An Inconvenient Truth

[TheRater]

BTW, ask someone who supports the Kyoto Protocol just how much of our society would DIE if it was implemented. And if you think I am joking, then learn to read. A small 'c' conservative estimate is 40%.

12 million people in Canada (which would actually be a LOT higher, more like 70% with out weather) would die if you turned off enough petroleum production/consumption to reach the levels required for 'compliance' with that treat.

Now THAT would be a conspiracy of the rich.

- TR

Yep, still bitter.

 

[Creole Lady Marmalade]

I remember in 8th grade Science that in theory the sun was a star. In the active life of the star it glows and gives off heat. Closer to the death it grows hotter and grows in size engulfing nearby planets and eventually cools down to the stones that we refer to as stars we currently see in the night sky.

I don't know. I suppose anything is possible.

But we can all stand to be a little more respectful and reduce waste.

 

[TheRater]

No disagreement there. I just hate having people screaming that the sky is falling all the time.

- TR

 

[Randy Whorewald]

I remember in 8th grade Science that in theory the sun was a star. In the active life of the star it glows and gives off heat. Closer to the death it grows hotter and grows in size engulfing nearby planets and eventually cools down to the stones that we refer to as stars we currently see in the night sky.

I don't know. I suppose anything is possible.

But we can all stand to be a little more respectful and reduce waste.

CLM - I couldn't have said it better myself!!

 

[therealrex]

Whether you believe in Global Warming or not Kyoto is a joke. It has nothing to do with reducing CO2 its just about helping third world countries become more industrialised.

 

[aznboi9]

I'm not disputing that the temperature is rising relative to recent history or that our current love affair with power and consumption is changing the landscape. What I am asserting is that the popular belief that by we can have a demonstrable impact on those changes by simply taking a frontal attack against oil production or use. Its just not that easy.

But if our love affair with power and consumption (which is largely fueled by oil) is having an affect on our landscape, then shouldn't that be a good reason to at least make an attempt at minimizing these said affects? Especially given that there are plenty of reasons outside of global warming to do so. No one has said that it would be easy; but I have trouble with the argument that just because something that has to be done is difficult, we should just give and go with the flow.

Excuse me, I just threw up in my mouth a lot because of idiocy. Most, but I will admit not all, of these 'climate' scientists are people who think that because they have BSc. MSc. or PhD. after their names that whatever they think automatically becomes scientific. Before you fly right off the deep end, how about YOU go read some of those 'peer reviewed' journals and see a) just how many scientists who ARE climatologists disagree with the conclusions and b) have you ever actually looked at the data, 80% of these 'interpretations' are based off of one study that was proven to have incorrect methods, practices and hell, just plain wrong math over 20 years ago.

I guess it depends on where you get your information. I recall reading an article in the Sun (I think it was in June or July. It's weird, I can remember the day, Wednesday, and the page, A28, but I can't remember the month I read it in) about a poll that was taken of 100 climatologists in the world. Apparently, only 19 of them had seen Gore's movie. But of the 19 that had seen it, all had reported that they believed he got the science right. I am curious as to where you get your information from. I'm not saying your wrong, I just like to hear arguments from both sides. If you can do that without the attitude, it would be much appreciated.

BTW, ask someone who supports the Kyoto Protocol just how much of our society would DIE if it was implemented. And if you think I am joking, then learn to read. A small 'c' conservative estimate is 40%.

12 million people in Canada (which would actually be a LOT higher, more like 70% with out weather) would die if you turned off enough petroleum production/consumption to reach the levels required for 'compliance' with that treat.

This is new to me. How would 40% of the population die by Kyoto? Again, refer to the end of my previous paragraph.

 

[gravitas]

But if our love affair with power and consumption (which is largely fueled by oil) is having an affect on our landscape, then shouldn't that be a good reason to at least make an attempt at minimizing these said affects?

Absolutely we should make attempts to reduce our energy and power consumption but not because its allegedly responsible for global warming. With the rapid industrialization of India and China there will be an incremental increase of the amount of everything (oil, wood, wheat, etc.) required for the global economy and it only makes sense to moderate our consumption. As far as the specific impact with the use of fossil fuels its more about reducing particulate emissions and not green house gasses. Its the particulate that causes smog which has a far greater impact on people's quality of life and the environment.

