You and this per capita nonsense....over and over.
It means nothing...nadda....nil...zero.
Incidentally, the idea of a carbon footprint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint), and its importance in the broader climate change debate, is well-established (not to say universally accepted). I suspect that your conclusion that "it means nothing... nadda... nil... zero" is not the final say on the matter.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
So you still contest that it would be absurd for a Canadian to be embarrassed by Canada's climate change record (to the point that it shouldn't even be a legitimate election issue)?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
I suggest you maybe read a couple of recent national post articles on the recent euro diesel scandals, the environmental scams go far beyond WV. A country cannot be expected to work against its own interests on the international playing field, each must present positions that put the home country in the most favorable light, then you begin to negotiate. Europeans work with figures that put them in the best light, for example they provide numbers that may ignore the toxic effects like MMS that diesel fuel produces.
Last edited by Flamenspiel; 10-01-2015 at 05:27 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flamenspiel For This Useful Post:
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
So the test for when climate change can become a legitimate election issue is only when we reach the point that Canada is widely reviled as the biggest climate change villain in the entire world?
No.....it matters now, but his suggestions that the "world" sees Canada as some dastardly dooshbag on the issue is beyond absurd. If they are mad at the emission makers...we would be about 15th on that list. His disingenuous BS doesn't help anything or anybody.
I have no problem with reducing ghg, as long as its done in concert with everyone else so that it actually makes a difference and in a way that doesn't decimate the energy industry as we know it.
Its like cap and trade....what the hell is that going to do to actually reduce emissions? Nothing. Zero. It will, however, put money in government coffers. But it looks like we are some sort of "leader" in the fight...while doing nothing to affect actual change. So how is anyone getting ahead in that scenario other than the government?
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
I suggest you maybe read a couple of recent national post articles on the recent euro diesel scandals, the environmental scams go far beyond WV. The Europeans really cannot be trusted to play a fair game, in particular the environmental disaster that Russia has been is one of the worst in history.
Firstly, none of that answered the question I posed.
Secondly, I'm going to need far, far, far more evidence (than a scandal about Volkswagen emissions statistics) before I can accept that all of the greenhouse gas emissions statistics that have been tracked and compiled for decades are inherently unreliable.
Its worth noting that, if one accepts the numbers that we have been using for decades now, Canada is not even close to the vast majority of its peers when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. A few quibbles here and there about those numbers is therefore almost certainly irrelevant to the simple fact that Canada is failing when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.
Quote:
Canada is one of the world's largest per capita GHG emitters. Canada ranks 15th out of 17 OECD countries on GHG emissions per capita and scores a “D” grade.3 In 2010, Canada’s GHG emissions were 20.3 tonnes per capita, significantly higher than the 17-country average of 12.5 tonnes per capita. Canada’s per capita GHG emissions were nearly three times greater than Switzerland’s, the top performer.
While Canada’s GHG emissions per capita have fallen since 1990, many other countries have managed to decrease them even more. For example, Germany and the U.K. reduced their per capita GHG emissions by 27 per cent between 1990 and 2010.
Quote:
Canada ranks 15th out of 17 countries for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per capita and earns a “D” grade.
Canada’s per capita GHG emissions decreased by nearly 5 per cent between 1990 and 2010, while total GHG emissions in Canada grew 17 per cent.
The largest contributor to Canada’s GHG emissions is the energy sector, which includes power generation (heat and electricity), transportation, and fugitive sources.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
So you still contest that it would be absurd for a Canadian to be embarrassed by Canada's climate change record (to the point that it shouldn't even be a legitimate election issue)?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
I might be misunderstanding you.
Your statement was:
I also suspect that this is why people in poor countries who pump far less greenhouse gases into the air, are far poorer, and are far more likely to be negatively affected by global warming might resent Canada's rather embarrassing greenhouse gas record.
I read that to mean your point was a citizen of a third world country would resent Canada because of climate change. I think that is absurd.
If your point is that a citizen of Canada might resent current government policy, I don't agree but i'm prepared to listen to your point and acknowledge that a Canadian could take that position.
__________________
"OOOOOOHHHHHHH those Russians" - Boney M
Pretty strong performance from the PM, if only because he came across as the most statesmanly.
Mulcair was alright, and had one good zinger at JT, but generally needs to lay off the barbs unless it's a parry. It lowers him, at least in my eyes.
Trudeau was the weakest tonight. His energy is always high, but he needs to hold back a bit and not try to squeeze everything he wants to say into each 30 second segment. He'd be far better off picking his battles.
On the whole, I wouldn't expect this debate to be too critical, as foreign policy isn't the area I suspect most voters are concerned with (or understand) anyway. Canada's a minnow in international waters, and I think most Canadians accept that and are more concerned with things at home.
I agree with this post.
As much as I don't like CPC policies, Harper's experience is paying off in these debates. He has gotten pretty good at picking his battles. Trudeau needs to stop being so belligerent. Let Mulcair play the role of the zealot. I prefer calm and collected than angry liberal. It doesn't suit him and it doesn't help the party.
