Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
And I think it should only improve from here ... the 1990 to today time frame is essentially the ramp up time of the sands projects up north. An expensive endeavour that can only shoot emissions through the roof.
Hopefully learned effeciency and technological advances (heck a nuke up there would help) will at least stall the increases to some point and then maybe bring it back.
Bottom line ... the world isn't ready for non fossil fuel energy as a complete replacement yet. So any countries that needed/wanted to push their programs forward in this time frame could only add emissions and not take them away. So why sign up for Kyoto and squash one of your nation's key industries when other major nations won't sign it in the first place?
Spending money has to make sense.
|
I mostly agree, but if Canada would have done something in 1992 or 1996 or 2000 or 2004 or etc to internalize emission prices, I would bet huge amounts that companies would have been a lot more entrepreneurial about cutting emissions on the exact same projects they built over that timeframe, i.e. economic growth would have been near identical but emissions would have been lower. I'm betting even the "policy" (to be kind) the conservatives have brought in provincially this year, emissions growth will slow, and industry growth will not.