Canada Pleads Technicality on Kyoto Non-Compliance
Like a criminal who beats the rap because police lost a piece of evidence, the Canadian government is trying to dodge responsibility for failing to meet its Kyoto commitments by clinging to a technicality.
Defending itself against Federal Court suit brought by Friends of the Earth, the Canadian government argued this week that Kyoto targets "are not legally binding as they have not been adopted as an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol by agreement of all Parties." A rough translation might be: George Bush isn't playing fair; why should we?
The answer, to that hypothetical question at least, is that Canada promised that it would meet its Kyoto obligations. The Canadian Parliament even passed a Private Member's Bill last year that said it would be illegal under Canadian law to ignore Kyoto targets.
But the current government offered a dismissed sniff to that bill in court this week, announcing that the law had been "nullified" when the House of Commons later approved a Throne Speech that said Canada can't meet its Kyoto targets. This is logically problematic. Acknowledging a statement of fact - "Bill stole a package of sweets" - does not make the acknowledged truth legal.
And in this instance, it is not quite a fact that Canada cannot meet its Kyoto obligations. The country could still purchase carbon credits from other countries. Or Canada could commit itself to meeting more stringent emission cuts in the next round of the Kyoto treaty.
No, the Candian government was really saying: Canada WON'T meet its obligations - and now it's hired some smart lawyers to try to make that all seem okay.
Well, the Federal Court has yet to comment on the merit of the federal government excuses. But even it the court accepts the legal technicality, the damage will remain to Canada's international reputation - and to its future credibility as a potential partner in ANY negotiation.
While the denialists predict economic gloom and doom...
On a related note: while the denialists predict economic gloom and doom, the US EPA quietly releases a report on the projected ramifications of the Lieberman-Warner Act, which involves cutting emissions to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/14/165235/227
"Here's the short version: assuming advanced energy technologies hit the market fast, America's economy will grow 80 percent by 2030. If we don't cap carbon emissions, America's economy will grow 81 percent by 2030."
I guess it does spells doom and gloom all right... for denialist shills and their paymasters who refuse to adapt to the green economy.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
A shocking truth...?
And in yet more hilarity, the denialists have discovered a shocking, devastating, earth-shattering truth:
The "carbon cap-and-trade" scheme is ... in fact ... a tax!
Oh no. It's a tax. Just imagine. The communism. The treason. The carnage.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/16/10203/0352
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Take a Valium Frank
Gotta admit Frank, you are entertaining.
Wrong, but entertaining.
If I have time later, I will lookup the article that trashed what's her names, propoganda paper.
In the mean time:
The "carbon cap-and-trade" scheme is ... in fact ... a tax!
Do you actually dispute this? I would have thought that any one with at least a room temperature IQ would see that?
Propaganda?
You might have trouble finding that article, the one supposed to have "trashed" Oreskes' work. The journal that was supposed to publish it decided not to do so. See: Schulte's Analysis: Not Published; Not Going to Be by Richard Littlemore (20 September 2007), elsewhere on DeSmogBlog. The article didn't get past the editor ("His survey of papers critical of the consensus was a bit patchy and nothing new"), let alone peer-review.
"Thus, it turns out that the only way you could justify calling [Dr. Klaus-Martin] Schulte's work "peer-reviewed" is by pointing out that his biggest fan, Christopher Walter, is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - a British peer." Nicely put, Richard!
Fern Mackenzie
Well, my challenge to Troll
Well, my challenge to Troll still remains. If there's a specific flaw in Oreskes's methodology, can he describe the flaw in his own words?
After all, Troll's an individualist maverick scientist or so he paints himself to be, so this should be a walk in the park for him, no?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Off Topic But Great Read
Way off Topic - but really good:
Frank, this should really make you angry:
Toyota Prius proves a gas guzzler in a race with the BMW 520d
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/used_car_reviews/article3552994.ece
diesel vs petrol
What this "comparison" actually proves is that a diesel-powered engine gets better mileage than petrol. There are certainly a lot of diesel vehicles on the road, and if you can stand the stink, I understand they get great mileage -- but that's no newsflash. However the vast majority of passenger cars are powered by gasoline, not diesel, and the Prius should be compared to the best of those.
Fern Mackenzie
The flaw was simple. It was
The flaw was simple. It was the choice of search words.
You can make statistics say anything you want.
Surly you are aware of that.
