Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
Lurch, you also miss the boat entirely when you make it seem like Canada signed on to do the same things as Europe.
1. Former Communist countries used out of date production practices that spewed emissions out of control prior to 1990. Simply having the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union collapse automatically dropped emissions levels dramatically below 1990 levels. What's they're not telling you is that Russia's emissions are growing at a much faster rate than Canada or the US due to their oil and gas sector. True it's still below 1990 levels but that's setting the bar real low for them.
2. Canada (Because we like to be seen as dogooders) negotiated an emissions target of 6% less than 1990 levels. So on a percentage basis it's even harder for us to make it.
3. As mentioned by an above poster, Canada has to heat homes for a majority of the year. Something that a nice Mediterrainian climate doesn't have to deal with. All it takes is a tougher winter and boom emissions would probably increase a few percentages year over year.
|
Not sure it's worth bothering, but:
What does point 1 have to do with the EU and Japan? Countries like GB, France, Japan etc have lowered emissions. The EU as constituted in 1990 has lowered emissions by 2% on net, and by something like 8% when you include new members (which is the portion that your point apparently makes reference to)
Edit to add: your point about Russia vs Canada seems to be false based on the most recent data I could find (UN COP reporting which is the official data collection agency).
unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/ghg_booklet_06.pdf
From page 6, Canada's emissions rose 4.6% between 2000 and 2004 while Russia's rose 4.1%. So unless 2005 and 2006 are the years "they're not telling me about" I'd like to see just a little proof of your assertion.
Point 2: Europe has a target of 8% IIRC - how exactly does the fact they were starting from a more efficient base help them when the target is % based? I'd like to see the logical argument here.
Point 3: This is a lot like beating my head against the wall, but we already had these things in 1989 and 1990 (and probably further back to at least 1958 - prior to that I'm sure Canada was tropical). Further to the illogic, winters have been warmer (global warming??), so our heating consumption should have decreased at least per capita.