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

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

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?

One quick example. Hybrid cars did not exist in 1990 (or at least were not sold to the public). These cars decrease production of greenhouse gases.

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, the hit on cost of producing gas is highest when that gas is going to a canadian consumer. When we export, the hit should be taken by importing country (if a signatory) or not at all (if not a signatory).

[Asher]

I'm also going to be attending a seminar thing by Bob Page, a VP at TransAlta and former dean of Environmental Development Studies at the UofC after my lectures on wednesday. It's on Kyoto's impact on Canada.

And Microsoft is coming to speak to us on thursday with free pizza + pop + software!

LIFE IS GOOD! LIBERAL-BASHING AND MICROSOFT ALL IN ONE WEEK! Orgasmic.

[KrazyHorse]

LIFE IS GOOD! LIBERAL-BASHING AND MICROSOFT ALL IN ONE WEEK! Orgasmic

You're starting to sound frighteningly like Zylka (in tone, if not in content)

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
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.

Asher: we have talked about this dozens of times, but you refuse to pull your head out of your butt and listen. Instead, you continue to state incorrect information.

So what is the point of telling the same things over and over again when you just can't get it.

For instance, the Alberta plan does not require the reduction of pollution. It actually allows more pollution to be created because it measures pollution on a GNP basis. As long as GNP continues to grow, which of course it always will in the long-term, more pollution can be produced.

Simply put, the Alberta plan will not lead to less pollution.

But of course, you won't be able to understand that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
You're starting to sound frighteningly like Zylka (in tone, if not in content)

Two bisexual bipolar college kids from Calgary, is it that surprising?

Asher: we have talked about this dozens of times, but you refuse to pull your head out of your butt and listen. Instead, you continue to state incorrect information.

So what is the point of telling the same things over and over again when you just can't get it.

For instance, the Alberta plan does not require the reduction of pollution. It actually allows more pollution to be created because it measures pollution on a GNP basis. As long as GNP continues to grow, which of course it always will in the long-term, more pollution can be produced.

Simply put, the Alberta plan will not lead to less pollution.

But of course, you won't be able to understand that.

I appreciate your rhetoric filled post, but next time if you'd be so kind please address the question with specific answers, rather than "it sucks, I don't like it" in an overly wordy college-essay like way.

In what ways doesn't Alberta's plan require pollution reduction, for instance?

[Asher]

Alright Tingkai, you've got 7 hours to make a detailed post and change my mind. Don't cop out, I won't love you anymore.

Go!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
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.

The point is that our oil and gas producing competitors around the world will not be bound. We will. We will inflate the cost of oil from Alberta and the Maritimes.

The world will not pay our price just because we are being nice guys and signing Kyoto. They will buy from all the other exporting producers who are not bound, that is how supply, demand, and costs work.

BTW, producing petrochemicals is a very dirty business. Gas burns clean, it stinks to high h*ll when it's being brought out of the ground.

[notyoueither]

Oil is not much cleaner, and the oil sands are not clean at all.

[Tingkai]

Asher: We know that no matter what anyone tells you, you'll never change you'll never change your mind.

Look at your response to my previous point. You completely ignored what was said.

Tell you what. Read through the Albertan "plan" and then find the problems yourself. You obviously haven't given it much serious thought.

[KrazyHorse]

So? This boils down to the argument that we shouldn't sign unless everybod else signs. If we take a hit, we take a hit. Somebody has to be first to stop pissing in the common pool.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Asher: We know that no matter what anyone tells you, you'll never change you'll never change your mind.

Look at your response to my previous point. You completely ignored what was said.

Tell you what. Read through the Albertan "plan" and then find the problems yourself. You obviously haven't given it much serious thought.

C O P O U T !

DETAILS TINGKAI

Must you look up that word? How long's it been since you've lived in Canada anyway?

A blind assertion about tying pollution to GNP doesn't say anything ,but you seem to think it does.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
In other words, the hit on cost of producing gas is highest when that gas is going to a canadian consumer. When we export, the hit should be taken by importing country (if a signatory) or not at all (if not a signatory).

That's not how Kyoto is set up.

