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

[KrazyHorse]

NYE seemed to insinuate that production might actually be more polluting than consumption...

[CyberGnu]

Depends on where it is produced. You always get loads of methane with the oil, which in some cases (such as Canada) is pipelined to market, but in some cases (such as Africa) is just burned because it cannot be transported.

[CyberGnu]

Although, some of the methane is usually burned to generate liquid CO2, which is injected in the oil bed to force the oil to the surface. IIRC, about 60% of the oil in an oilfield is pumped by this method. I don't know how much CO2 has to be injected, though...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
well, not counting the methane spill to the atmosphere when drilling for oil. But that is a production issue

Ahem. Yes, it's a production issue, and i'm sorry, but I have to pay attention that as a resident of an energy producing jurisdiction...

Do you have any idea how much refining goes into a barrel of oil produced from bitumin?

[CyberGnu]

Refining, as in the chemical term? Very little.

Are you referring to the extraction? Well, that is up to Canada, isn't it? The main part of the energy cost comes from steam generation, which could be done with nuclear or hydroelectric power.

[notyoueither]

Well, actually the jurisdiction is Alberta's, but let's never mind that...

[CyberGnu]

So?

[CyberGnu]

Just read through the proposed alternative to the Kyoto. It summarizes quite well to "let's pretend we're behind every single point in the Kyoto but make sure we don't actually sign it, thus reducing the chance that other nations implement it and we can continue selling oil."

Impressing reading, though. Someone spent a lot of creativity on this. For example:

"Keeping investment money in Canada to re-tool our own economy and meet our own targets rather than sending
dollars to other countries for emission credits."

Which differs from the Kyoto how? The insinuation that Canada would somehow be FORCED to buy credits is beautiful. Sort of like the 'Today the Captain was sober' comment. No actual lies, just insinuations.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
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...

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I never said the cost of shipping was high, which was why it was ridiculous for Tingkai to assume "low costs of shipping" would help out.

Alberta oil is expensive as hell not just because of taxes, but because most of it isn't the typical oil well stuff. It costs a fortune and takes a TON of investment to get the oil out of the oilsands -- something most companies aren't willing to do when the government's breathing down their back of reducing emissions when they want to expand production (and oil sands emissions are quite a bit higher than regular oil...). So much so, in fact, that they're planning to put the oil sands on "indefinite hold" and look at oil in the pacific rim if Kyoto passes in Canada.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
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.

Funny, but I don't think you understand.

Canada will have more emissions, even as a ratio, than China and India -- not because we want to, but we have to. It costs far more to heat stuff in Canada than it would in most of India and China, not to mention how everyone lives so far apart in Canada that lots of transportation is necessary.

AND I don't know if you know this -- but India and China are full of many people which don't even have electricty! Comparing emissions per capita is a joke, spare me of it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by 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."

We've read the treaty -- I don't think you understand.

Kyoto doesn't give Canada credit for our clean gas exports, namely Natural Gas.

The way Kyoto is set up, it WILL discourage further development of Alberta's oil industry. Not just from less demand (that's hardly the case, the US will demand just as much as it always did and pick up slack left off in Canada), but because the government's going to be breathing down their neck to get the emissions DOWN while these companies want to EXPAND and develop more. You have a hard time justifying opening a HUGE new plant that would pollute a hellofa lot (do you know how bitumen upgraders work??) when the government will likely be behind schedule anyway.

Poor troll, very condescending, shows lack of knowledge about the whole situation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Just read through the proposed alternative to the Kyoto. It summarizes quite well to "let's pretend we're behind every single point in the Kyoto but make sure we don't actually sign it, thus reducing the chance that other nations implement it and we can continue selling oil."

Impressing reading, though. Someone spent a lot of creativity on this. For example:

"Keeping investment money in Canada to re-tool our own economy and meet our own targets rather than sending
dollars to other countries for emission credits."

