our CO2 contribution when compared to India and China (who will never commit to reducing in the near future) is negligible, so us stopping is like ripples in the ocean. I'm just glad we don't have an ideologue Green leader who would bend over backwards and fuck the entire country over for something as ridiculous and pointless as Kyoto.

 

[gutter_trash]

Fuck that shit I blame those Western fucker Albertans!

South Ontario went blue and gave him the numbers needed to for Majority, that is fact.

Alberta does not have enough seats to weigh in on who get a majority or not

South Ontario however does and it did

 

[Lothars]

Fuck that shit I blame those Western fucker Albertans!

It's not Alberta that has constantly screwed the rest of the country, it's Ontario. They are the one's that should be put to task for voting the conservatives in.

South Ontario went blue and gave him the numbers needed to for Majority, that is fact.

Alberta does not have enough seats to weigh in on who get a majority or not

South Ontario however does and it did

exactly, the west really had no choice in the matter.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

There are 52 million latin americans without food right now. 16% of that are kids under 5 years. And still the world keeps wasting money like they don't give a shit... good for Canada.

Potentially reducing the supply of arable land is definitely how we fix that problem.

 

[Cruceh]

There are 52 million latin americans without food right now. 16% of that are kids under 5 years. And still the world keeps wasting money like they don't give a shit... good for Canada.

Well if they stopped reproducing like rabbits...

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

I wasn't saying they were MY hopes. Actually I was making the opposite point. My point was that Kyoto was an irrational agreement because not only did it not do what the supposed goal was, it was basically going to be a sop to China, giving them an even BIGGER economic advantage while retarding the growth of the economies of developed countries.

At the time it was agreed that as the "developed" nations were the main emitters of greenhouse gases, that they would(& should) bear the brunt of the first stage of reduction.

Our CO2 contribution when compared to India and China (who will never commit to reducing in the near future) is negligible, so us stopping is like ripples in the ocean.

not in terms of tons of GHG per capita its not.

 

[Blue Submarine No. 6]

Doesn't Canada have a lot to gain with the earth warming up?

Won't this make a lot of land that was previously to cold to do anything with available for natural resources exploitation?

That India, Bangladesh and a lot of third world countries are screwed with this, isn't their problem I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if the big OilCo's aren't preparing to get off-shore rigs into Canada's Arctic waters as soon as the ice levels have receded sufficiently to let them build safely (there are potentially huge undersea reserves there waiting to be tapped)... so for the Canadian OilCo's, yes, Climate Change and the loss of Arctic ice is a definite bonus!

Stepping down from Kyoto may make sense if done from a political position, saying "We're a clean power nation, we're improving, but this accord is invalidated by the politics involved." BUT, the truth is the Conservatives are bowing to Big Oil who just want to leach as much out of the system as possible while they can, no matter the environmental or economic consequences to the Nation.

And of course, we can bitch about Harper for this but the sad truth is the Liberals were no better on this front. All Canada has ever done in terms of climate change is talk the talk... We've never made concerted real-world efforts to walk the walk...

 

[Gaborn]

At the time it was agreed that as the "developed" nations were the main emitters of greenhouse gases, that they would(& should) bear the brunt of the first stage of reduction.



not in terms of tons of GHG per capita its not.

And now, at the time Canada is exiting Kyoto China just passed the US in total emissions. So, I have no problem with this.

There is no serious emissions reduction plan without China and without India making hard sacrifices, and nor should there be.

 

[Blue Submarine No. 6]

And now, at the time Canada is exiting Kyoto China just passed the US in total emissions. So, I have no problem with this.

There is no serious emissions reduction plan without China and without India making hard sacrifices, and nor should there be.

For God's sake, China has FOUR TIMES the population of the United States, which means they are still only 25% as guilty of polluting the planet on a per capita basis. Now, if Canada and the US can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 75%, perhaps China and India will feel obligated to sit at the table...

 

[Gaborn]

For God's sake, China has FOUR TIMES the population of the United States, which means they are still only 25% as guilty of polluting the planet on a per capita basis. Now, if Canada and the US can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 75%, perhaps China and India will feel obligated to sit at the table...

What's your point? Population doesn't matter, what matters is the effect a country's emissions are having on the atmosphere. Countries that contribute more emissions to global warming should be expected to reduce them more. At least, if this is about emissions and not political gamesmanship.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

And now, at the time Canada is exiting Kyoto China just passed the US in total emissions. So, I have no problem with this.

There is no serious emissions reduction plan without China and without India making hard sacrifices, and nor should there be.

Total emissions isn't really the best metric to use, per capita is fairer. I agree that China(& to a lesser extent India) should be included in any future deals, but unfortunately I expect them to use the US as an example & ignore any attempt to do this(perfectly understandably, if the worlds largest polluter couldn't be bothered to reduce their emissions, why should they ?)

 

[Gaborn]

Total emissions isn't really the best metric to use, per capita is fairer. I agree that China(& to a lesser extent India) should be included in any future deals, but unfortunately I expect them to use the US as an example & ignore any attempt to do this(perfectly understandably, if the worlds largest polluter couldn't be bothered to reduce their emissions, why should they ?)

The problem with per capita is you're treating it as an economic problem. That is, because the US is better off on average each individual is more likely to contribute a little more to emissions. in the case of China the problem is NOT inidividuals because China still has a HUGE underclass that is dirt poor and not a significant contributor to emissions. China's problem is they're building a factory a day and not worrying about capping their emissions at all.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about our own pollution but let's not obfuscate the problem here. The issue is the impact countries are having on emissions, and it's a HUGE problem in China. In fact, pollution was such a major problem in Beijing a lot of people had to wear masks at the Olympics as you might recall.