I'm not kidding, and don't call me Surly
If you've tinkered to make statistics say what you want them to say, then others doing something slightly different will find other results and the original conclusion will be found not to be robust. Peiser tried to check the study but his interpretations were found to be faulty. Why not see if you can make statistics say anything you want -- redo the study with other justifiable word choices if you like.
I provided a url in response to one of your comments above. I look forward to your reply to that.
I just ROFL'd*
Best laugh I've had for awhile, Steve!
Fern Mackenzie
*roll on floor laughing
Seriously, WTF?!
"*roll on floor laughing"
Gee, good thing you finally explained what that acronym means. Most of us have wondered ever since Al Gore invented the Interweb.
Now if only I could get my VCR to stop flashing "12:00". It's a Betamax, if that helps?
Well, you see, Rob
I'm an old fogy and some of these things are new to me. I am swift enough, though, to pick up a witty reference to a Leslie Nielsen line (he's a Canadian, BTW, unlike some . . . ), and to know that "Al Gore invented the Interweb" red herring for what it is. Were you having your diapers changed when they cleared that one up?
Fern Mackenzie
Ummm, Oreskes searched for
Ummm, Oreskes searched for "climate change" and "global warming." Her searches did not include the words "human" or "anthropogenic." Her methodology was solid, unlike Benny Peiser's or Madhav Khandekar's, the latter of which is/was on the "Fiends of Science" site.
"If I have time later, I
"Do you actually dispute this?"
No, but I'm sure you'd want me to dispute it so that you can shout "Hypocrite! Hypocrite! Hypocrite!"
Yeah, carbon cap-and-trade is a tax. Big deal. The WSJ folks make it sound like it's some kind of devastating argument.
- - -
"If I have time later, I will lookup the article that trashed what's her names, propoganda paper."
Shove that. Why don't you tell us what's wrong with Oreskes's method in your own words? So far you've been doing nothing but regurgitating denialist talking points with zero understanding.
And can you remember what method the Fraser Institute used to arrive at their Economic Doom and Gloom prognostications? Again, try describing it in your own words.
- - -
By the way, is James Hansen fat?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Frank!!!
I don't think you are a Hypocrite!
I think you are passionate about what you believe.
I think you are misslead like so amny others but thats all.
Is Jimmy Hansen Fat?
I don't think so, just wrong.
Is that somehow relevant.
What is your obsession with fat anyway.
Not complaining, I find it entertaining.
Cheers
And, from McKinsey and Company
Another report, from McKinsey and Company, also concludes that greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced without adversely affecting the economy:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/30/099/12203
"The United States could reduce GHG emissions in 2030 by 3.0 to 4.5 gigatons of CO2e using tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies. These reductions would involve pursuing a wide array of abatement options with marginal costs less than $50 per ton, with the average net cost to the economy being far lower if the nation can capture sizable gains from energy efficiency. Achieving these reductions at the lowest cost to the economy, however, will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future." (emphasis mine)
"Almost 40 percent of abatement could be achieved at `negative' marginal costs, meaning that investing in these options would generate positive economic returns over their lifecycle." (emphasis mine again)
Oh noes, it's Islamo-Stalino-Nazism!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
That's interesting
That's interesting Frank, but so what?
Since CO2 is not a polutant and did not cause the little warm period at the end of the last century, who cares?
This is just throwing money away on silly feel good fantasies of the radical eco-terrorists.
So tell us, troll, what did
So tell us, troll, what did cause the "little warm period" at the end of the last century?
Good Question
At last, a real question.
I don't know.
There are several competing theories.
The best of them (and most recently studied) seem to be a combination of PDO effects related to the Multidecadal climate shift.
Which by the way appears to be largely infleuenced by the Sun.
Then there is the thooey of AGW which, in light of recent science does not hold up too well.
The bottom line is that nobody knows for sure yet.
The good news is that it seems to be history.
The bad news is that it is history.
A warmer world would have been a good thing.
troll: "I don't know." At
troll: "I don't know."
At last a real answer.
troll: "The best of them (and most recently studied) seem to be a combination of PDO effects related to the Multidecadal climate shift."
Have you ever heard of the first law of thermodynamics, troll?
You know, the one about conservation of energy?
The one that states that energy can not be created or destroyed?
So, please tell us how the PDO and the Multidecadal climate shift add energy to the climate system, as opposed to just moving energy around within the system?
This should be good.
And while your at it, since you have already stated that you “don’t know,” how is it that you know that AGW is “thooey,” or that it seems to be “history?”