Which differs from the Kyoto how? The insinuation that Canada would somehow be FORCED to buy credits is beautiful. Sort of like the 'Today the Captain was sober' comment. No actual lies, just insinuations.

Um...
Why wouldn't we be forced to buy credits? We're a net exporter nation of energy, the only one to sign Kyoto, and the rest of the countries decided not to give us credit for our clean gas exports (which would DRASTICALLY reduce our emissions goal) because they'd prefer we buy more credits from them.

Do you even know why Alberta has problems with Kyoto, or are you just dumbing it down to "because they're right wing and just don't like it"? There are fundamental flaws in how Kyoto is structured, which is why Alberta wants to implement something similar without those flaws -- we'd still be reducing emissions, just not at our expense and the benefit of the EU.

[Asher]

Tingkai, you lose because of your refual to actually debate about the counterproposal. yay you.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Tingkai, you lose because of your refual to actually debate about the counterproposal. yay you.

Unlike you Asher, I have a life.

I have explain the basic problem with the Ralphie's/oil industry's so-called plan. A bigger problem, at least in terms of this discussion, Asher, is that you don't understand Kyoto and you don't understand the so-called counterproposal.

The Alberta plan allows for more pollution, not less. It does nothing.

Ralphie is waving a piece of paper and saying "We have a plan" like Chamberlain said "We have peace in our time." Ralphie's plan is meaningless.

As stated before, the Alberta plan measures pollution per GDP. As long as GDP increases, which it will in the long run, the Albertans can produce more pollution as long as the increase in pollution is less than the increase in GDP.

And if the pollution targets are not met, the Albertan government will simply shrug and say "oh well, we tried."

This plan does nothing, and that's why the oil industry loves it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

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!

Very good Asher. You're learning some basic concepts of business. Yes, it does cost money to produce things. And guess what? The oil companies make billions in revenue by selling the oil and they make millions in profits.

Getting Canadian oil out of the ground costs more than getting Middle East oil out of the ground. So how does this more expensive Canadian oil compete with the cheaper Middle East oil? Cheaper transportation costs.

Basic economics.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
Canada will have more emissions, even as a ratio, than China and India -- not because we want to, but we have to. It costs far more to heat stuff in Canada than it would in most of India and China, not to mention how everyone lives so far apart in Canada that lots of transportation is necessary.

Is Canada using more energy for heating per capita than say, Sweden, Norway, Finland, or Iceland?

Maybe you want to ask yourself why Canadians use that much energy in heating. When the cost of fuel is low, there is no economic incentive to invest in energy efficiency.

The Oil Crisis did a lot of good to the US auto industry. Before that, Detroit knew nothing of fuel efficiency.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Unlike you Asher, I have a life.

I refuse to believe it!

I have explain the basic problem with the Ralphie's/oil industry's so-called plan. A bigger problem, at least in terms of this discussion, Asher, is that you don't understand Kyoto and you don't understand the so-called counterproposal.

Considering I haven't even made any comments on the counterpropsal, that's just more proof that you're not looking at any facts but just dismissing it outright because of its origin.

The Alberta plan allows for more pollution, not less. It does nothing.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING?

As stated before, the Alberta plan measures pollution per GDP. As long as GDP increases, which it will in the long run, the Albertans can produce more pollution as long as the increase in pollution is less than the increase in GDP.

So in other words, it places a cap on the pollution rate? The reason he prefers doing it in terms of GDP is because Alberta's GDP has exploded since 1990, because production has exploded. "Reducing emissions" is not as simple as making things more efficient, things need to close down to meet the quota -- which also halts future development. Tying it to the GDP doesn't damage the economy but also sets pollution restrictions.

The way you phrase it acts like Alberta's plan is to increase pollution.

Going to 1990 levels ain't going to help anything baby -- 1990 levels sucked too. Restricting pollution growth to be related to the GDP doesn't invalidate the proposal. It's called a different approach to being responsible with pollution. Kyoto is set up in a way that will crush the energy industry in Alberta, and the consumers will likely not feel much of the wrath of it as they'll get their energy from elsewhere.

And if the pollution targets are not met, the Albertan government will simply shrug and say "oh well, we tried."

And who will invade Canada when it doesn't fully comply with Kyoto?

Give it a break, Tingkai, you're comment there can be directed towards Kyoto too. You do realize that, right?

Very good Asher. You're learning some basic concepts of business. Yes, it does cost money to produce things. And guess what? The oil companies make billions in revenue by selling the oil and they make millions in profits.

Getting Canadian oil out of the ground costs more than getting Middle East oil out of the ground. So how does this more expensive Canadian oil compete with the cheaper Middle East oil? Cheaper transportation costs.

Basic economics.

ABSOLUTELY STUNNING!
You have once again shown a remarkable stupidity and you still don't have a frickin' clue that you are.

There is already lots of problems with foreign investment in Alberta oil: We've got a federal government with a long history of ineptidude and meddling with Alberta's energy, the oil is expensive to get out of the ground, and it requires state of the art technology to do so.

It competes with Middle Eastern oil because royalties in Alberta are a fraction of what they were in the middle east, as well as transportation costs. It also has to do with the fact that the middle eastern oil is in the middle east, and not local.

I don't know why you're trying to explain to me how the oil business works, but it's funny as all hell.

The facts are simple and obvious: To reduce emissions to 1990 levels, energy production in Canada will need to be cut back. There is simply NO other way about it. Almost all of the plants are very modern and employ advanced pollution control already, there's no magic technology which will allow us to cut emissions and keep production. Even if it did, it wouldn't allow expansion of the industry.

It is also indisputable fact that Exxon, ChevronTexaco, BP-Amoco, and Shell will halt Alberta tarsands development after the Athabasca site opens in 2003 if Kyoto is passed. This is a MAJOR blow in and of itself -- do you have any idea how many jobs would be created by it? How much royalties would be generated by it? How much the GDP would increase??

Why must you ignore that and dance around like a happy faery telling us everything is all good?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is Canada using more energy for heating per capita than say, Sweden, Norway, Finland, or Iceland?

I have no idea, what is your point?

Maybe you want to ask yourself why Canadians use that much energy in heating. When the cost of fuel is low, there is no economic incentive to invest in energy efficiency.

Everyone uses natural gas here for heating -- you got a better idea smartass?

Shoo. I will never understand why you would bother reading a Canadian thread.

[Tingkai]

Asher, You're just an apologist for polluters. What you want is for consumer to buy more gas, regardless of what it does to the environment.

Originally posted by Asher
So in other words, it places a cap on the pollution rate?

No it allows more pollution during the next 20 years. The Alberta plan does not reduce pollution levels. That's why it is useless.

If GDP is increasing at 3 per cent a year, in 20 years, so Alberta's so-called cap allows pollution levels to increase by about 80 per cent.

If that isn't enough, the Alberta plan allows even more pollution. The plan simply says that GDP will be used as a measuring stick, not real GDP (GDP minus the effect of inflation) In 2001, Alberta's nominal GDP grew by 6.9 per cent.

So the Alberta plan could allow pollution to increase by more than 300%.

What a great plan.

Originally posted by Asher
Going to 1990 levels ain't going to help anything baby -- 1990 levels sucked too.

Kyoto reduces pollution which is far better than the Alberta plan that allows a massive increase in pollution.

Originally posted by Asher
Kyoto is set up in a way that will crush the energy industry in Alberta, and the consumers will likely not feel much of the wrath of it as they'll get their energy from elsewhere.

Absolute rubbish.

The Kyoto plan is an international agreement. If Canada does not meet its obligations than it will be shamed on the world stage.

More than that, Kyoto is the first step towards a global effort to reduce pollution. The agreement will be followed by stronger agreements.