All pollution is not created equally and the TYPE of emissions that China has are more easily controlled if the government was so inclined than in the US.

 

[jorma]

What's your point? Population doesn't matter, what matters is the effect a country's emissions are having on the atmosphere. Countries that contribute more emissions to global warming should be expected to reduce them more. At least, if this is about emissions and not political gamesmanship.

So the US should really contribute a lot more than they were asked to, but they still refused? Sigh, of course population matters. And of course China will want every one of their citizens to be able to pollute as much as a first world citizen, since anything else would effectively force them into "developing country" status forever. How can you not see this?

Weak. Besides, according to your link, China is already doing more to reduce their pollution than the US. Really Weak.

 

[Gaborn]

So the US should really contribute a lot more than they were asked to, but they still refused? Sigh, of course population matters. And of course China will want every one of their citizens to be able to pollute as much as a first world citizen, since anything else would effectively force them into "developing country" status forever. How can you not see this?

Weak. Besides, according to your link, China is already doing more to reduce their pollution than the US. Really Weak.

But again, the point is that Chinese citizens are NOT polluting equally, and it's really NOT about "citizens" anyway. This isn't really about what cars a country drives (or if they HAVE cars) or what they're throwing out or INDIVIDUALS, this is about the steps your industrial base is taking to curb their emissions. If you compare US factories to Chinese factories which are more likely to be equipped with scrubbers and carbon capture and other emission limiting devices?

 

[Blue Submarine No. 6]

What's your point? Population doesn't matter, what matters is the effect a country's emissions are having on the atmosphere. Countries that contribute more emissions to global warming should be expected to reduce them more. At least, if this is about emissions and not political gamesmanship.

My point is that the Western World does not have a valid moral argument against doing something to mitigate climate change just because China and the US are at some kind of pollution parity in terms of over-all carbon emissions... A country with four times the population will necessarily create more pollution - or do you share that common Western opinion that the Chinese don't have the right to heat their homes in winter, or enjoy hot running water, or have jobs...?

What's the point? The point is that if a nation with four times the population is emitting the same amount of carbon as the US, than they must by definition be 4 times more power efficient per capita. Maybe that's something we could aspire to. Hell, maybe if we reached a point where we were only generating twice as many emissions per capita as they were, we'd be able to make some real demands of them on this front. Until then, if the West is waiting for China to voluntarily step into their idea of "fair", we can forget it. The Chinese have their own idea of what's just, and they do not feel obliged to consider Western indignation when developing domestic policy regarding energy use. And since they pretty much own the western world now anyway, having purchased so much of the United States that they could conceivable bankrupt the Western world at will, no one has any leverage over them any longer, regardless...

So what's it going to be? Do nothing and blame it on the other guys? Or try to do something, and lead by example?

Spoiler

This question is of course rhetorical.

 

[Cerebral Assassin]

The problem with per capita is you're treating it as an economic problem. That is, because the US is better off on average each individual is more likely to contribute a little more to emissions. in the case of China the problem is NOT inidividuals because China still has a HUGE underclass that is dirt poor and not a significant contributor to emissions. China's problem is they're building a factory a day and not worrying about capping their emissions at all




I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about our own pollution but let's not obfuscate the problem here. The issue is the impact countries are having on emissions, and it's a HUGE problem in China. In fact, pollution was such a major problem in Beijing a lot of people had to wear masks at the Olympics as you might recall.

All pollution is not created equally and the TYPE of emissions that China has are more easily controlled if the government was so inclined than in the US.

Developed countries admitted they should take more responsibility for emissions, & the 2 biggest(per capita) pollutors have not only not reduced emissions, they have raised them. Until North America finally deliver on their responsibility, the developing nations will ignore any attempt to reduce their emissions.

 

[jorma]

But again, the point is that Chinese citizens are NOT polluting equally,

You are right, a chinese citizen is - on average - polluting a quarter of the pollution emitted by the US citizen. It's not equal, but it's not in the US citizens favour.

 

[Gaborn]

My point is that the Western World does not have a valid moral argument against doing something to mitigate climate change just because China and the US are at some kind of pollution parity in terms of over-all carbon emissions... A country with four times the population will necessarily create more pollution - or do you share that common Western opinion that the Chinese don't have the right to heat their homes in winter, or enjoy hot running water, or have jobs...?

What's the point? The point is that if a nation with four times the population is emitting the same amount of carbon as the US, than they must by definition be 4 times more power efficient per capita. Maybe that's something we could aspire to. Hell, maybe if we reached a point where we were only generating twice as many emissions per capita as they were, we'd be able to make some real demands of them on this front. Until then, if the West is waiting for China to voluntarily step into their idea of "fair", we can forget it. The Chinese have their own idea of what's just, and they do not feel obliged to consider Western indignation when developing domestic policy regarding energy use. And since they pretty much own the western world now anyway, having purchased so much of the United States that they could conceivable bankrupt the Western world at will, no one has any leverage over them any longer, regardless...

So what's it going to be? Do nothing and blame it on the other guys? Or try to do something, and lead by example?

Spoiler

This question is of course rhetorical.

And I'm saying that politically and economically the US and the western world AREN'T going to take significant steps until China is at least required to reduce factory emissions. They're building a factory a day, it's not like they CAN'T do it, it's that they're choosing not to. Meanwhile the US IS doing better than they have with their emissions. EPA standards seem to get stricter every year on a variety of emissions and toxins whereas China can't even make sure there isn't lead paint on their toys.

Jorma - but again, that has nothing to do with the problem. Emissions are overwhelmingly not about individuals, it's about the steps your industrial base is taking. Look at Beijing's sky line and then look at any other city in the US, INCLUDING LA. I'll take LA or any US city over Beijing.