Why does Canada comply with Kyoto?

[BPSCG]

heavy rains followed by freezing just don't work the same as a good snow cover pretty much any ecosystem.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean, but as a skier, I can relate.

First time I ever skiied in Canada was in February, 1999, at Mont Sutton, in southern Quebec. The second day of the trip was insanely warm - temps in the high 40's to low 50's, and you could see the snow melting away before your eyes. Sloppy, wet snow by the end of the day.

Overnight, the temps plunged into the single digits, and all that melted snow (aka "water") did what melted snow always does when exposed to single-digit temps overnight; it became solid water (aka "ice"), which, any skier will tell you, is the worst thing in the world to ski on except for an active lava flow.

It was like the Battle of Gettysburg out there that day, my friends; bodies falling everywhere...

 

[Jimbo07]

How is an alternative that won't do anything better than 'doing nothing'?

See the Global Warming thread for arguments I've already made about the relationships of diverse problems such as: AGW, local pollution, energy consumption, hunger and pestilence, etc.

Climate Change is a political hot-potato in Canada right now. Under the previous government, a document was produced in 1999, which I linked to in the other thread, subtitled: Options Paper of the Transportation Climate Change Table. Several studies and reports are cited in the table.

The one thing that is important to take away from this is that all options for meeting Kyoto targets were on the table: solar power, wind power, hybrid cars, alternative fuels, leaving forests intact, even fossil fuel changes like using fewer, but higher hp, diesel locomotives!

Kyoto requirements, for example, were driving adoption of ethanol mixture regulations in Canada. Here, we're not as paranoid about Middle East oil supplies. As well, the U.S. is adopting ethanol specifically as a fuel oxygenate to replace MTBE, not to address Kyoto.

so... so many qualifiers to my arguments

In Canada, Kyoto is the only option that has ever been tabled. Kyoto preparations were accounting for all of the exotic technologies moving into production (in fact, the only things I haven't seen referenced are 'sci-fi' technologies such as: fusion, antimatter, etc.). The new government has not laid out any specific plans to deal with environmental issues (either as alternatives to Kyoto or not), and similar statements could be made about the larger international community.

The only serious alternative is 'do nothing.' That is: do nothing about energy consumption, do nothing about climate change, do nothing about deforestation...

My hope is that if Kyoto fails, other issues such as energy consumption will force adoption of things like alternative fules, hybrid vehicles, etc. thereby forcing the CC issue from the bottom up. I think that's what political nay-sayers also hope, but if a driver like that doesn't force the situation, then nothing will have been done in the meantime.

 

[Molinaro]

It makes no sense to me.

It is not in their best interest.

Never mind that it is dumb for anyone getting the short end of the redistribution stick, for them it is particularly dumb because there is 1 chance in a 100,000,000,000 that it will have an actual impact.

Canada should be spewing as much CO2 as posssible if they actually believe AGW has a measurable impact.

It would have a great, great, grrrrreeeeaaaat economic impact...straight up and possibly surpassing the U.S.

They'd quickly replace their southern neighbors as the world breadbasket.

How's that?

Because us Canadians care about more than just Canada. We actualy know a fair amount about other countries!

 

[Jimbo07]

On Adaptation in Canada:

http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/app/filerepository/29156CE6051F409990F872D838BCBBBB.pdf

For examples of detriments to Canada, there's a summary of observations, and potential impacts from climatic changes, per region, in Appendix 1.

 

[Rob Lister]

On Adaptation in Canada:

http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/app/filerepository/29156CE6051F409990F872D838BCBBBB.pdf

For examples of detriments to Canada, there's a summary of observations, and potential impacts from climatic changes, per region, in Appendix 1.

the question is still on the table: How is an alternative that won't do anything better than 'doing nothing'?

Yes, I know you expended many words to my original asking of that question, but no answer to that question was contained therein.

let's go cost/benefit

full implemenation requires x dollars and results in y reduction of temperature increase.

answer for x and y

 

[Renfield]

Because they hate freedom and want to make Bush look bad? Leftist bastards.

 

[Jimbo07]

the question is still on the table: How is an alternative that won't do anything better than 'doing nothing'?

...no answer to that question was contained therein.

In a philosophical sense? You're absolutely right. Doing nothing and achieving nothing would be virtually indistinguishable from doing something and achieving nothing.