The Alberta plan is nothing but a piece of paper.

Originally posted by Asher
There is already lots of problems with foreign investment in Alberta oil:

You have repeated stated that oil production increased substantially during the 1990s. Therefore, there is no shortage of investment.

Originally posted by Asher
I don't know why you're trying to explain to me how the oil business works, but it's funny as all hell.

Because you obviously don't understand the basic economics of the oil industry. You're treating it as if oil is a normal good. It is not. The supply of oil is inelastic, meaning that the supply of oil is not very responsive to increases in price.

If the cost of producing oil increases in Canada, this does not mean that oil production shuts down. The nature of the oil industry creates high profit margins. Higher costs will simply reduce those profits, but likely not to a point where companies will be able to achieve higher profit margins by investing elsewhere.

Originally posted by Asher
The facts are simple and obvious: To reduce emissions to 1990 levels, energy production in Canada will need to be cut back.

Wrong!

We can reduce emissions by switching to cleaner fuels so the overall energy production remains unchanged.

The oil industry will sell less gasoline as consumers switch to more efficient and less polluting vehicles.

Nothing wrong with that.

Of course, you want Canadians to use more gasoline regardless of the environmental costs just so the oil industry makes more money.

Originally posted by Asher
It is also indisputable fact that Exxon, ChevronTexaco, BP-Amoco, and Shell will halt Alberta tarsands development after the Athabasca site opens in 2003 if Kyoto is passed.

What a complete load of crap. The tar sands threat is simply a threat, motivated by politics. The oil industry is trying to scare the public with its BS. If Kyoto is passed, the oil sands development could just as likely go ahead as not.

The oil industry doesn't like Kyoto because it means they'll be able to sell less gas and that's all they care about. They don't give a sh!t about pollution, and obviously neither do you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Asher, You're just an apologist for polluters. What you want is for consumer to buy more gas, regardless of what it does to the environment.

I'm always an apologist for someone, aren't I? Can't you guys ever think of something more creative? It's not even grounded in reality most of the time, it's just a pathetic attempt at a slam on me. You need to work on it.

Anyway, I don't want the consumer to buy more gas, I've never said anything of the sort. The problem with Kyoto is it's not the consumers who will get slammed -- it's the producers. Namely, Canada's energy provinces. Why do you think they're against it? They know what will happen, and so does Ottawa -- but those energy producing provinces are minorities -- and in the grand scheme of things Chretien's party doesn't need those provinces to be reelected.

No it allows more pollution during the next 20 years. The Alberta plan does not reduce pollution levels. That's why it is useless.

That's also why it's the only one that will actually work. Why don't you look at the world realistically for once rather than ideally?

You seem to forget the fact that our largest trade partners (by far), our only neighbors, and ALL energy competitors have NOT signed the treaty -- and you still think it'll actually do something.

The last 22 years have been those of unprecented growth. Kyoto is about reducing pollution, which looks really nice on paper until you actually understand the gross ramifications of it. The answer is restricting pollution in the future.

You STILL seem to think almost everyone in Canada's going to sell their existing cars for a hybrid (have you looked at the pricetag and the features for those cars lately?). It's not going to happen. And instead of being forced out of office by discontented citizens, Ottawa will target the major polluter companies, which happens to be the energy companies for the most part. They already don't like Ottawa, what is there to lose?

The Kyoto plan is an international agreement. If Canada does not meet its obligations than it will be shamed on the world stage.

We don't meet our obligations now with regards to peacekeeping and no one seems to care...

I don't think Canada's more worried about being shamed than they are about paying HUGE sums of money, losing jobs, etc -- when their neighbors to the states are pointing and laughing at them.

The Alberta plan is nothing but a piece of paper.

And Kyoto is the REAL DEAL! LOL!

You have repeated stated that oil production increased substantially during the 1990s. Therefore, there is no shortage of investment.

The problem isn't shortage of investment NOW, it's shortage of investment when the federal government needs to meet its quotas and the consumers don't bend (which they WON'T -- you KNOW this deep down), and producers get slammed.

It's a VERY uncertain future while Kyoto is around, which is why it's discouraging investment. There are other oil fields to develop, the US companies prefer to do Alberta's now since it's close and in a non-middle east country, but it already costs a lot of money. Add in government whining about pollution and they're going to go away -- not speculation, pure fact based on what the major oil companies are planning to do.

Because you obviously don't understand the basic economics of the oil industry. You're treating it as if oil is a normal good. It is not. The supply of oil is inelastic, meaning that the supply of oil is not very responsive to increases in price.

Um...you do know how wildly production rates change at wells/plants depending on how much is demanded, right? IIRC, Hibernia runs at somewhere like 30-60% capacity on average right now.

You act like it's constant.

If the cost of producing oil increases in Canada, this does not mean that oil production shuts down.

No, but it's not the cost that will shut it down -- it's the government who need to meet their quotas to prevent an international "shaming" (as you put it), because the consumers don't ever budge.

How convenient is it for the Liberals to be reelected when they give the Alberta economy the shaft again -- they've done it before, what's stopping them from doing it again? Answer that honestly.

We can reduce emissions by switching to cleaner fuels so the overall energy production remains unchanged.

Where do these cleaner fuels magically come from? What happens to the plants/wells/mines for the old fuels? Have you thought this through at all?

Of course, you want Canadians to use more gasoline regardless of the environmental costs just so the oil industry makes more money.

Another red herring -- never said anything close to the sort. Try harder, Tingkai, this is laughable.

What a complete load of crap. The tar sands threat is simply a threat, motivated by politics.

Um...no, it's not a threat. I don't even think they've stated it publically.

I know this because "someone I know" is managing ChevronTexaco's portion of the oilsands project. If Kyoto passes, he moves to Australia to head up a new project along with the rest of the team. No joke.

Keep trying, Tingkai, you're almost there.

[Tingkai]

Asher, that was truly a pathetic response.

I love the comment that Alberta's plan is "the only the only one that will actually work."

Sure, if you create a plan that allows a massive increase in pollution, it will undoubtably work. Ralphie is saying "we have a plan, and the plan is to do nothing." And at the end of the day, some future Albertan premier will be able to say: "We promised to do nothing about pollution, and we did nothing."


Repeat after me: The Alberta plan allows a massive increase in pollution. It does not reduce pollution. It is useless.

The rest of your comments add nothing new.

By the way, I said the supply of oil is inelastic (relatively unresponsive to price changes) compared to the average product. I did not say the supply of oil is constant. You do see the difference don't you? Probably not.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Asher, that was truly a pathetic response.

I love the comment that Alberta's plan is "the only the only one that will actually work."

Sure, if you create a plan that allows a massive increase in pollution, it will undoubtably work.

You do realize that the plan places restrictions on pollution growth, right?

I know environmentalists and lefties alike love living in their dreamworld, proudly stating with their hand deep down in their pants: "Kyoto is cool, the world will be a better place with Kyoto. People won't be affected, but pollution will go away, all is good."

It's laughable.

Ralphie is saying "we have a plan, and the plan is to do nothing."

Do you not understand the concept of restriction of pollution growth or what? To you it's "go to 1990 levels" otherwise it's doing nothing? Why don't we just revert to 1890 levels just for the hell of it?

Repeat after me: The Alberta plan allows a massive increase in pollution. It does not reduce pollution. It is useless.

The Alberta plan restricts pollution increase. Pollution increase is inevitable in today's world -- deal with it. You're living in an absolute dreamworld if you think we can reduce to 1990 levels without castrating large parts of our economy. It might be easy for countries in Europe to meet Kyoto, but with the rate of growth Canada's energy field has seen since 1990, as well as their refusal to accept our natural gas exports as a clean gas export, it makes absolutely no sense for Canada to sign it. We're getting a raw deal, shafted by the European countries which want us to buy credits from them since it's not a big issue for them, while it is for us.

