Propaganda or Informative? Alberta's campaign on the Kyoto Protocol

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:11

http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/display.cfm?ID=1

Is it propaganda or is it informative?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that KrazyHorse, Tingkai, et. al will all say it's propaganda.

I especially like this chart:

The TV ads can be viewed here:
http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/medi...change_tv1.ram
http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/medi...change_tv2.ram
http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/medi...change_tv2.ram

Newspaper ad:
http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/medi...hy_opposed.pdf

Brochure being distributed:
http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/kyoto/documents/tab.pdf

notyoueither · September 24, 2002, 01:18

emission targets could make oil sands projects uneconomical to continue

petroleum producers and other industries will have to purchase credits from countries not using their allotment

Those are the killers. Why are the producers bearing the brunt? Why not the consumers?

Oh, right. Europe doesn't produce much oil. Russian emissions have declined significantly since the end of the USSR. No problems. Carry on.

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:19

Yep. And:

Quote:

Canada is a small contributor (2%), but will pay heavily because of fossil fuel-based natural resource production.

Estimates are that economic risk to Canada will be four times that of the European Economic Community and 10 times that of Japan.

Tingkai · September 24, 2002, 01:20

Let's see, a one-side view of Kyoto produced by a government that relies on oil revenue. Let me guess: Asher thinks this an objective and balanced analysis of Kyoto.

notyoueither · September 24, 2002, 01:22

Uncle Jean relies on oil revenues too Tingkai. He's just too stupid to know it.

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
Let's see, a one-side view of Kyoto produced by a government that relies on oil revenue. Let me guess: Asher thinks this an objective and balanced analysis of Kyoto.

Nope, but I see it as a lot of realities and facts and figures that follow logically.

The Federal Government of Canada has been shoving this one-sided "it won't hurt us" bull down our throats forever, it's about time we heard the other side of the story.

Can't wait for an opinion poll on Kyoto in Alberta in 1 month.

Tingkai · September 24, 2002, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
petroleum producers and other industries will have to purchase credits from countries not using their allotment

Those are the killers. Why are the producers bearing the brunt? Why not the consumers?

The idea of selling pollution rights has been around for decades. Economists believe that it is the best method for dealing with the problem that pollution is not part of the standard marketplace operations.

Tingkai · September 24, 2002, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Nope, but I see it as a lot of realities and facts and figures that follow logically.

And of course, the Alberta government provides both sides of the story.

notyoueither · September 24, 2002, 01:25

Right. Hammer a few to meet the needs of the many. Sounds like something a few 'economists' I've heard of would come up with.

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
And of course, the Alberta government provides both sides of the story.

I'd love to see where you think I said that, because you've said it twice now and I've never said it.

In fact I've implied the direct opposite, by saying the Alberta government is providing the other side of the story.

Try try try it again.

notyoueither · September 24, 2002, 01:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai

And of course, the Alberta government provides both sides of the story.

... and Jean has been balanced and forthright with specifics?

Flubber · September 24, 2002, 01:30

AS usual, I find myself somewhere between the positions of Asher and his main opponents.

I see the Alberta media blitz as partly informative and partly propoganda. On the one hand, the Alberta government has pretty much admitted that many of their statistics are based on not much at all. But this balances the feds position which essentially seems to be " don't worry . . . be happy"

So perhaps the best characterization is " useful propoganda"

Tingkai · September 24, 2002, 01:32

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Right. Hammer a few to meet the needs of the many. Sounds like something a few 'economists' I've heard of would come up with.

The concept is quite simple.

The idea of selling "pollution rights" is designed to create a free market in an area where the market does not exist. Companies then have a choice. They may choose to invest in technology that cuts their pollution, or they purchase "pollution rights" from the marketplace. Companies also have incentive to reduce their pollution levels below the required amount. They can then sell "pollution rights" in the marketplace.

Under standard market operations there is no economic cost for creating pollution. In fact, there can be disincentives. If a factory produces a lot of pollution, this has not effect on demand for its product because most consumers will not know that the factory produces a lot of pollution. In the short term, installing pollution controls can create high costs that eat into profits. The controls may create higher efficiencies, but the benefits of these improves will only be seen in the long-run. If a company believes that no one else is investing money into pollution controls then it won't want to make such an investment.

Tingkai · September 24, 2002, 01:34

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
... and Jean has been balanced and forthright with specifics?

I think both sides will be putting out propaganda to support their positions. Anyone who thinks that either government will distribute objective information is sadly naive.

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:35

Quote:

The controls may create higher efficiencies, but the benefits of these improves will only be seen in the long-run. If a company believes that no one else is investing money into pollution controls then it won't want to make such an investment.

On what basis do you think technology will magically leapfrog forward to the tune of reducing our emissions to 1990 levels without hurting anything, even taking into account how much our industrial capacity has increased since 1990?

The answer is "out of your ass".

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
I think both sides will be putting out propaganda to support their positions. Anyone who thinks that either government will distribute objective information is sadly naive.