[KrazyHorse]

Never mind that if Euro nations are at all consistent they'll be adding tariffs to noncompliant nations' oil...which puts us at a net advantage since market forces (hah...I hate that term) will (hopefully) have driven down the net emissions/litre produced for Canadian oil, while other oil is still dirty...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
So? This boils down to the argument that we shouldn't sign unless everybod else signs. If we take a hit, we take a hit. Somebody has to be first to stop pissing in the common pool.

We shouldn't sign until most of the other polluters sign. They are not signing. I do not see why Canada should tilt at this windmill at this time under these terms.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That's not how Kyoto is set up.

Yes it is. AFAIK, we don't get hurt for the emissions produced by our oil once we've sold it to somebody else...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The point is that our oil and gas producing competitors around the world will not be bound. We will. We will inflate the cost of oil from Alberta and the Maritimes.

The world will not pay our price just because we are being nice guys and signing Kyoto. They will buy from all the other exporting producers who are not bound, that is how supply, demand, and costs work.

BTW, producing petrochemicals is a very dirty business. Gas burns clean, it stinks to high h*ll when it's being brought out of the ground.

A lot of what you say is true, however, you also have to take into account transportation costs. An oil pipeline from Alberta to other parts of Canada and the US will deliver oil at a lot less cost than shipping it from someplace overseas. So even though the oil is produced more cheaply overseas, Canadian oil can remain competitive (although it depends on the magnitude of any additional costs).

As well, there is nothing in the Kyoto agreement that requires countries to reduce pollution caused just by the petrochemical industry and only the pollution from this industry. Greenhouse gases can be reduced in many other areas.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
Never mind that if Euro nations are at all consistent they'll be adding tariffs to noncompliant nations' oil...which puts us at a net advantage since market forces (hah...I hate that term) will (hopefully) have driven down the net emissions/litre produced for Canadian oil, while other oil is still dirty...

Oil is already expensive as all hell in Euroland, and considering that Canada is basically the only major energy producing country to sign Kyoto, you REALLY think they're going to tariff EVERYONE ELSE considering Canada doesnt export much, if any, to euroland anyway?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger
Never mind that if Euro nations are at all consistent they'll be adding tariffs to noncompliant nations' oil...which puts us at a net advantage since market forces (hah...I hate that term) will (hopefully) have driven down the net emissions/litre produced for Canadian oil, while other oil is still dirty...

That's funny. I was going to say that I wouldn't mind at all if Europe guaranteed to buy all we could produce at the higher price and shut out non compliant nations until they bought all we had to sell. But that ain't gonna happen, is it?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
A lot of what you say is true, however, you also have to take into account transportation costs. An oil pipeline from Alberta to other parts of Canada and the US will deliver oil at a lot less cost than shipping it from someplace overseas. So even though the oil is produced more cheaply overseas, Canadian oil can remain competitive (although it depends on the magnitude of any additional costs).

Do you have any ****ing idea how much it costs to extract oil in Alberta these days? They're not sitting around in little happy wells waiting for someone to drill it out!

It costs billions and billions of dollars to even get to the point of extracting the oil from here, transportation costs are miniscule in comparison!

Which is why they plan to cancel most of the tarsands development when Kyoto is signed, the major oil companies are going to look more in the pacific rim for oil

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger


Yes it is. AFAIK, we don't get hurt for the emissions produced by our oil once we've sold it to somebody else...

I'd like to see the Feds, and the Euros say that.

That would end the debate here.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


We shouldn't sign until most of the other polluters sign. They are not signing. I do not see why Canada should tilt at this windmill at this time under these terms.

We've got the Euros and Japanese (IIRC) on board, and right there is 25-30% of the world economy.

This talk about China, India et al being bound as tightly is also a bunch of hogwash, since neither are as big a problem as we are. Pollution is a problem that affects all of us and is caused by all of us. It's unfair to tell countries in the third world that we should be allowed to pollute more per capita than they do because that's the way things are right now.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
We've got the Euros and Japanese (IIRC) on board, and right there is 25-30% of the world economy.