Why don't you admit you're wrong?
Oh, you predict gloom and doom, and when I show you a report showing negative gloom and doom, all you say is "that's interesting?"
Why don't you say, "I was wrong, I'll stop peddling denialist nonsense in the future"?
Or, "Nonsense! The McKinsey report is flawed in the following specific ways: ..."?
Then again, it's well-known that denialists don't care about facts.
- - -
By the way, Troll, is Naomi Oreskes fat?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Um.... Because I don't
Um.... Because I don't believe I'm wrong.
Say Frank, how about you taking some of your own advice and show us specifically what is wrong with the agruments of Skeptics instead of just name calling and slurs.
Oh Wait. Name calling and slurs are the base mandate of this Blog. sorry forgot.
BTW Oreskes is not fat, just wrong.
There is not now, nor has there ever been an "Overwhelming Concensus".
It was all just clever statistics.
Oh, really?
"There is not now, nor has there ever been an "Overwhelming Concensus". It was all just clever statistics."
Well, if you say so. But I suggest that you take a look at this: http://deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm.
This warning was issued in November 1992, and signed by 1,700 scientists worldwide (including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences -- check out the list of signatories. You won't find any Spice Girls on it) -- more than 15 years ago they agreed that:
Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries or permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain -- with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe -- but the potential risks are very great.
Since that time predictions of global warming have become increasingly more certain and specific, as expressed in the conclusions of the IPCC reports.
I don't know how you define "Overwhelming Consensus," Mr T, but if it looks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are . . .
Fern Mackenzie
Um, not _climate_ scientists...
(Well, I think Oreskes's result is more useful, since it refers to a consensus of climate scientists.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
I don't care a darn about your "beliefs"
"Um.... Because I don't believe I'm wrong."
Wow, that's so scientific!
- - -
"Say Frank, how about you taking some of your own advice and show us specifically what is wrong with the agruments of Skeptics"
I've done that numerous times, and all you do is repeatedly ignore my criticisms.
Here's just one of the criticisms which you decided to completely ignore: http://tinyurl.com/yqc55u
Do you want me to show you all the other criticisms which you so-called "skeptics" have completely ignored?
- - -
"BTW Oreskes is not fat, just wrong. There is not now, nor has there ever been an `Overwhelming Concensus'."
That's just your "belief", as always, right? As always, you present your "beliefs" as proven facts, and then when they're questioned they turn back into "beliefs". How convenient.
If you have evidence that Oreskes' methodology was flawed, then show it. If you have evidence that the EPA and McKinsey were both wrong in predicting a healthy Green Economy, then show it. Otherwise nobody cares about your unsubstantiated "beliefs".
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Naive or what?
Frank:
I don't care a darn about your "beliefs"
Are you actually that naive?
This whole debate is about Beliefs.
You don’t have any scientific facts to offer, just your opinion.
We have wild assed guesses, speculations, theories, hypotheses’ wildly biased computer models, bad temperature data from incredibly poorly placed instrumentation, and Politiccs.
Anyone claiming to have Facts on their side is deluded.
Troll ignores scientific facts and complains there are none!
"You don’t have any scientific facts to offer, just your opinion."
I showed you a link which you completely ignored.
And you just ignored it. Again.
But I'll post the link again so that you can ignore it for a third time: http://tinyurl.com/yqc55u
Ignore the science, so that you can complain there's no science. That's Fred Singer's "climate realism" for ya.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Frank....
You link actually goes nowhere....
and what makes your intended link a fact and not just someone else's opinion?
You probably think Al Gore deal in facts don't you?
LOL.... Like I said, entertaining.
0% content, 0% understanding from Troll ... again
For starters, why don't you read the specific argument against Daily Tech and try expressing it in your own words?
I know it can be hard for you since you're used to a life of cut-and-paste, but try it.
And, stop obsessing over Al Gore.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Dreamland, Again!
Hello Frank,
...assuming advanced energy technologies..."
What is this nonsense? These guys haven't got the foggest idea what these might be. And what ever these might be, they won't fly jet planes.
OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL!
Wow, so anything that doesn't fly jet planes can't be used for energy anywhere, ever.
More cutting-edge denialist "science".
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Garbage + Garbage =
Garbage + Garbage = garbage.
LOL
Hmm, Troll can't even be
Hmm, Troll can't even be bothered to accuse the EPA of unspeakable and ephemeral bias.
