• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why does Canada comply with Kyoto?

Rob Lister

Unregistered
R
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
8,504
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?
 
I've wondered the same thing. Right now, only 5% of the country is habitable. If any country needs AGW, it's Canada.

Of course, we'd have to invade if that happened. ;)
 
Check some of the Canadian news sites (Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen). The new "conservative" prime minister (Stephen Harper), is sending signals that Canada is strongly considering scrapping Kyoto as well ....

Charlie (Liberal Canada turned Right) Monoxide
 
Rob Lister said:
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?
Click to expand...

We don't comply. We're WAY over the government targets.

Ya, we ratified the thing, but we're not making very much progress at all in reaching any targets.
 
There are two assumptions there:
1- Canada has accomplished CO2 emission reductions and is moving towards its Kyoto goal;
2- Climate change is inevitably positive for the canadian economy.

Both are wrong.
 
The OP is tongue in cheek. Not a joke, not exactly.

If one complies, or attempts to comply with Kyoto under the (mistaken) assumption that it will have an impact on AGW then one must wish to maintain the status quo.

It is not in Canada's best interest to maintain such. It is in Canada's best interest to warm up the earth, not keep it cool.
 
Last edited:
Jorghnassen said:
There are two assumptions there:
1- Canada has accomplished CO2 emission reductions and is moving towards its Kyoto goal;
2- Climate change is inevitably positive for the canadian economy.

Both are wrong.
Click to expand...

1) I knew
2) is the purpose of the debate. I say it would be a positive impact to warm the place up a little.
 
Rob Lister said:
1) I knew
2) is the purpose of the debate. I say it would be a positive impact to warm the place up a little.
Click to expand...
It would screw up the skiing. Au revoir, Mont Sutton, Owl's Head, bye-bye, Whistler/Blackcomb, Banff/Lake Louise...:(
 
Rob Lister said:
I say it would be a positive impact to warm the place up a little.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly not... (unless it's still a tongue-in-cheek suggestion)

Our farmers can't make a living now, even in surplus years! What's the point of growing more grain if you can't sell it for a good price?

Decreased iceflow = longer distances for polar bears to swim = more drownings = extinction. We might be able to adapt... can they?

Coastal flooding.

Drought.

Increased dry season for forest fires.

Others feel free to add the benefits of AGW to Canada... :boxedin:

Good times!

:boggled:
 
You forgot about warmer winters, less energy requirements, easier building construction (higher frost line), and whatnot.

Your climate will be more appealing to others such that valuable people of means will choose your country as their new home.

I believe you are mistaken about a detriment to crops. With a longer growing season you have far more corps from which to choose -- some more profitable than those you currently enjoy.

The polar bears don't vote, but I doubt they will 1) become extinct or 2) reduce in number. In fact, I think their numbers will multiply at least somewhat. That could be seen as a mixed blessing. But if they did become extinct, I think the benifits far outway the risks.

Those are just a few but the crux of the matter is that Kyoto will not effect a meaningful reduction in global temperature. <---that's a period. It will not do what that which it would have to do to be useful. <--that's another period.
 
Rob Lister said:
You forgot about warmer winters, less energy requirements, easier building construction (higher frost line), and whatnot.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Warmer, longer summers mean increased air conditioning, fuel and refrigeration energy demands. Summer and Winter are both already peak seasons here. Energy demand is a losing game, being played across the planet.

Your climate will be more appealing to others such that valuable people of means will choose your country as their new home.
Click to expand...

Right! And in the longer term, if people moved inland, the Canadian Prairies and American prairies could both become refugee acceptors. :rolleyes:

I believe you are mistaken about a detriment to crops. With a longer growing season you have far more corps from which to choose -- some more profitable than those you currently enjoy.
Click to expand...

Woohoo! Canadian sugarcane! Wait... how many tropical countries have gotten rich off their crops? Crop exports are an almost economic non-argument.

I doubt they will 1) become extinct or 2) reduce in number. In fact, I think their numbers will multiply at least somewhat.
Click to expand...

Quite wrong. The conference was just this year (here's a popular version of the issue):

http://www.un.org/works/environment/animalplanet/polarbear.html

Those are just a few but the crux of the matter is that Kyoto will not effect a meaningful reduction in global temperature. <---that's a period.
Click to expand...

Especially since no one is going to meet even Kyoto's lax targets. Some of the warming potential is already carbon-locked into the system. Even if we magically ceased all output today, there is still warming potential.

It will not do what that which it would have to do to be useful. <--that's another period.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Yet as useless as Kyoto is... it's the only treaty that could be agreed upon! :eek:

I've stated it in the GW warming thread: Kyoto is basically the least of AGW demons, and is the only real alternative on the books to 'doing nothing.'

...

BTW, thanks for having a separate thread for this. This particular issue doesn't belong in some larger Global Warming thread. Even some Canadians (incl. me) have joked about, "Stupid winter, where's my Global Warming?" I think it's important for Canadians to realize that Climage Change (anthropogenic or not) can have serious consequences here, in Northern and prairie U.S. States and other Countries.
 
Last edited:
Rob Lister, your oversimplifications of climate change don't add up to benefits. Crops don't necessarily benefit from a "longer growing season" when they are adapted to a certain climate pattern. Climate change isn't simply a uniform increase in temperature, it involves increased variations in temperatures and precipitation (i.e. more extreme weather). For example, last "winter" was particularly warm and rainy, and heavy rains followed by freezing just don't work the same as a good snow cover pretty much any ecosystem.
 
Jimbo07 said:
I've stated it in the GW warming thread: Kyoto is basically the least of AGW demons, and is the only real alternative on the books to 'doing nothing.'
Click to expand...

How is an alternative that won't do anything better than 'doing nothing'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom