Kyoto opposition surges: 72% of Albertans demand Ottawa withdraw from the accord - Page 2

Lawrence of Arabia · October 5, 2002, 22:56

So can you show me the clauses in the treaty which will do this?

KrazyHorse · October 5, 2002, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Quick question: Is it true or not that developing nations do not have to abide by Kyoto?

The only real complaint people have here is that it tells people something they probably didn't know.

All this shows is that, given a bigger picture of the story than Jeany let's on to everyone, most people oppose it than support it.

It doesn't invalidate a damn thing, since the preceding question was a true fact pertaining to Kyoto also. The people criticizing it are doing so because they don't want people to know the "bad" things about Kyoto, and then I guess they don't want it to be asked so less people know about it.

Poor form. People already know it's "going to reduce emissions" since Jeany told everyone that many times, many people do not know developing countries don't need to sign it. So if they know both, they'll be more informed -- which is what will happen anyway after Kyoto is signed.

It's lefties squirming in their seats grasping at straws, is all.

Not to mention

Snooze. You've got your thinkin' cap on loose here. It is, of course, true; that has nothing to with the validity of the study. The study is only as valid as far as it reaches: it is a valid picture of how the average Albertan reacts after being given (or reminded of) piece of information X. It is not a valid prediction of what the average Albertan thinks of it before (or, for that matter, 3 months after) being told that information.

KrazyHorse · October 5, 2002, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
So how much credit does Canada get for all the trees?

None I'll bet. Europe already killed all theirs before 1990 so there is no credit for maintaining forests.

There is so a credit for maintaining forests. If we decrease our carbon sinks (or increase them) or if anybody does so also, they get credited or debited for it. It's among the first few articles.

notyoueither · October 5, 2002, 23:05

The provision to reduce below levels of 12 years ago could be very damaging to some economies. What if certain industries had invested heavily in reducing pollution during the 80's? How much more effecient can they be? More? Yes. 5 or 6% below 12 years ago after 12 years of growth without cutting production and hense jobs? How?

That's just it, many people and many Canadians do not understand this thing enough to make a proper decision. I know I don't.

We have the feds saying 'there, there, it'll be alright'. We have the province of Alberta saying 'Hell, NO!'. Now it looks like Ontario might not like it too much. We need more, better info before we walk the economic plank to Nirvanna or to Davy Jones' locker.

I really want to know what the Province of BC will think about forestation issues. I've heard no discussion of that, although I've been very busy lately and have not gone out of my way to find it.

KrazyHorse · October 5, 2002, 23:07

BC is already maintaining its forest levels (or increasing them, IIRC). There's no punishment for cutting down trees at a sustainable rate, unless you plan to burn it...

notyoueither · October 5, 2002, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

There is so a credit for maintaining forests. If we decrease our carbon sinks (or increase them) or if anybody does so also, they get credited or debited for it. It's among the first few articles.

I'm looking at article 3 posted above, and it doesn't say anything about 'maintaining'. It mentions planting more, and killing more.

You would know better than I, but wouldn't Canada have been a net carbon sink in 1990? And today?

Where is the credit for that?

Giancarlo · October 5, 2002, 23:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
So can you show me the clauses in the treaty which will do this?

Basically the premise of cutting emission levels to 1990 amounts. That could be devastating.

Tingkai · October 5, 2002, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Loif
Nah. We'll just take the western provinces with us and separate. Form our own little country. We could do it. It would take awhile but I think we could support ourselves. Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan, maybe even Manitoba if they could tear themselves away from the East.

There's no bloody way that BC, Saskatchewan or Manitoba will seperate. The vast majority of the people there are loyal Canadians.

As for Alberta, the separatists are a fringe nutgroup, but American oil companies and their buddies will soon be financing this movement so that it can spread more of its propaganda in order to destroy Canada.

This is becoming a battle over more than just Kyoto. It is now a battle to save Canada from people who only care about profits.

KrazyHorse · October 5, 2002, 23:34

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

I'm looking at article 3 posted above, and it doesn't say anything about 'maintaining'. It mentions planting more, and killing more.

You would know better than I, but wouldn't Canada have been a net carbon sink in 1990? And today?

Where is the credit for that?

Nowhere...but we also used more oil per capita than a lot of countries in north europe (which aare also heavily forested).

NYE, Kyoto's about doing better than you're already doing...

Plus, I think it's amazing that you're all getting so worked up already. There aren't even any specific plans on the table. It's going to take a decade to decide how, exactly, Kyoto will be implemented. Right now, ratifying Kyoto is just an agreement in principle that we should reduce our greenhouse gas emissions...

KrazyHorse · October 5, 2002, 23:36

Tingkai, it's okay. Another 20 years of separatist grumbling from Alberta and nobody will take them seriously either.

molly bloom · October 5, 2002, 23:45

My friends in British Columbia used to enjoy wearing a t-shirt that said:

"B.C.- beautiful but dumb"

lamenting its tendency to elect right wing Social Credit governments. They made one for Alberta, too, but it just read :

"Alberta- dumb and dumber."