This is new to me. How would 40% of the population die by Kyoto? Again, refer to the end of my previous paragraph.

I don't buy TheRater's logic of 40% of people dying because of Kyoto but it is an inherently flawed strategy for a number of reasons. Most importantly its all about the transfer of wealth and not about the environment or global warming. The fact that it targets energy producers and not consumers is moronic! It would be like taxing the shit out of distilleries to motivate individuals to drink less. If you want to alter behavior with taxes or punitive financial measures you do so at the point of consumption not production. At its core Kyoto is all about the transfer of national wealth from developed nations to developing. That means that if implemented countries like Canada will experience a drop in GDP and that will impact our standard of living. So before you hop on the bandwagon give some serious thought if you're prepared to fore go some of the niceties of life so and Indian or Chinese citizen can drive their newly acquired SUV.

 

[expedition]

It would be like taxing the shit out of distilleries to motivate individuals to drink less.

Ignoring the whole pro - anti Kyoto thing for a moment: Distilleries will then pass on the cost of the increased taxes to the consumer, who will drink less. Indeed it is a common industry mantra that high taxes force them to raise the prices to consumers who then buy less, hurting the economy.

 

[sdw]

Ignoring the whole pro - anti Kyoto thing for a moment: Distilleries will then pass on the cost of the increased taxes to the consumer, who will drink less. Indeed it is a common industry mantra that high taxes force them to raise the prices to consumers who then buy less, hurting the economy.

That ignores the whole Wine Art, Home Made Beer industry. Both the USA and Canada proved that people will make their own alcohol if it is overtaxed or proscribed.

What happens with Alcohol, Tobacco or Marijuana can't be used as a model with things that people can't produce themselves.

The whole problem with the Kyoto Accords is that even with our winters, Canada isn't the problem. In Canada we are using Hydro, Nuclear and Wind to produce a very large amount of our power. In Quebec, Nuclear and Hydro sourced electricity is so plentiful and inexpensive that people heat their houses with it. In Calgary, Wind sourced power provides much of the electricity used. In BC, most of our electricity is Hydro. Manitoba and Sask. also have large amounts of Wind power generation.

Compare that to the USA. Due to the Coal Lobby, areas that could be using Nuclear sourced electricity are using Coal. Coal actually releases more radioactive material than a normally run Westinghouse Nuclear Plant. The Candu Plants we have in Ontario and Quebec also release less radioactive material than a Coal Plant, despite the fact that Candu is not as well designed as a Westinghouse Plant. Much of the air quality issues in Quebec and Ontario are the result of US Coal fired plants in the USA and not anything that is happening in Canada.

If we didn't have the USA freaking out when other countries use Nuclear to produce power, we would be in much better shape. Saudi Arabia uses Nuclear to produce the super heated steam for Oil extraction. Electricity is actually a WASTE product. Saudi Arabia produces so much electricity that they use it to desalinate water. A big part of the reason that Iran started to build Nuclear plants is that they wanted to do the same thing. It doesn't make sense to use Oil to make steam if you can use a Nuclear Plant. Because of Iraq and the threats that the USA has made, Iran also feels they need a weapons program. Iraq and Kuwait both want to use Nuclear Plants to produce steam. One of the things that the USA doesn't want to recognize is that all of the Mid-East Oil Fields are mature and past the point where extraction can take place without steam. Which is why Iraq now exports less Oil under American Occupation than they did under the UN Oil for Food program. The Iraqi steam plants are what is being blown up. No steam, no Oil.

China is using Coal almost exclusively to produce their electricity. Anyone that has been in China can tell you that the pollution is overwhelming. China is using Coal because it doesn't make sense to import Oil for Electric Power Generation and they don't have the Geologic Stability to use Nuclear Plants. There is Nuclear technology that could solve China's problems with their own Nuclear technology, but again, people are freaking out when a transfer of technology is talked about.

The solution to the problems that Kyoto can not solve is to have an International Agreement on the Civilian use of Nuclear Technology to produce electricity. That means using the Westinghouse Technology that has been very safely used in Submarines and Warships and using it for electricity generation.

Kyoto is mooted because the Kyoto supporters include the same people that freak out whenever Nuclear Power Generation is mentioned.

 

[gravitas]

Distilleries will then pass on the cost of the increased taxes to the consumer, who will drink less.