And 2-3% of Canada's economy (trade)

This talk about China, India et al being bound as tightly is also a bunch of hogwash, since neither are as big a problem as we are.

WOW
in what world do you live in?

Sources please for India and China both producing less than 2% of GHG emissions each please

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


A lot of what you say is true, however, you also have to take into account transportation costs. An oil pipeline from Alberta to other parts of Canada and the US will deliver oil at a lot less cost than shipping it from someplace overseas. So even though the oil is produced more cheaply overseas, Canadian oil can remain competitive (although it depends on the magnitude of any additional costs).

As well, there is nothing in the Kyoto agreement that requires countries to reduce pollution caused just by the petrochemical industry and only the pollution from this industry. Greenhouse gases can be reduced in many other areas.

But, I recall seeing that Alberta is by far a bigger polluter per capita than other parts of Canada. That ain't coming from auto factories and cows.

And, our oil is already expensive to produce and a lot of it is of low grade. The gunk they scrape out of the tar sands is not light, sweet crude.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Oil is already expensive as all hell in Euroland, and considering that Canada is basically the only major energy producing country to sign Kyoto, you REALLY think they're going to tariff EVERYONE ELSE considering Canada doesnt export much, if any, to euroland anyway?

Oil is expensive as hell there because of taxes, not because of the cost involved in shipping. In other words, either they give us an import subsidy because the oil comes from clean sources or give everybody else a tariff, or somewhere in between. End cost of gas doesn't go up unless their government decides to push it up...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

And 2-3% of Canada's economy (trade)


WOW
in what world do you live in?

Sources please for India and China both producing less than 2% of GHG emissions each please

snore

Do you not understand that 1 billion people should be allowed 30 times more emissions than 30 million people?

Somewhere, in one of those CS classes they must have taught you how to take a ratio. Each canadian is outputting 5-6 times (?) as much as each chinese. That means that if anybody is asked to cut emissions it should be canada, not china.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Frogger


We've got the Euros and Japanese (IIRC) on board, and right there is 25-30% of the world economy.

This talk about China, India et al being bound as tightly is also a bunch of hogwash, since neither are as big a problem as we are. Pollution is a problem that affects all of us and is caused by all of us. It's unfair to tell countries in the third world that we should be allowed to pollute more per capita than they do because that's the way things are right now.

But not 30% of the pollution.

I agree that telling the third world they cannot develop is not a solution that will work either, however any solution which allows all the factories to move to the third world will simply encourage the cheaper, polluting ventures there. As I have said, the solution is in consumption, not production; but that is not Kyoto.

As far as energy producers are concerned, I would feel better if ANY net exporters were signing, other than Russia (if they are signing). They are not. There might be a reason for that.

[KrazyHorse]

Those net exporters don't have the technological or economic base to grab the opportunity of being inside some sort of Kyoto free trade zone.

Has it occured to any of you that Kyoto signatories will almost certainly see it as in their best interest to introduce protective tariffs against foreign goods produced more cheaply simply because there is no penalty on them for pollution? And that it might be nicer to be inside this border than outside?

There is an obvious primary economic downside to Kyoto...and a few not-so-obvious secondary economic upsides.

Not to mention the biggest upside of all (which I'm sure the Albertan's will poo-poo ): cutting emissions down to a sustainable level...

[CyberGnu]

Asher and notyou, you guys might want to actually READ the Kyoto treaty.

Canada could produce all the oil, coal and natural gas in the world, that would still not count towards Canadas emissions goal. (well, not counting the methane spill to the atmosphere when drilling for oil. But that is a production issue).

The emissions come from the nation that BURNS the fossil fuel, not the one that digs it up.

Jesus Christ on a mental crutch! How the hell can you devote three pages of debate to a topic you haven't even studied?!!!


Now, would the Kyoto treaty hurt Alberta? Maybe, since if the world uses less oil, Alberta will sell less. But this argument reduces back to the one used by conservatives in the US - "I'd rather make a buck now than preserve the earth for my children."

[KrazyHorse]

Cyber, do you have any figures on the ratio of emissions caused by production of a litre of gas compared to emissions caused by its consumption?