'Alberta is one of the world's leading oil producers. Oil exploration and development have made significant contributions to Alberta's economy, beginning in 1947 with the Leduc discovery. '

from the Albertan government's website. No self-interest there with regard to the Kyoto treaty then....

notyoueither · October 5, 2002, 23:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
NYE, Kyoto's about doing better than you're already doing...

Plus, I think it's amazing that you're all getting so worked up already. There aren't even any specific plans on the table. It's going to take a decade to decide how, exactly, Kyoto will be implemented. Right now, ratifying Kyoto is just an agreement in principle that we should reduce our greenhouse gas emissions...

I'm not all worked up. Didn't you notice?

I want to know things I do not yet.

I am very reserved about this though. I think it could be a very large imposition to place on Canada without giving us credit for all the pollution reducing things we already did/had/were in 1990.

Ours is exactly the reverse situation of the Russians.

notyoueither · October 5, 2002, 23:48

Quote:

Originally posted by molly bloom
'Alberta is one of the world's leading oil producers. Oil exploration and development have made significant contributions to Alberta's economy, beginning in 1947 with the Leduc discovery. '

from the Albertan government's website. No self-interest there with regard to the Kyoto treaty then....

No sheet Sherlock. The people of Alberta and our government are very concerned about our jobs.

Loif · October 5, 2002, 23:50

Having lived all of my life in both Alberta and British Columbia, I can say that Kyoto is a big mistake. The economies of both provinces will suffer. But then, what the heck does the East care? As long as Ontario and Quebec are happy, all is well in Canada.

Go Ralphie!

Loif · October 5, 2002, 23:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai

There's no bloody way that BC, Saskatchewan or Manitoba will seperate. The vast majority of the people there are loyal Canadians.

As for Alberta, the separatists are a fringe nutgroup, but American oil companies and their buddies will soon be financing this movement so that it can spread more of its propaganda in order to destroy Canada.

This is becoming a battle over more than just Kyoto. It is now a battle to save Canada from people who only care about profits.

Well then call me a nut. I'm tired of putting out for the rest of the country. I live in the richest province in the country, I continually pay higher taxes and continually get pissed on by the feds. If that isn't reason to separate, what is? Quebec's been doing it for years and no one bats an eyelash anymore. Perhaps Alberta should wield it's mighy sword and see what happens. To hell with the federal government I say.

Go Ralphie!

PS: If I recall correctly you are from the East, right Tingkai? Our last go around was regarding the NEP, correct? Shades of PET here...

KrazyHorse · October 5, 2002, 23:57

Quote:

Perhaps Alberta should wield it's mighy sword and see what happens

Not much, trust me.

notyoueither · October 6, 2002, 00:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

Quote:

Perhaps Alberta should wield it's mighy sword and see what happens

Not much, trust me.

Do ya really wanna test it?

KrazyHorse · October 6, 2002, 00:03

Nope. I'd rather Quebec kept its whiny trap shut too...

Loif · October 6, 2002, 00:10

Cripes. Here we go again. Alberta has never paid her dues to the mighty Easterners. See what the country would be like without us. I dare ya.

notyoueither · October 6, 2002, 00:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Nope. I'd rather Quebec kept its whiny trap shut too...

Agreed. I hope the feds do not do something to make seperation a real alternative.

Asher · October 6, 2002, 00:34

About Tingkai's comment about oil companies destroying Canada...

You know you were a lot more amusing when it wasn't so obvious you were either intentionally being a troll or you truly are one of the most stupid left wingers ever to grace Ralph's green Earth.

Tingkai · October 6, 2002, 04:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Loif
Well then call me a nut.

Okay, you're a nut.

Quote:

Originally posted by Loif
I'm tired of putting out for the rest of the country. I live in the richest province in the country, I continually pay higher taxes and continually get pissed on by the feds.

You live in a province where you pay the least amount of taxes, or at least that's what Albertans constantly say.

The amount of federal tax that you pay is no different from people living in other provinces.

Quote:

Originally posted by Loif
If that isn't reason to separate, what is? Quebec's been doing it for years and no one bats an eyelash anymore.

What are you talking about. People throughout Canada continue to challenge the PQ.

Tingkai · October 6, 2002, 04:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Loif
Cripes. Here we go again. Alberta has never paid her dues to the mighty Easterners. See what the country would be like without us. I dare ya.

You have things backwards. You want Alberta to separate. The majority of Canadians want to keep the country together so why would we want to kick Alberta out?

If Alberta separated, Canada would be destroyed and the same thing would happen if any other province left confederation.

Asher · October 6, 2002, 05:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
You have things backwards. You want Alberta to separate. The majority of Canadians want to keep the country together so why would we want to kick Alberta out?

Ask Jean, he's the one pushing Alberta out the door with his policies.

Quote:

If Alberta separated, Canada would be destroyed and the same thing would happen if any other province left confederation.

It's flattering that you see Alberta as the glue for all of the nation, but you're being totally stupid. Canada would not be destroyed if Alberta left, it'd just have a big hole in it and Albertans would be happier.