In an applied sense, Kyoto itself is not the same as 'doing nothing.' Left-wing or right-wing, even the most rabid Kyoto fans admit that there is already Carbon locked into the system. One can only 'hope' for a future reduction. Kyoto could only be a 'first-step,' at very best.

The one thing you can't do in an applied, or workaday, sense is tell me some sort of blanket solution like, "Well, we should all immediately start driving hybrids and scrap Kyoto." My point is that, in Canada at least, solutions like that are already being discussed as part of the Kyoto implementation! There is no one magical technological solution that is going to save us. Kyoto fans and opponents would both do well to be aware of that.

let's go cost/benefit

full implemenation requires x dollars and results in y reduction of temperature increase.

answer for x and y

Do I lose the argument for not having x and y values for you, because I don't?

Do you lose the argument for trying to summarize a cost-benefit analysis of any project, much less legislation spanning multiple projects, in such an inane manner?

My personal opinion, without doing a full analysis, would be that, in the short term at least, the costs would clearly outweigh benefits (happy?). It might be like trying to stop a freight train with a fly swatter. My emotional plea is to not then say, "well, let's not even buy a fly swatter, then." If you're unwilling to suffer the first step anyway, why go further?

...

*sigh*

Why am I hand-waving anyway? Why am I not showing what the cold-hard science says?

Umm... well... because the science doesn't say anything about what to do. It presents a number of observations. In the so-called 'controversy,' one is left to decide what those observations amount to. Kyoto is a political arrangement, not some sort of grand scientific experiment.

You can advocate adaptation, and that's why I included that reference. Not doing anything to curb emissions (ever) will force us into a continuously reactive position. If we can't reach an agreement on Kyoto, then what makes anyone think we can reach an agreement on adaptation. Adaptation will mean death.

ETA: It just occurred to me that I'm in the wrong thread for proselytizing on AGW. Instead, what I hope I've shown is that nobody who is actually working on climate change in Canada believes that it would be somehow 'beneficial' across the board, and thus, the first post must have been tongue-in-cheek or facetious.

 

[Rob Lister]

In a philosophical sense? You're absolutely right. Doing nothing and achieving nothing would be virtually indistinguishable from doing something and achieving nothing.

You could have stopped there. We've established that y=0

x=?

eventually, we'll get to x/y. I'm not sure what we'll do then.

pardon the ETA but I goofed and hit enter or something.

My personal opinion, without doing a full analysis, would be that, in the short term at least, the costs would clearly outweigh benefits (happy?). It might be like trying to stop a freight train with a fly swatter. My emotional plea is to not then say, "well, let's not even buy a fly swatter, then." If you're unwilling to suffer the first step anyway, why go further?

Do you not see the difficulty? Perhaps there is no flyswatter big enough to stop the train that will be better than simply preparing for for the train's passing. Perhaps the answer is to use the resources that would have otherwise gone to building such a hugh flyswatter into preparing for the train's [possible] passing.

I'm still on the fence about the eventual passing, the size of the train, and the overall impact of the rumble. I'm not on the fence about Kyoto. It is not 'flawed', as our president said (and 98% of our senators agreed a few years earlier, with 2% abstaining), it is both worthless and overall damaging.

 

[a_unique_person]

the question is still on the table: How is an alternative that won't do anything better than 'doing nothing'?

Yes, I know you expended many words to my original asking of that question, but no answer to that question was contained therein.

let's go cost/benefit

full implemenation requires x dollars and results in y reduction of temperature increase.

answer for x and y

I do wonder about this 'doing nothing' attitude. We are always doing something. We aren't just necessarily doing the most intelligent thing. Continuing along our current course of economic and technological development is still doing something, and, in this case, it is something very significant.

 

[Rob Lister]

I do wonder about this 'doing nothing' attitude. We are always doing something. We aren't just necessarily doing the most intelligent thing. Continuing along our current course of economic and technological development is still doing something, and, in this case, it is something very significant.

Well, wonder no more.

 

[BPSCG]

Because us Canadians care about more than just Canada. We actualy know a fair amount about other countries!

(Y'all just don't know much about grammar and spelling...)

For example, you know that Canadia (that's where Canadians are from, right?) is a different country from the U.S., and you know that we 'Murricans need to be educated on that fact, as I was by a Canadian businessman as I got into my seat on the Air Canada flight to the above-referenced ski trip - even before the plane left the gate:

"Where are you headed?"
"Mont Sutton; eastern townships in Quebec."
(Irritated look at me): "You know it's a different country, don't you?
"Uh, yeah..." (duh...)