Bullshit! If that was the case then governments would tax alcohol and smokes at the point of production vs. resale/consumption because of the economies of scale in dealing with fewer tax payers. Luxury/sin taxes are a good thing provided their funds go to dealing with the problems they're alleged to cause. Gas taxes for example should be going to repairing our roads or better public transit. When they flow into general revenue their potential benefit is lost.

In Calgary, Wind sourced power provides much of the electricity used

Not to challenge your post but in all of Alberta the power generated is by a far margin predominantly generated by natural gas in the south and coal in the central and north. That said, there is a concerted effort to use more wind generation.

Incidentely, for those who have called me a knuckle dragger or suggested that my life sucks so much I'm happy to rape the earth and make it my toilet you should note that I've been signed up to the Greenmax program since it was made available.

That ignores the whole Wine Art, Home Made Beer industry. Both the USA and Canada proved that people will make their own alcohol if it is overtaxed or proscribed.

Make their own or drive the industry underground......just look at prohibition or the number of people who have access to purple fuel.

China is using Coal

The coal being used in China and their methods of using it on either a large scale for power generation or small for home heating is entirely different then whats used in either Europe or NA. Chinese coal has ridiculously high sulfur content and when used in home or older power plants there are no scrubbers or anything to eliminate particulate or dioxide emissions. Its unfortunate that Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and even Monty Burns have done so much to sully nuclear power as it really is the cleanest and when properly used the safest method of generating massive amounts of energy. I'm convinced that within 20 years we'll see a nuclear power plant in Northern Alberta to drive heavy oil production.

 

[sdw]

Not to challenge your post but in all of Alberta the power generated is by a far margin predominantly generated by natural gas in the south and coal in the central and north. That said, there is a concerted effort to use more wind generation.

The coal being used in China and their methods of using it on either a large scale for power generation or small for home heating is entirely different then whats used in either Europe or NA. Chinese coal has ridiculously high sulfur content and when used in home or older power plants there are no scrubbers or anything to eliminate particulate or dioxide emissions. Its unfortunate that Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and even Monty Burns have done so much to sully nuclear power as it really is the cleanest and when properly used the safest method of generating massive amounts of energy. I'm convinced that within 20 years we'll see a nuclear power plant in Northern Alberta to drive heavy oil production.

The point of my post was that there are real solutions out there. One of the things that drives me crazy are the people that are against Wind Power because it can kill birds. That may have been true with the old generators that spun at 2500 rpm, it isn't true with the new gernerators that spin at 480 rpm. The new wind generators don't kill birds and they are much quieter. The old generators were above 60 db, the new ones are less than 25 db. The technology is close to mature and should be used.

The whole Chernobyl thing is the strongest arguement against governments running utilities. Governments always save on maintanence to satisfy the wage demands of their employees. Regulated Utilities have to maintain their equipment. The worst thing that we have done with utilities is deregulation. That allows corporations to run an utility the same way that governments do without the snivil service wages.

When utilities are allowed to run "world class", "competative" or "efficiently" they allways stop spending money on maintanence in order to enhance their profits. That gets us BP in Alaska where they hoped that the pipelines would last until the Oil had been extracted and ended up with their entire collection system leaking. It gets us the power failure in South East Canada and North East USA last year because the power grid hadn't been maintained or upgraded in years.

There isn't a single person in the USA or Canada that is paying less for their Telephone, Cable, Electric Power, Natural Gas or Airplane Flight because of deregulation. There are a lot of people who are suffering longer outages, higher prices and more danger as a result of deregulation.

We have to start demanding a regulated level of service from our utilities.

We have to start charging the people who do the most damage and the highest use of our roadways what it costs. That means raising the cost of operating heavy vehicles to a level where the majority of heavy goods transport goes back onto Railways.

We have to identify where it is safe to build Nuclear Power Plants and where it is safe to store the radioactive waste they produce.

We have to start mining our landfills and mining our garbage before it goes into landfills. That means regulations and taxes that discourage using new plastic for packaging and garbage sortation plants where recyclable metal and plastic can be seperated. We currently send much of the paper, plastic and metal that recyclers seperate from the landfills offshore to other countries. That means the recycler feels good, but didn't prevent the falling of a single tree, the pumping of a single gallon of oil or the mining of a single ounce of metal. We have to make it cheaper to recycle than it is to use fresh material.

I make leaflets that I put on the windshields of all the SUVs in the parking lots of conferences supporting Kyoto. Guess what they say.

 

[aznboi9]

Absolutely we should make attempts to reduce our energy and power consumption but not because its allegedly responsible for global warming.

We pretty much seem to be agreeing on courses of action in this case, just for differing reasons.

Most importantly its all about the transfer of wealth and not about the environment or global warming. The fact that it targets energy producers and not consumers is moronic! It would be like taxing the shit out of distilleries to motivate individuals to drink less. If you want to alter behavior with taxes or punitive financial measures you do so at the point of consumption not production. At its core Kyoto is all about the transfer of national wealth from developed nations to developing.

I really have no way of verifying or disputing what you say. My understanding that different standards would be applied to developed vs developing nations such that more lax goals would be set for developing nations since they wouldn't yet have the technology or wealth to implement the standards anyways. Then, as I have heard, these standards are adjusted according to set guidelines. When I think of it, that makes sense that there will or could be wealth distribution to some degree; how much, I don't know as I'm not an economist. But it seems more reasonable to me to think that this would be a side-effect of the Kyoto accord as compared to an actually goal of it.

I've been signed up to the Greenmax program since it was made available.

Thats cool.

 

[gravitas]

The point of my post was that there are real solutions out there.

I was agreeing with you. Just pointing out that from my POV there isn't one singularly correct opinion or strategy in dealing with any problem. If we're going to deal with global warming, acid rain, particulate emissions, etc. its going to require multiple initiatives and an open mind.

There isn't a single person in the USA or Canada that is paying less for their Telephone, Cable, Electric Power, Natural Gas or Airplane Flight because of deregulation. There are a lot of people who are suffering longer outages, higher prices and more danger as a result of deregulation.

At least with telecom on that I beg to differ. Long distance rates have plumited in the past 10 years as a result of deregulation and real competition. In most other utilities that hasn't been the case. Ya, you can purchase your natural gas from another biller but fact remains its still the same as what you were buying from another company and the only real savings is with administrative functions like consolidated billing.

We have to start demanding a regulated level of service from our utilities.

To an extent we already do. The CRTC and EUB have benchmarks that utility companies are supposed to meet/exceed but whats missing are the punitive penalties in the event they miss. Without those teeth they're meaningless.

We currently send much of the paper, plastic and metal that recyclers seperate from the landfills offshore to other countries

Not that I doubt your comment but do you have any sources to cite?

and where it is safe to store the radioactive waste they produce

Quebec?

I make leaflets that I put on the windshields of all the SUVs in the parking lots of conferences supporting Kyoto. Guess what they say.

LOL I can only imagine but I'd be disapointed if it didn't have the word hypocrite

We pretty much seem to be agreeing on courses of action in this case, just for differing reasons

My main problem with the people who are in hardcore support of Kyoto is the same as it is for the likes of PETA. Whenever someone is so focused on a single mindset they become dangerous because they've lost all objectivity to alternative points of view. Same can be said about fundamental christians, jews or muslims.

My understanding that different standards would be applied to developed vs developing nations such that more lax goals would be set for developing nations since they wouldn't yet have the technology or wealth to implement the standards anyways.

Thats the crux of it but I dispute that its the right way to go. I think a better solution would have been to incent developed countries to supply the technology to the likes of India or China so they can manage their explosive growth vs. having to deal with the mess after the fact.

 

[edmontonsubbie]

wow...cool thread.

...while i know very little other than the media supported arguments one way or the other....i would lean toward the "we are fucking ourselves" thinkers. The proponents of "no globalwarmingitshappenedbeforeremembervesuvius" have links to the oil industry and, i mean, let's face it...if the price is right...won't most tilt an argument? Perhaps not and perhaps most are completly idealogical...is that a word?...it is now.

In any event, i know pee all about global warming and/or the things that contribute/detract to it. What I think is kinda cool...is that this thread has generated amazing discussion! Well done to all! Discussion is the stuff of life.

 

[expedition]

Bullshit! If that was the case then governments would tax alcohol and smokes at the point of production vs. resale/consumption

The federal government does just that:

Excise duties

There are two legislations that administer Excise Duties. The current Excise Act and the Excise Act, 2001 which was implemented on July 1, 2003.

Excise duties are imposed under the Excise Act, 2001 on spirits, wine, and tobacco products manufactured in Canada. There is also a special duty that applies on imported spirits delivered to or imported by a licensed user. Excise duties on beer continue to be imposed under the Excise Act. Both legislations set out the rates of duty for these goods.

Duty is based on the quantity of goods produced and packaged or manufactured. All producers and packagers or manufacturers of these goods must be licenced and are subject to the bonding provisions set out in the Excise Act and the Excise Act, 2001 and the Regulations.

If you require personal assistance, you may contact the Regional Excise Duty Office closest to you. These offices are located in Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver. For a complete listing, please refer to the Excise Duty Memorandum 1.1.2, Regional Excise Duty Offices in the Related Reading section.

 

[TheRater]

But if our love affair with power and consumption (which is largely fueled by oil) is having an affect on our landscape, then shouldn't that be a good reason to at least make an attempt at minimizing these said affects? Especially given that there are plenty of reasons outside of global warming to do so. No one has said that it would be easy; but I have trouble with the argument that just because something that has to be done is difficult, we should just give and go with the flow.

If for no other reason than quality of life, I do agree with you. My problem is when the people who, yes, genuinely are motivated by this, are co-opted into the scare tactics of the 'global warming crisis' and allow the message they have, to get used as another plank in the end of the world rhetotic.

This is new to me. How would 40% of the population die by Kyoto? Again, refer to the end of my previous paragraph.

So, I will do this as best I can without the attitude.

Let us use some generic numbers. These are not meant to be exact, or to cover all the possibilities.

Let us choose a round figure for carbon production by the combustion of fossil fuels.

1,000,000

This represents units produceds by all methods.

Now, breakdown how this is used, in round numbers, by each segment of society. Again I am vastly simplifying.

'Oil' Production and Refining uses 75000
Transportation - Personal (including bussing etc.) uses 200000
Transportation - Business (food and materiel) uses 400000
Heating/Housing including electrical uses 225000
Production - Business (food and materiel) uses 100000

Total 1000000

Now try to change those numbers to 1990 levels, while attempting to maintaining all the infrastructure to serve the current population we have.

Back to your second point. Below is a list of web sites that most Kyoto supported are willing to lie, sue and in some cases physically assault you for publishing. And before you claim they are one sided, these sites include the CBC, the BBC and one by the co-founder of Greenpeace.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521010683/theskepticale-20/002-5894063-2205646
http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20051128.html
http://www.sepp.org/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4415818.stm
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/aug/050816a.html
http://www.insc.anl.gov/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Now, there is much more detailed math out there on topic #2, and I invite you to look for it and do the math yourself. Again, this was quoted by one of the main authors of the Kyoto protocol, about the scale of change that would be required to meet the targets agreed to.

- TR

 

[Horse99]

So what are we (you) going to do about it?

Are you going to tell the Chinese from stop burning coal?

Are you going to tell the guy in INdonesia and Brazil to stop cutting down the rainforests, when all he is trying to do is put food on his family's plate that night?

Are you going to tell the new found middle class in India and China that they can't drive cars because they pollute? I bet they don;t even require cat converters on their vehicles?

Are you going to stop buying crap that has to come from somewhere else by boat, train, truck, plane or car? They all burn fuel. Fruit from South America tends to rot when transported by air balloon, so what are you going to do?

 

[TheRater]

er, who were you directing that to?

- TR

 

[lovinithard]

there's a bastion journalistic integrity and one that has a history of being unbiased with their reporting on global warming.....you wouldn't mind if I start quoting from Alberta Oil Magazine would you?

Give me CBC over an industry mag any day.

I thought you had more smarts. Go and look before you talk, don't just spout the company line like a good little Albertan.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

 

[gravitas]

Are you going to tell the Chinese from stop burning coal?

No, but wouldn't it be easier and make more sense to help them develop cleaner technologies now?

Go and look before you talk, don't just spout the company line like a good little Albertan.

My question about quoting from an oil friendly magazine was rhetorical. Of course they're going to have a biased opinion on things.....just like the CBC. When they decide to air an open debate on the subject I'll start to give them more attention. Until then and as long as suzuki is their anointed mouth-piece on the subject I'll continue to view the CBC with contempt. As I've illustrated a number of times in this thread I'm not anti-environment as much as I am pro-thought and open discussion.