Troll, is Naomi Oreskes fat?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Devastating the economic
Devastating the economic myth...facts are facts and myths are created by disinformation. We have pollution and we have emissions, but both can be shockingly reduced and at the same time help our economy.
Let's look at the numbers. The Feds cut the GST by two points, which was never a cost to business (input tax credits are paid back). The current government provided tax relief to corporations over the last three budgets of between $5-$10 billion, which is good.
But the GST cuts amount to about $10-11 billion per year in lost federal revenues. During the same period, personal income tax cuts exceed $10 billion per year. This is over $20 billion per year, and if we include the average surpluses of $10 billion per year, the government could have had $300 billion over 10 years to meet Kyoto and implement the next phase of the industrial revolution...the clean-energy phase.
The "in-our pocket" tax savings to the majority taxpayer (mid-income working families) is less than $1000 per year. In the same period the increased cost of electricity, heating and transportation fuel, and the resulting cost increase to all other products we consume, has taken more than $1000 out-of-our-pockets. Where is the economic logic of staying tied to fossil fuels when oil is predicted to hit $150 per barrel???
$300 billion of federal revenue to subsidize corporate energy conglomerates to invest in zero emission energy like fuel cells, solar, wind turbines, hydrogen production and industrial emission capture, would provide many jobs and maintain a stable cost of energy...for consumers and businesses alike. Meanwhile all the Canadians in the fossil fuel industry would continue to work at the current facilities for years, but the billions of dollars to expand oil production would first be diversified to the clean energy technology, by the current corporate leaders in the energy sector.
The real economic risk is continued reliance on oil! You decide which side of the oil barrel is myth or fact.
Nat Debt
Let's payoff the national debt first.
There is no such thing as "clean energy" that will fly jet planes, smelt metals, mine gold, silver and diamonds or run BC ferry boats.
Two words: Energy diversification
Harold, which part of the phrase "energy diversification" do you not understand?
And, is Naomi Oreskes fat?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
So again you want it all
So again you want it all paid for with our Tax money.
If it is a good idea, you don't have to support it with taxes.
Question:
Just how much tax is enough for you scocialists anyway.
60%?
80%?
Or do you think we should just send it all to you and you can take care of us since you know better what good for me.
Socialism is a cancer.
It needs to be erradicated..
We paid already...in case
We paid already...in case you can't add or read. We paid all of the last three years to continue to subsidize oil, without those moneys being tied to emission capture investment.
We paid for the increase of oil prices and will continue to pay those increases unless we change our energy supply to renewables, or can't you see the other side of teh barrel?
In New Brunswick they are thinking about a $6 billion nuclear power plant (history tells us all these projects run at least 50% over budget). So $9 billion for 1000MW eh?. With the added cost of repacking the fuel rods and the insanity of storing nuclear waste. $9 billion would build 3000 MW of wind turbines alone, no fuel, no waste. Does this make sense to a Mr. Troll?
OUr government could invest prudently and save us form paying through the hose, does this not make sense?
Denialists can hide behind the oil barrel, but we can see past the slime.
The mind boggles
If it is a good idea, you don't have to support it with taxes.
That's just about the most bizarre comment I've read here for a very VERY long time.
Fern Mackenzie
user-pay isn't socialism
I don't see why some people and trolls can't see this as a user-pay issue. Most people who like to use economic arguments believe that bringing externalities into the marketplace improves economic efficiency. Like these two guys:
http://tinyurl.com/39ayox -- keep in mind, these are clearly communists as they were paid by the Wall Street Journal for this dialogue. This is kind of an old article about using a carbon tax to moderate the problems posed by Peak Oil. To see the most relevant parts scroll down to the middle.
Troll, you might learn something here -- they discuss the issue without resorting to a bunch of crap about eradicating the cancer of socialism.
"Socialism"? So it's not about science, it's about ideology
...and stupid denialist ideologues. Thanks for proving that.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Of course it's all about
Of course it's all about ideology for the likes of troll and rob and the other refugees from Freak Dominion. For sure it's not about science or physical reality.
Oh well, I think we need a
Oh well, I think we need a term to describe the idea that we must find a One True Energy Source before we can take any action against global warming. It's such a dumb idea that it deserves a name of its own.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Frank Bi, fact-addict and anti-lie bigot
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Interesting
Here is something interesting for those of you who still believe in tipping points that will bring the end of the world.
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm