Cold, hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Lurch

I think two things are incorrect here. First, many countries have achieved substantial cuts. Most of Europe, Japan, etc. are on target to meet or very nearly meet Kyoto. They seem to have done it with little real impact on their economies, which is rather soundly ignored. Second, how exactly do you measure emission reductions when it is relative to a business as usual case that never actually happened, i.e. how much has Canada reduced emissions relative to if the Gov't had never spent a $ on Kyoto?

As for the rest, I think the way to address emissions is to price pollution for everyone. If GHG costs $30/tonne and every energy product consumed was charged this fee, the economy would adapt. Further, if these taxes collected were used to directly and proportionately offset personal and corporate income tax rather than put into a gov't run fund that pees money away by choosing which projects to support, the economy would quickly adapt. If $30/tonne does not meet the target, up the price to $45. The price that achieves the reduction goal is the most efficient way to actually get emissions down, rather than voluntary feel good moves and support for technologies that may or may not pan out.

yes thanks to nuclear power which countries like France (80%), Japan etc get most of their energy and have been prior to kyoto, so it's no suprise it has had little effect on their ecomomy...a country like the US gets about 20% of its energy from nuclear sources.....but hey the same people protesting about cutting emissions are protesting against nuclear power

some images from live earth

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

yes thanks to nuclear power which countries like France (80%), Japan etc get most of their energy and have been prior to kyoto, so it's no suprise it has had little effect on their ecomomy...a country like the US gets about 20% of its energy from nuclear sources.....but hey the same people protesting about cutting emissions are protesting against nuclear power

some images from live earth

I'm not sure I understand your point. These countries used nuclear power prior to 1990, so this was included in their base targets. Switching is what creates the reductions, i.e. if these countries used coal prior to 1990 and switched to nuclear in the meantime, that would show tremendous reductions. As an aside, Alberta coal plants produce about 7% of total GHG emissions in Canada - clearly if we had switched completely to nuclear since 1990 we would have a much better reduction record. Please feel free to correct me, but I don't see your logic whatsoever, besides some random shot at a fool.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Japan and Europe are irrelevant comparisons. We did a lot better than China. Whoopee.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Japan and Europe are irrelevant comparisons. We did a lot better than China. Whoopee.

Howso? Both are developed, both have seen economic growth, both are comparable economically and politically to Canada structurally, etc. What is the fundamental difference that allowed these countries to accomplish reductions without economic chaos which would not be possible here?

The part where the comparison breaks down is where we signed the same agreement they did, they took action and will likely meet their commitments while we crapped the bed (and atmosphere by extension). At least the US had the courtesy to actually drop out of the agreement before it proceeded to do little to nothing, whereas we have gone down the same path as this message board - i.e. no actual progress. It is acceptable and normal for this type of medium, but at a national level it is pitiful (across 3 different governments now - Chretien, Martin and Harper).

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

I'm sorry if I am offending anyone, but I just don't understand how you can keep denying that humans are effecting our climate.

From the UN scientific panel... which I hope we can agree is un-biased?

declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years.

and

added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it

I am on my way to a BBQ, but if this thread is still going when I get back I will dig up some non-NY Times articles!!

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/s...nyt-classifier

Yeah, yeah it's the NY Times... liberal bias... blah blah blah. The fact remains that the results come from a UN team of scientists....

The bulk of these panels are hardly unbiased. They are typically made up of "scientists" that have already made up their mind on the issue when the data is clearly incomplete and inconclusive. In an eralier thread I mentioned an article in a recent discover magazine from a Denmark scientist that studies the influence of non-human factors on global warming and believes that the human contribution is likely small. However, his main beef is with the models these "scientists" use that quite simply do not take all the variables into account and leave out some huge ones because they have no idea how to model that factor. He isn't the only scientist that believes this. However, he makes it well known that this group of scientists are not permitted in such meetings or on such panels. These panels have a high degree of bias and pseudo-scientists looking for fame (pseudo-scientists because they are generally not even open to another explanation. Call it that attitude ignorant or whatever you want but it certainly isn't an attitude that should be acceptable in science).

That isn't to say we shouldn't clean up our act anyways BUT it is saying that perhaps we should seriously rethink accords and laws that can stifle a nations economy and hurt a lot of people. Especially when we CLEARLY do not know the extent of human involvement in all of this.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Howso? Both are developed, both have seen economic growth, both are comparable economically and politically to Canada structurally, etc. What is the fundamental difference that allowed these countries to accomplish reductions without economic chaos which would not be possible here?

3 fundamental differences, - economy, geography, and weather.

Their economies do not require emissions growth to prosper. As you said, they disconnected previously, and good on them. We have not. Our economies are still built around emissions intensive energy. Nothing we need be proud of, but it's a fact.

These countries also have the benefit of much higher population densities and smaller geography. Auto use, transit, logisitics...all of these are huge emissions drivers and their ability to control them without changing their lifestyles or economies is much greater.

Finally, most of them do not need to heat their homes and buildings, or at least nowhere near the way we do.

The part where the comparison breaks down is where we signed the same agreement they did, they took action and will likely meet their commitments while we crapped the bed (and atmosphere by extension). At least the US had the courtesy to actually drop out of the agreement before it proceeded to do little to nothing, whereas we have gone down the same path as this message board - i.e. no actual progress. It is acceptable and normal for this type of medium, but at a national level it is pitiful (across 3 different governments now - Chretien, Martin and Harper).

This I'd agree with. For image and ego reasons we wanted to hang with the cool kids promising lower emissions, but unlike them we had no hope of getting there without massive change.

[Azure]

Lurch....if France gets 85% of their power from nuclear...which they do...its going to be easy to meet ANY standard. Especially one like Kyoto.

If North America was using 85% of their power from nuclear...our emissions would be a hell of a lot lower too. Therein lies the solution...sadly...people would rather guzzle more oil, even though it is a finite resource, than develop and USE newer, better and more efficient technology.

But I am optimistic that they'll shut up soon....because the same thing happened with wind power. People complained about the windmills...every excuse in the book....yet, exactly 8 years later, those same people praise the move by Shell and such companies to invest in wind power. Today, the Pincher Creek area has one of the largest wind farms in the world. And no thanks to ANY environmentalist.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Howso? Both are developed, both have seen economic growth, both are comparable economically and politically to Canada structurally, etc. What is the fundamental difference that allowed these countries to accomplish reductions without economic chaos which would not be possible here?

The part where the comparison breaks down is where we signed the same agreement they did, they took action and will likely meet their commitments while we crapped the bed (and atmosphere by extension). At least the US had the courtesy to actually drop out of the agreement before it proceeded to do little to nothing, whereas we have gone down the same path as this message board - i.e. no actual progress. It is acceptable and normal for this type of medium, but at a national level it is pitiful (across 3 different governments now - Chretien, Martin and Harper).

The populations of Europe and Japan have not grown by 25% in the last 20 years either. Not only do you have the added CO2 emissions from the populations but the infrastructure designed to support them. In addition, they do not have resource based economies to the same capacity that we do. The countries in Europe who have seen significant drops also exported a lot of their manufacturing to Spain and Eastern Europe. Basically in order for Europe and Japan to acheive their goals they had to do nothing but but apply more efficient new technology. A process that would have occured anyway.

Like others have mentioned they have localized populations making things like mass transit more plausible.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Azure

Lurch....if France gets 85% of their power from nuclear...which they do...its going to be easy to meet ANY standard. Especially one like Kyoto.

If North America was using 85% of their power from nuclear...our emissions would be a hell of a lot lower too. Therein lies the solution...sadly...people would rather guzzle more oil, even though it is a finite resource, than develop and USE newer, better and more efficient technology.

But what is the environmental impact of nuclear waste? CO2 eventually gets absorbed by trees, the trees release oxygen into the air and use the carbon to build themselves up. The issue right now (assuming CO2 is the cause of global warming) is that we produce more CO2 than trees can use up.

Then, let's say that Global Warming ends up being caused by solar activity. Then what? Instead of producing what 22nd century people would consider harmless gas, we left them with a stockpile of nuclear waste that will have to just sit there for the next 1000 years.

This is why many of us are saying let's find out what's going on. Cut back, sure! Use wind, solar or hydro, perhaps. But to say nuclear is a better option; let's make sure we don't doom the planet by trying to save it.

[Azure]

I really don't know much about what impact the waste would have....but articles I've read have put it at minimal level. Thing is...do we actually know?

Are we devoting the the time, effort and money necessary to develop better ways to deal with nuclear waste? Heck, is adequate time being put into nuclear research?

It seems like a lot of pro-environmental people instantly dismiss the potential of nuclear power. Considering that is the best solution to an finite resource problem....headway seriously needs to be made to shut them up.

[Burninator]

Nuclear power is actually a really good option in my mind. The reason it may get looked over by some (not all) environmentalists is because:

- Waste is very toxic. But it can actually be stored safely for a very long period of time.
- A plant malfunction can be potentially disastrous. See Three Mile Island, Chernobyl etc.
- Some reactors can be easily converted into nuclear warheads.

These aren't exactly small obstacles for some to over come to support this kind of power generation. The downsides to solar panels and wind turbines is pretty minuscule in comparison, and thusly easily favored by some. What's the worst that could happen with a wind turbine? Fall down on your field? However the output of a nuclear plant is far more substantial than solar panels and wind turbines.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

3 fundamental differences, - economy, geography, and weather.

Their economies do not require emissions growth to prosper. As you said, they disconnected previously, and good on them. We have not. Our economies are still built around emissions intensive energy. Nothing we need be proud of, but it's a fact.

These countries also have the benefit of much higher population densities and smaller geography. Auto use, transit, logisitics...all of these are huge emissions drivers and their ability to control them without changing their lifestyles or economies is much greater.

Finally, most of them do not need to heat their homes and buildings, or at least nowhere near the way we do.



This I'd agree with. For image and ego reasons we wanted to hang with the cool kids promising lower emissions, but unlike them we had no hope of getting there without massive change.

Point 1: Your logic, and those that follow, simply does not work, IMO. As stated, these economies used nuclear and other non-GHG sources BEFORE 1990. Reduction cannot be made from something that was not polluting before 1990, ergo this actually made it harder for them to meet targets. We had the luxury of eliminating these sources (which Ontario has started) making targets far more technically achievable (not economically the way I would do things, but very physically achievable).

Point 2: Same problem in your logic. These things were true before 1990, so unless they suddenly adopted huge amounts of public transit that they did not previously make use of, the density provides no advantage. Interestingly, transport is one of the few sectors Europe has seen growth in emissions from b/c they already used public transit and fuel efficient cars prior to 1990. Again, since our fleet is so much less efficient than theirs, we had tremendous room for improvement, yet somehow fleet-wide efficiency has not improved at all since 1990 in North America.

Point 3: Again, same problem. Unless their climate changed after 1990, this was already true and embedded in their emissions. Further, average house size in North America has continued to grow despite falling family sizes, i.e. we are making negative progress.

Point 4: by Blankall I believe: Spain and most of much of Eastern Europe are part of the EU-27, and the EU-27 has actually reduced emissions by more than the original EU. Spain has increased emissions, but reductions in other countries have more than offset it. Additionally, manufacturing has and continues to take a beating in Canada. Interestingly, it is the poorer countries who used to rely on crappy technology like dirty inefficient coal that have made the most improvement.

Point 5: population (not sure who's point): first one I think has merit. Higher population should equal more emissions, and Europe has seen very little growth relative to Canada.

Point 6: Oil and gas sector - from what I've seen floating around, this sector has accounted for 28% of the increase in Cdn emissions since 1990. It will be interesting if the growth rate drops at all with the new policies, because IMO the industry could be much cleaner with very little real cost (not sure how much, but I've worked on a few efficiency projects with smaller companies that squashed projects showing IIR's of 15% to 20% - with an actual policy in place I'm sure these will now show even higher returns).

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Point 6: Oil and gas sector - from what I've seen floating around, this sector has accounted for 28% of the increase in Cdn emissions since 1990. It will be interesting if the growth rate drops at all with the new policies, because IMO the industry could be much cleaner with very little real cost (not sure how much, but I've worked on a few efficiency projects with smaller companies that squashed projects showing IIR's of 15% to 20% - with an actual policy in place I'm sure these will now show even higher returns).

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.

[Lurch]

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.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lurch

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.

Can't say you're wrong ... hard to say.

I know budget over works and such in that sector have made the sands a very expensive situation ... so how much money would have been spared to do a very dirty job cleaner? Can't say.

I have some enviro-tech buddies though that have always been interesting to talk to about these things. The internal oil patch enviro competition is quite a big play these days, with companies competitng for bragging rights on reclamations and such. Hopefully that same attitude fosters into emissions as well.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Point 1:Your logic, and those that follow, simply does not work, IMO.

Point 2: Same problem in your logic.

Point 3: Again, same problem.

I hear you. But that’s like saying someone who is 500 pounds has the same chance to drop 50 than some who is 200 pounds has to drop 20. The obese person needs to learn a completely new lifestyle – everything has to change. And it’ll probably take 1 year of determined effort. The guy looking to get back to 180 needs to cut out the bad habits but otherwise live pretty much the same life. He can probably drop the 20 pounds in 4 months.

Our GDP does not go up unless our emissions go up at the same pace. Simple as that. This is not the case for Japan and most of Europe. I’m not saying it can’t be done, just that the cost and commitment required is much greater.

[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.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I hear you. But that’s like saying someone who is 500 pounds has the same chance to drop 50 than some who is 200 pounds has to drop 20. The obese person needs to learn a completely new lifestyle – everything has to change. And it’ll probably take 1 year of determined effort. The guy looking to get back to 180 needs to cut out the bad habits but otherwise live pretty much the same life. He can probably drop the 20 pounds in 4 months.

Our GDP does not go up unless our emissions go up at the same pace. Simple as that. This is not the case for Japan and most of Europe. I’m not saying it can’t be done, just that the cost and commitment required is much greater.

I'd say the cost is actually lower because there are many cheap (or even economically attractive) options available to us that Europe already had fully utilized, but beyond that we sort of agree. We did not meet Kyoto b/c we had zero commitment, both at a national political level and at the individual consumer level.

As a simplistic example, what is the economic cost of fewer people driving large cars/SUV's? I'd argue there is no economic cost (in fact net benefit) in that the end product (miles driven) is constant and accomplished with fewer total resources. An efficient economy would re-allocate those freed up resources to better use - I can't imagine a rational argument that would convince me that accomplishing the same end production with fewer resources is bad for the economy. Consumer tastes may not be as fully met, but this is an entirely different argument than the "it will destroy our economy" argument that is typically tossed out.

On the other hand, Europe really does not have access to the example above. They either drive less or emissions rise with the slowly increasing population and car ownership rate, ie they have a true cost to reduce emissions in this sector.

[Lurch]

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.

[Lurch]

^^
I think we are growing slightly faster (GDP) but not much when you look at the EU-27 which includes some of the fastest growing countries in the world.