I won't give up on him after that debate, but he needs to be better if he wants to win.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I also suspect that this is why people in poor countries who pump far less greenhouse gases into the air, are far poorer, and are far more likely to be negatively affected by global warming might resent Canada's rather embarrassing greenhouse gas record.
I read that to mean your point was a citizen of a third world country would resent Canada because of climate change. I think that is absurd.
If your point is that a citizen of Canada might resent current government policy, I don't agree but i'm prepared to listen to your point and acknowledge that a Canadian could take that position.
Sorry, I've sort of been all over the place trying to respond to several posters at once.
I would stand by both statements (above.) In terms of people in the developing world resenting Canada's climate change record, I'm not sure that statistics exist (or at least I haven't read them.) However, if one accepts the following two propositions, I think it becomes a very reasonable inference to draw:
A. Canada has received a significant amount of bad press recently over its climate change record (I can provided numerous examples from leading international sources such as the Guardian, etc.); and
B. People in the South (developing states) are the ones most likely to be affected by climate change and the ones who are currently the most concerned about climate change (for instance, see the study I posted earlier).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
I could not watch the debate tonight, so I was reading a reddit comment stream. There were a lot more comments about how Trudeau was dominating Mulcair in certain segments and generally performing much better, and Harper was managing to defend the attacks on him. They do post-debate straw polls, which are usually fairly even, with Mulcair usually getting the edge.
However, tonight it had Trudeau winning the debate with 70+% of the votes.
Is there an archive of the debate somewhere? Was Trudeau as bad as CP seems to think?
Is there an archive of the debate somewhere? Was Trudeau as bad as CP seems to think?
I don't think he was bad when it came to his points. I think he gets overly criticized and piled on when it comes to content. But style-wise, I think he needs to tone it down. But the thing is, I think it does appeal to some people.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Firstly, none of that answered the question I posed.
Secondly, I'm going to need far, far, far more evidence (than a scandal about Volkswagen emissions statistics) before I can accept that all of the greenhouse gas emissions statistics that have been tracked and compiled for decades are inherently unreliable.
Its worth noting that, if one accepts the numbers that we have been using for decades now, Canada is not even close to the vast majority of its peers when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. A few quibbles here and there about those numbers is therefore almost certainly irrelevant to the simple fact that Canada is failing when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.
Those are tiny countries. Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world and large truck and planes have to travel long distances to deliver people and goods. Going city to city in Canada involves long drives. There's never going to be a scenario where Canada could emit less GHG than those tiny European countries where they can just hop on trains to get around.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
Those are tiny countries. Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world and large truck and planes have to travel long distances to deliver people and goods. Going city to city in Canada involves long drives. There's never going to be a scenario where Canada could emit less GHG than those tiny European countries where they can just hop on trains to get around.
Sure, and that's a fair point. It is certainly a factor that could be reasonably accommodated when discussing emissions or setting global emissions targets. However, I severely doubt that it would ever reasonably justify the fact that Canada's emissions are double the emissions of most of those European countries (and many times more than most developing states.)
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Canada will always have high GHGs/capita. We are a massive land mass, with an economy largely driven by oil and agriculture.
We export an insane amount of grain to many of those countries. Are the GHGs tied to our grain production pinned on Canada, or the country importing our grain? I assume we take the hit for that. Is that fair? The graph doesn't even begin to tell the whole story.
Those are tiny countries. Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world and large truck and planes have to travel long distances to deliver people and goods. Going city to city in Canada involves long drives. There's never going to be a scenario where Canada could emit less GHG than those tiny European countries where they can just hop on trains to get around.
The large distance between cities also discourages trips that are probably made more frequently in Europe. Additionally, air travel is much cheaper in Europe and this probably isn't helping their statistics. I'm not entirely sure but I also believe that we utilize rail for the transportation of freight much more than Europe where a lot of it is road-based.
Nevertheless, we simply are not making the same effort as our European counterparts. The UK isn't a setting any green trends yet in my field they have mandatory requirements we're not even asking for voluntarily (e.g. The Merton Rule).
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
We're a large, sparsely populated, cold country with a resource based economy. It takes a lot of joules to heat our buildings, a lot of joules to move things around, and a lot of joules to extract resources for the world. Joules means GhGs. Then go and put a tiny population number in the denominator and it's no wonder our per capita GHG numbers are high. That's not to forgive us or say we're the best in the world, but to say we should be embarrassed by it is a stretch.
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to Frequitude For This Useful Post:
Canada will always have high GHGs/capita. We are a massive land mass, with an economy largely driven by oil and agriculture.
We export an insane amount of grain to many of those countries. Are the GHGs tied to our grain production pinned on Canada, or the country importing our grain? I assume we take the hit for that. Is that fair? The graph doesn't even begin to tell the whole story.
Are the GHG tied to the production and transport of every 'Made in China' item Canadians consume pinned on Canada or on China?
I suspect you're right that the graph does not tell the whole story.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