By the way, I said the supply of oil is inelastic (relatively unresponsive to price changes) compared to the average product. I did not say the supply of oil is constant. You do see the difference don't you? Probably not.

It's still grossly incorrect -- Supply of oil is anything but inelastic, what do you think OPEC is for? Why do you think production rates wildly change? The oil reserves somewhat limit the "elasticity" of it, but oil is remarkably elastic as a supply. Anyone with a faint clue about how the oil industry works would tell you that.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
You do realize that the plan places restrictions on pollution growth, right?

Do you realize there is a difference between restricting pollution growth and cutting pollution?

The Alberta plan allows for a massive increase in pollution.

Most people recognize that pollution is a problem, it needs to be cut and people are willing to pay more to cut pollution.

Then there are the oil industry people, and their families who only care about lining their own pockets.

Originally posted by Asher
To you it's "go to 1990 levels" otherwise it's doing nothing?

Wrong. What people want is to reduce pollution. 1990 levels are just a benchmark. The most important thing is to cut pollution, not let expand like in the Alberta plan.

Originally posted by Asher
Pollution increase is inevitable in today's world -- deal with it.

Wrong. As technology develops we create clearner methods of achieving higher productivity. We've been doing it for 25 years. To deny this is to deny the fact that cars are far more fuel efficient today than they were in 1975.

Originally posted by Asher
Supply of oil is anything but inelastic, what do you think OPEC is for?

You've just proven that the supply of oil is inelastic. The ability of OPEC to control the supply of oil reflects the inelasticity of the supply. If oil was a normal good than OPEC would not be able to operate.

Inelasticity does not mean that supply is constant. Of course, when prices rises there will be changes in supply, but not to the extent of normal goods. The reason is that there is a finite amount of supply and price cannot change that fact.

With a normal good, higher prices will entice more producers into the market to the point where supply increases, prices fall.

You need to learn more about economics if you're going to discuss this.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Do you realize there is a difference between restricting pollution growth and cutting pollution?

Yes, and I've never said they were the same thing. Do you realize that even in 1990 the levels were "too high"? Of course you do. This allows for MASSIVE DAMAGE TO OUR WORLD! The only logical solution is to ditch all forms of energy and go back to the stoneage.

Who's with me?

Wrong. What people want is to reduce pollution.

Wrong. What Kyoto and environmentalists want is to reduce pollution. What people want to hear is how we're going to reduce pollution without economic impact -- but that's not going to happen and you know it.

As technology develops we create clearner methods of achieving higher productivity. We've been doing it for 25 years. To deny this is to deny the fact that cars are far more fuel efficient today than they were in 1975.

No one has denied such a thing.
But the problem is, the use of it rises faster than it becomes more efficient. Basic concept, no?

Cars now pollute FAR less than they did in 1930, but overall pollution is higher. Guess why, buddy!

You've just proven that the supply of oil is inelastic. The ability of OPEC to control the supply of oil reflects the inelasticity of the supply. If oil was a normal good than OPEC would not be able to operate.

Inelasticity does not mean that supply is constant. Of course, when prices rises there will be changes in supply, but not to the extent of normal goods. The reason is that there is a finite amount of supply and price cannot change that fact.

With a normal good, higher prices will entice more producers into the market to the point where supply increases, prices fall.

You need to learn more about economics if you're going to discuss this.

Price elasticity of supply, yes yes, but you're not applying it correctly. That bullshit doesn't work with oil, since it's not a "free market".

[Asher]

A summary of what's going to happen, and what Tingkai has conveniently kept ignoring/dismissing:

Canada is the only major energy-exporting nation to pledge support for Kyoto. How does this NOT put Canada at a huge disadvantage when attracting investment to our energy industry? Do be thorough.

