I was fairly convinced of Global Warming but then I noticed a billboard on the side of the highway imploring me not to be coerced by climate change liars.
I was fairly convinced of Global Warming but then I noticed a billboard on the side of the highway imploring me not to be coerced by climate change liars.
They need branding help from the "think tanks" in the US who seed doubt in this discussion like the Heartland institute (who doesn't love the heartland, such a pleasing word.)
Merchants of doubt is so terrific, how the fossil fuel industry used the tactics of Tobacco has really succeeded so far, slowly they are losing though but their goal has always been doubt, nothing else.
The massive Canadian contingent at the UN climate-change conference in Paris was originally estimated at 350 people, but it appears the trans-Atlantic road trip has expanded.
The “provisional list of participants” just released by the UN has an amazing 383 names from Canada, ranking us among the largest entourages in the entire confab.
“Canada is back, my good friends,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the conference, and he wasn’t just blowing greenhouse gases.
Canada has sent more people to Paris than Australia (46), the U.K. (96), the U.S. (148), Russia (313) and almost as many as host-country France (396).
Not a bad turnout for a country that emits just 1.6 per cent of the planet’s greenhouse gases, eh?
Did we really need to send the deputy environment minister for the Northwest Territories? Th eclimate-change youth ambassador for the Yukon? The leader of the New Brunswick Green Party? The interim leader of the Bloc Quebecois and his press secretary? The “security co-ordinator” for Hydro-Quebec?
Many of these fine folks are so marginal to the climate-change file that calling them “bit players” would be a stretch
My thoughts on this conference: Don't let it get co-opted by Anti-American interests.
This is what made Kyoto unworkable. A few major points as to why:
1) The protocols used 1994 as the base year for targets. This was also a year that Europe had seen a major economic boom. A recession followed, but this was not taken into account when setting targets. Europe, with a stagnant population, will have GHG emissions almost entirely dependent on economy.
2) China was given no targets. Russia was allowed to increase its emissions, despite a shrinking population. Under the Kyoto protocols, countries that exceeded their emissions could then buy credits off countries with extras. IE: the US was supposed to give money to Russia and China, in exchange for nothing....right.
3) No allocations were made for changes in population. Countries like Canada with rapidly growing populations were expected to meat the same goals as countries like Germany with shrinking populations.
Basically, you had a situation where Australia, Canada, and the USA were given economically crippling targets and Europe, Russia, and China were given targets that required little to no actual emission reductions. The majority rules, the USA gets f-ed. Canada by collateral. A real opportunity to produce change is blown.
The massive Canadian contingent at the UN climate-change conference in Paris was originally estimated at 350 people, but it appears the trans-Atlantic road trip has expanded.
The “provisional list of participants” just released by the UN has an amazing 383 names from Canada, ranking us among the largest entourages in the entire confab.
“Canada is back, my good friends,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the conference, and he wasn’t just blowing greenhouse gases.
Canada has sent more people to Paris than Australia (46), the U.K. (96), the U.S. (148), Russia (313) and almost as many as host-country France (396).
Not a bad turnout for a country that emits just 1.6 per cent of the planet’s greenhouse gases, eh?
Did we really need to send the deputy environment minister for the Northwest Territories? Th eclimate-change youth ambassador for the Yukon? The leader of the New Brunswick Green Party? The interim leader of the Bloc Quebecois and his press secretary? The “security co-ordinator” for Hydro-Quebec?
Many of these fine folks are so marginal to the climate-change file that calling them “bit players” would be a stretch
The Liberals indeed are back. A taxpayer funded holiday to Paris for all. It's going to be a long four years.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
The “provisional list of participants” just released by the UN has an amazing 383 names from Canada, ranking us among the largest entourages in the entire confab.
Does that figure include spouses, kids and nannies?
In real terms, can anyone here explain what that would mean for emissions in Canada? As in, reducing emissions by what amount/percent/total from today's?
In real terms it doesn't mean anything. I'm not sure how you could even come up with a number, becuase without commitments from others, we could go to zero and increases in other countries will take up what we stop. The best guess they can make is by using the dodgy climate models, and see what amount of atmospheric CO2 would limit the warming to 1.5°C. Given climate sensitivity is guessed at anywhere from 1 to 6°C per doubling of CO2, you could guess at the low end we need to stay be below 600ppm or at the high end maybe 450ppm. Given we are already over 1°C at 400ppm, I'd hazard a guess that even a 50% reduction in global emissions over 10 years isn't going to keep us below 1.5°C.
/warning:quick dodgy math used.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
In real terms, can anyone here explain what that would mean for emissions in Canada? As in, reducing emissions by what amount/percent/total from today's?
A global reduction of 40 to 70% by 2050 with carbon neutrality by the end of he century. This only achieves the 2 degree target. As mentioned lots, we only contribute 1.6% of global emissions so even if go to zero, it won't mean much. However, the easiest way to achieve that goal of would be for everyone to agree to a reduction of 40 to 70% by 2050. No one has though.
Last edited by Leeman4Gilmour; 12-07-2015 at 01:36 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Leeman4Gilmour For This Useful Post:
This shows China's emissions growth slowing, not it's overall emmisions. And I'd be very surprised if they went back to 2012 levels of growth. I don't doubt that they are going to have to do something soon though, lest they all choke to death.
When you mention changes they have done, what are you referring to? From what I gather, they are still adding coal power plants. I don't see that reducing emmisions. One of the problems with CO2 emmisions is that in the past there were no ways to actually measure them. They are just guesses based on the best data they can compile. Fortunately the new satellite http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/ should help, but it will be a few years before we can see trends, and see who has been drastically under-reporting emmisions.