Agreed, but I don't see who you'd be pointing that comment to. You're the one who's been pointing out now in several cases that Alberta's position is "biased", so perhaps you sound a bit disappointed?

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:37

BTW, Tingkai -- you're a damn fine speedreader.

I suppose you read Alberta's 32-page "made in Canada" counterproposal to Kyoto? I suppose you've watched all the ads and read all the site contents to decide on what's going on? The answer is you haven't, you've been posting on the information being distributed but you haven't read a single word, or if you have very few words, contained in the site.

KrazyHorse · September 24, 2002, 01:38

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Right. Hammer a few to meet the needs of the many. Sounds like something a few 'economists' I've heard of would come up with.

NYE, if the producers get hammered they pass the cost along to consumer...

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
NYE, if the producers get hammered they pass the cost along to consumer...

At which point most Canadians wouldn't support it, Canada would not follow through with Kyoto, but the damage had already been done.

notyoueither · September 24, 2002, 01:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

NYE, if the producers get hammered they pass the cost along to consumer...

Not when our competitors are not so bound and there is a surplus. We shut down.

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Not when our competitors are not so bound and there is a surplus. We shut down.

It'll hammer Canadian producers, but the consumers will just get their energy from virtually every other energy-producing nation in the world, since they're not under Kyoto.

KrazyHorse · September 24, 2002, 01:44

And why wouldn't the Canadian government impose a tariff on petro imports from those who don't produce with same standards (in other words, levelling the playing field). There's no good reason they wouldn try to spread as much of the hurt offshore as possible...

Tingkai · September 24, 2002, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Agreed, but I don't see who you'd be pointing that comment to.

So you admit that the answer to your initial question "Is it propaganda or is it informative?" is: its propaganda.

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
So you admit that the answer to your initial question "Is it propaganda or is it informative?" is: its propaganda.

It's also informative. I agree with Flubber in that it's a mix of both. It's just arguing against Kyoto. It's exactly what the Federal government is doing when it argues in favor of Kyoto.

It's propaganda (it's the government using ads to sway public opinion, that's true by definition here), but it also tells Albertans about potential risks (or probably risks, I should say).

There ain't nothing wrong with that.

If you wanna hear about how Kyoto will save the world, listen to Jean.
If you wanna hear about how Kyoto will destroy your world, listen to Ralph.

Hopefully you've got enough reasoning skills to figure out which is most likely to happen.

Even if Canada follows through with Kyoto, world pollution levels would theoretically fall by a couple tenths of a percent. You'd also have to be quite thickheaded and dimwitted to believe there wouldn't be economic fallout due to the restrictions.

Also, in reality, that pollution has just moved from Canada to other energy producing countries not under Kyoto.

KrazyHorse · September 24, 2002, 01:48

The Kyoto accord is a general set of guidelines for targets. How we implement is entirely up to us. Market-based pollution credits are the most straightforward and transparent means we have to achieve its goals, and its only fair to dock outsiders for not living up to our standards.

This will ensure a "fair" distribution of pain among those who pollute. Energy-intensive industires will of course be hurt the most...since they're doing the most damage.

notyoueither · September 24, 2002, 01:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
And why wouldn't the Canadian government impose a tariff on petro imports from those who don't produce with same standards (in other words, levelling the playing field). There's no good reason they wouldn try to spread as much of the hurt offshore as possible...

Most of our energy is exported to the US. That's why it is such a net asset to the nation, not just Alberta.

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:50

Those of you arguing in favor of Kyoto over the Made In Canada solution, if you're going to keep arguing that you're going to have to post specific faults of the MadeInCanada proposal.

I don't think a single one of you have read it, yet you're all ready to dismiss it in favor of Kyoto.

Tingkai · September 24, 2002, 01:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
I suppose you read Alberta's 32-page "made in Canada" counterproposal to Kyoto? I suppose you've watched all the ads and read all the site contents to decide on what's going on? The answer is you haven't, you've been posting on the information being distributed but you haven't read a single word, or if you have very few words, contained in the site.

Amazing Asher. You can tell what I have read and what I have not.

Fact is, I've read the Alberta government's "plan." It's been available for ages.

Nice try.

KrazyHorse · September 24, 2002, 01:54

And? Aren't most of the emissions produced by the consumption of a litre of gas the result of the end-user's burning? The oil companies should not be docked for the emissions from Canadian gas that US citizens burn, just for the emissions they cause by producing.

Asher · September 24, 2002, 01:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
Amazing Asher. You can tell what I have read and what I have not.

Fact is, I've read the Alberta government's "plan." It's been available for ages.

Nice try.

FAAAAAAAAAAAABULOUS!
How did you read all of the other things though so fast? There's much more than the plan.

ANNNNNNNNNNND

Since you've read the plan, you're able to discuss point by point WHY Kyoto is better than this plan, and address SPECIFIC points of the Alberta plan which are bad.

I've got to go to bed right now, so I REALLY look forward to seeing a long, eloquent post by you! CHEERS! YAY!