Canada is NOT going to receive credit for natural gas exports as a clean gas because "majority rules" and the majority of other countries benefit from us needing to buy credits from them, so we don't get credit. That's fair, ain't it?

The only way to curb pollution to 1990 levels is to curb production to around 1990 levels -- There have not been huge leaps in technology in the past dozen years which drastically reduce pollution.

Most consumers will not bend over substantially to support Kyoto -- they'll expect the big nasty corporations to do it. Or more accurately, that's who Ottawa will go after to meet the quota without angering most Canadians.

Pollution levels in 1990 were still "bad", and the largest polluters in the world aren't going to sign Kyoto. What are we doing, again? Cripple Canada's economy so we can "reduce" pollution from Canada by a couple tenths of a percent, when the reality is that pollution has just moved to another country?

[KrazyHorse]

The only way to curb pollution to 1990 levels is to curb production to around 1990 levels -- There have not been huge leaps in technology in the past dozen years which drastically reduce pollution

Full of ****.

a) There have been some significant improvements in energy efficiency

b) Not all production is equal. Kyoto will have the effect of increasing production of low-emissions products at the expense of high-emissions products. Assuming all else constant, of course, there will be a net loss...but nothing close to a straight-line loss due to restrictions on emissions

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
Full of ****.

a) There have been some significant improvements in energy efficiency

Some examples would be great. To be valid, they must fit in the following categories:

Affordable

Useful

Realistic (IE: saying "hybrid cars" is not realistic as they cost a fortune, are underpowered, and would require nearly everyone in Canada buy a new car)

b) Not all production is equal. Kyoto will have the effect of increasing production of low-emissions products at the expense of high-emissions products. Assuming all else constant, of course, there will be a net loss...but nothing close to a straight-line loss due to restrictions on emissions

No, but the straight-line loss is due to businesses moving south of the border where they don't put up with Kyoto.

[KrazyHorse]

Plot emissions/capita versus GDP per capita over the last ten years...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
Plot emissions/capita versus GDP per capita over the last ten years...

That would be great, thanks.

[CyberGnu]

We've read the treaty -- I don't think you understand.

Kyoto doesn't give Canada credit for our clean gas exports, namely Natural Gas.

The way Kyoto is set up, it WILL discourage further development of Alberta's oil industry. Not just from less demand (that's hardly the case, the US will demand just as much as it always did and pick up slack left off in Canada), but because the government's going to be breathing down their neck to get the emissions DOWN while these companies want to EXPAND and develop more. You have a hard time justifying opening a HUGE new plant that would pollute a hellofa lot (do you know how bitumen upgraders work??) when the government will likely be behind schedule anyway.

Poor troll, very condescending, shows lack of knowledge about the whole situation.

Funny, I didn;t meant to be condescending the fist time, but when I'm forced to repeat the exact same post twice because you didn;t read it the first time, it is hard to leave condescension out...


There is no such thing as 'producer responsibility' in the Kyoto.

Let me try to explain it by absurd extremes. Let's assume that Canada tomorrow decides to stop BURNING fossil fuels completely. Canada will, however, EXPORT 5 trillion tons.

What would Canadas total emissions be?

0 tons.

Now let's assume that Canada decides to allow the burning of 10 tons of ossil fuels per year, while EXPORTING 582 trillion tons.

What would Canadas total emissions be?

10 tons.

How about if Canada allows the burning of 38 tons, while EXPORTS 486632554543849994365 trillion tons?

Yep, the total emissions would be 38 tons.


I do hope you see the connection, or rather lack of connection here. The Kyoto doesn't give a rats ass about how much fossil fuel you export. It is the consumer who pays, that is it.


Now, would world demand drop, and consequently Albertas production? Well, hopefully. But again, using this as an argument reduces to "I'd rather make a buck now than save the earth".

You are of course welcome to make that argument. Just don't try to camoflauge it in some pseudo-science.