After which I was berated about how stupid we 'Murricans were because we were impeaching our president, blah blah blah. I had a monster cold at the time, and I don't know to this day which was worse, the misery of being in a pressurized plane cabin with a head cold, or the misery of sitting next to an angry, smug Canadian guy giving me an unsolicited education all about my country and what was wrong with it.

Other than that, had a great trip.

 

[Kerberos]

You could have stopped there. We've established that y=0

Where did we establish that?

 

[Mike B.]

(Y'all just don't know much about grammar and spelling...)

For example, you know that Canadia (that's where Canadians are from, right?) is a different country from the U.S., and you know that we 'Murricans need to be educated on that fact, as I was by a Canadian businessman as I got into my seat on the Air Canada flight to the above-referenced ski trip - even before the plane left the gate:

"Where are you headed?"
"Mont Sutton; eastern townships in Quebec."
(Irritated look at me): "You know it's a different country, don't you?
"Uh, yeah..." (duh...)

After which I was berated about how stupid we 'Murricans were because we were impeaching our president, blah blah blah. I had a monster cold at the time, and I don't know to this day which was worse, the misery of being in a pressurized plane cabin with a head cold, or the misery of sitting next to an angry, smug Canadian guy giving me an unsolicited education all about my country and what was wrong with it.

Other than that, had a great trip.

Let them have it...It make them feel all warm and gushy inside to think this way.

 

[Rob Lister]

Where did we establish that?

Perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps we didn't establish that. Perhaps I only inferred it from a lack of a response and an implication of it. Perhaps I inferred it from the IPCC and the UN which pretty much agree that even with 100% participation, only a negligable and temporary reduction can possible result.

So, To reiterate, education me. What is the value of y? Feel free to give upper and lower bounds based upon full and complete participation by all nations.

For simplicity sake, please round your number to 1 or 2 decimal points.

P.S. If you know the value of x, or better yet, y/x, provide that as well. I'd like to know what each degree, rounded to the nearest 1 or 2 decimal points, will cost in terms of resources.

 

[Rob Lister]

Let them have it...It make them feel all warm and gushy inside to think this way.

And, given that they ARE Canadians, they so rarely get the chance to feel warm...which is why they should dump Kyoto and start farting and breathing more.

 

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps we didn't establish that. Perhaps I only inferred it from a lack of a response and an implication of it. Perhaps I inferred it from the IPCC and the UN which pretty much agree that even with 100% participation, only a negligable and temporary reduction can possible result.

So, To reiterate, education me. What is the value of y? Feel free to give upper and lower bounds based upon full and complete participation by all nations.

For simplicity sake, please round your number to 1 or 2 decimal points.

P.S. If you know the value of x, or better yet, y/x, provide that as well. I'd like to know what each degree, rounded to the nearest 1 or 2 decimal points, will cost in terms of resources.

It has been compromised by political machinations, without a doubt, but the aim was always to try to do as much as was possible. It is not the scientists fault that the politicians hacked it without any regard to what was called for. Australia, for example, pulled a particularly stupid stunt to get it's Kyoto requirements amended to be much more lax than other countries, then boasts that it is meeting the Kyoto requirements, without signing up for Kyoto. Don't blame the science for that, blame sectional, self interested politics.

 

[Rob Lister]

Don't blame the science for that, blame sectional, self interested politics.

Science is not being blamed. Idiotic policy is being blamed.

It is what it is and it worthless for correcting the stated problem. It costs lots and achieves nothing. Scrape and build more nukes.

 

[a_unique_person]

Science is not being blamed. Idiotic policy is being blamed.

It is what it is and it worthless for correcting the stated problem. It costs lots and achieves nothing. Scrape and build more nukes.

You want something that achieves more, sure, but it will cost more, too.

The thing that amazes me is that the cost that was so prohibitive would be about the recent rise in the price of fuel, at a rough guess. Even though this is about to have doubled over the past few years, the world goes on. The price rise will probably have about the same effect in reducing carbon emissions as implementing Kyoto.

 

[daenku32]

How much solar power would $36 billion provide?


($36 billion was Exxon-Mobil's profits, imagine if they invested that in clean solar power!)

 

[Rob Lister]

You want something that achieves more, sure, but it will cost more, too.

Who sez something that achieves more exists?

Build more nukes.