Tingkai · October 6, 2002, 05:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
About Tingkai's comment about oil companies destroying Canada...

You know you were a lot more amusing when it wasn't so obvious you were either intentionally being a troll or you truly are one of the most stupid left wingers ever to grace Ralph's green Earth.

Says the boy from the oil family.

Everyone knows that oil companies only care about selling oil and profits. Kyoto represents a massive threat because it will reduce the demand for oil. The oil companies will spend millions to stop the agreement.

Ralphie's threat of separating over Kyoto just shows his desparation. He can't fight Kyoto on the facts so he resorts to scare-mongering.

Tingkai · October 6, 2002, 05:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Ask Jean, he's the one pushing Alberta out the door with his policies.

It's flattering that you see Alberta as the glue for all of the nation, but you're being totally stupid. Canada would not be destroyed if Alberta left, it'd just have a big hole in it and Albertans would be happier.

Not only can you not read, you also have a weak understanding of Canada (not that this is a surprise).

The great things about our nation is the diversity of opinions. As much as I dislike the right-wing nuts in Alberta (not that everyone is like that there), they need a place to call their own.

Our nation is built on an east-west axis. Take out any of the blocks and that axis becomes extremely fragile.

More than that, Canada includes Alberta. If Alberta isn't there then what Canada stood for no longer exists. We would only be a partial Canada.

Asher · October 6, 2002, 05:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
Everyone knows that oil companies only care about selling oil and profits. Kyoto represents a massive threat because it will reduce the demand for oil. The oil companies will spend millions to stop the agreement.

Yeah, damn right. God damn those ****ing capitalist bastards. When will they realize that everyone else in the world is "GOOD" and only supports the "COMMON GOOD"? Those damned oil companies -- every single one of them are damn selfish people who WANT to destroy the environment! Those damned oil companies -- every single one of them stereotypes us leftwing treehumping liberals just because we're always right. DAMN THEM ALL! DEATH TO THE OIL COMPANIES! THEY ARE PURE EVIL!

Try something new, Tingkai, that's so trite.

Quote:

Ralphie's threat of separating over Kyoto just shows his desparation. He can't fight Kyoto on the facts so he resorts to scare-mongering.

The fact that you're distorting his comments on such a large scale shows your desparation, Tingkai darling.

You can't fight on the facts so you resort to scare-mongering. The irony of your comments isn't funny anymore, it's depressing.

Asher · October 6, 2002, 05:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai
Not only can you not read, you also have a weak understanding of Canada (not that this is a surprise).

The great things about our nation is the diversity of opinions.

Oh shut the **** up.

Canada would exist just fine without Alberta and you know it. Alberta exists right now and all you do is ignore it, having it leave would only result in less income tax revenue.

You're acting like a ****ing moron. Do you know that?

"Canada would BE DESTROYED if the 3M people we constantly **** on decide to leave"

Do you believe anyone believes a word of what you spew on here?

Helpful hint: If you don't want Alberta to leave, why don't you stop pissing everyone off who lives in the damn province? Canada is an abusive relationship, and enough is enough sometimes.

CyberGnu · October 6, 2002, 06:12

Fez:

Quote:

Basically the premise of cutting emission levels to 1990 amounts. That could be devastating.

So, the Kyoto is flawed because the effects would be devastating.

Well thought out, iron clad argument there.

other arguments from the same school;
"the moon is made of green cheese because green cheese is what the moon is made of"

"elks have wings because wings are attached to elks"

"5 + 2 = 8, because 8 - 2 = 5"

Do you have any non-circular arguments regarding the flaws in the Kyoto?

CyberGnu · October 6, 2002, 06:26

Ahser:

Quote:

Everyone knows that oil companies only care about selling oil and profits. Kyoto represents a massive threat because it will reduce the demand for oil. The oil companies will spend millions to stop the agreement.

Yeah, damn right. God damn those ****ing capitalist bastards. When will they realize that everyone else in the world is "GOOD" and only supports the "COMMON GOOD"? Those damned oil companies -- every single one of them are damn selfish people who WANT to destroy the environment! Those damned oil companies -- every single one of them stereotypes us leftwing treehumping liberals just because we're always right. DAMN THEM ALL! DEATH TO THE OIL COMPANIES! THEY ARE PURE EVIL!

Eh, you are the one equating "oil companies only care about selling oil and profits" with "evil".

Tingkai merely stated a fact. An oil company only care about selling oil and profits. A bakery only cares about selling bread and profit. A nursery home only cares about tending babies and profit.

This is the nature of a company. A company does not, and is not expected to, have a social agenda. That is what the goverment is for. The people set the rules, and the companys sole task is to maximise profits within those rules. If the company deems it cost-effective to try to change those rules, that is up to the company.

You, as a person, should however be wary of the information the company provides you. Ask yourself: is this information the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth? Is it angled or misrepresented? Who stands to gain from the decision this company is trying to influence?

Just basic logic, really... One should ALWAYS ask what ulterior motive a supplier of information has...