Quote
Canada first nation to pull out of Kyoto protocol
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada on Monday became the first country to announce it would withdraw from the Kyoto protocol on climate change, dealing a symbolic blow to the already troubled global treaty.
Environment Minister Peter Kent broke the news on his return from talks in Durban, where countries agreed to extend Kyoto for five years and hammer out a new deal forcing all big polluters for the first time to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Canada, a major energy producer which critics complain is becoming a climate renegade, has long complained Kyoto is unworkable precisely because it excludes so many significant emitters.
"As we've said, Kyoto for Canada is in the past ... We are invoking our legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto," Kent told reporters.
The right-of-center Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which has close ties to the energy sector, says Canada would be subject to penalties equivalent to C$14 billion ($13.6 billion) under the terms of the treaty for not cutting emissions by the required amount by 2012.
"To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car truck, all-terrain vehicle, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle off every kind of Canadian road," said Kent.
Environmentalists quickly blasted Kent for his comments.
"It's a national disgrace. Prime Minister Harper just spat in the faces of people around the world for whom climate change is increasingly a life and death issue," said Graham Saul of Climate Action Network Canada.
Kent did not give details on when Ottawa would pull out of a treaty he said could not work. Canada kept quiet during the Durban talks so as not to be a distraction, he added.
"The writing on the wall for Kyoto has been recognized by even those countries which are engaging in a second commitment," he said. Kyoto's first phase was due to expire at the end of 2012 but has now been extended until 2017.
Kent said Canada would work toward a new global deal obliging all major nations to cut output of greenhouse gases China and India are not bound by Kyoto's current targets.
The Conservatives took power in 2006 and quickly made clear they would not stick to Canada's Kyoto commitments on the grounds it would cripple the economy and the energy sector.
The announcement will do little to help Canada's international reputation. Green groups awarded the country their Fossil of the Year award for its performance in Durban.
"Our government is abdicating its international responsibilities. It's like where the kid in school who knows he's going to fail the class, so he drops it before that happens," said Megan Leslie of the opposition New Democrats.
Canada is the largest supplier of oil and natural gas to the United States and is keen to boost output of crude from Alberta's oil sands, which requires large amounts of energy to extract.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) said all major emitters had to agree to cuts so that Canada did not put itself at a disadvantage.
Canada's former Liberal government signed up to Kyoto, which dictated a cut in emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. By 2009 emissions were 17 percent above the 1990 levels, in part because of the expanding tar sands development.
Kent said the Liberals should not have signed up to a treaty they had no intention of respecting.
The Conservatives say emissions should fall by 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2020, a target that CAPP president David Collyer said would oblige the energy sector to make sacrifices.
"It's a stretch and we'd be kidding ourselves if we said it wasn't," he told Reuters.
($1 = 1.03 Canadian dollars)
(Additional reporting by Louise Egan in Ottawa and Jeffrey Jones in Calgary; editing by Christopher Wilson)
Yes, I'm not sure whether we should be laughing or crying. Kyoto seemed a dead treaty anyway. :mellow:
Anyone know who gets the fines/what they're used for?
I approve.
Feel so sorry for all of you with little children. The future is so bleak. :(
Quote from: Josephus on December 13, 2011, 02:17:46 PM
Feel so sorry for all of you with little children. The future is so bleak. :(
I have faith: in science!
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 02:19:02 PM
I have faith: in science!
Half the world doesn't believe in science, so they're unlikely to support it. It's not like scientific breakthrough happen with some dude teaching college physics and working at home on his spare time.
Quote from: Josephus on December 13, 2011, 02:17:46 PM
Feel so sorry for all of you with little children. The future is so bleak. :(
Bleak? It's just going to be different.
Did we really need to withdraw from it? Who's going to make us pay the fines anyway?
Thank goodness Canada was finally willing to point out that the Kyoto Accord was wearing no clothes.
There was an error in the article though - it was the previous Mulroney PC government who signed on to the Kyoto Accord, although it was the Liberals who finally ratified it. But then Mulroney, and 13 years of Liberal governments, did absolutely nothing to actually reduce carbon emissions. By the time Harper came into power it was already impossible to meet our Kyoto targets.
And if I recall correctly, due to the US not ratifying, and the developing world not having any restrictions put on it, Canada was one of the only countries in the world that would actually be required to make any cuts whatsoever. Europe was saved because 1990 nicely co-incided with the collapse of communism and they were able to just close down a bunch of highly inefficient eastern european factories.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 03:42:47 PMAnd if I recall correctly, due to the US not ratifying, and the developing world not having any restrictions put on it, Canada was one of the only countries in the world that would actually be required to make any cuts whatsoever. Europe was saved because 1990 nicely co-incided with the collapse of communism and they were able to just close down a bunch of highly inefficient eastern european factories.
Where's this country called Europe, pray tell? I only know about a continent with that name.
Quote from: The Larch on December 13, 2011, 03:54:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 03:42:47 PMAnd if I recall correctly, due to the US not ratifying, and the developing world not having any restrictions put on it, Canada was one of the only countries in the world that would actually be required to make any cuts whatsoever. Europe was saved because 1990 nicely co-incided with the collapse of communism and they were able to just close down a bunch of highly inefficient eastern european factories.
Where's this country called Europe, pray tell? I only know about a continent with that name.
:rolleyes:
So tell me - has any European country done anything of substance to reduce greenhouse emissions, or are they just using credits from eastern europe?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F9a%2FRogue_states.png&hash=d46cf515a0262e65809f097dd1966ead9daaa06f)
Time to add a little more green to the map... :mad:
polar bears are going to eat BB.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:01:38 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 13, 2011, 03:54:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 03:42:47 PMAnd if I recall correctly, due to the US not ratifying, and the developing world not having any restrictions put on it, Canada was one of the only countries in the world that would actually be required to make any cuts whatsoever. Europe was saved because 1990 nicely co-incided with the collapse of communism and they were able to just close down a bunch of highly inefficient eastern european factories.
Where's this country called Europe, pray tell? I only know about a continent with that name.
:rolleyes:
So tell me - has any European country done anything of substance to reduce greenhouse emissions, or are they just using credits from eastern europe?
All those windmills they've been installing all over Spain in the last couple of decades must be there just so people can tilt at them, then.
Somalia's not green on the map? I guess they don't consider it a state at all.
Quote from: The Larch on December 13, 2011, 04:10:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:01:38 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 13, 2011, 03:54:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 03:42:47 PMAnd if I recall correctly, due to the US not ratifying, and the developing world not having any restrictions put on it, Canada was one of the only countries in the world that would actually be required to make any cuts whatsoever. Europe was saved because 1990 nicely co-incided with the collapse of communism and they were able to just close down a bunch of highly inefficient eastern european factories.
Where's this country called Europe, pray tell? I only know about a continent with that name.
:rolleyes:
So tell me - has any European country done anything of substance to reduce greenhouse emissions, or are they just using credits from eastern europe?
All those windmills they've been installing all over Spain in the last couple of decades must be there just so people can tilt at them, then.
Seriuosly Larch - the more I keep reading, the more I see that despite the fact that Kyoto itself only has national targets, the EU has only talked about its overall target under Kyoto - which it set to meet.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:01:38 PMSo tell me - has any European country done anything of substance to reduce greenhouse emissions, or are they just using credits from eastern europe?
Germany cut its carbon dioxide emissions by more than 20% since 1990 and it cut most of that after 1995 when most of the East German industry was already dismantled.
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2011, 04:17:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:01:38 PMSo tell me - has any European country done anything of substance to reduce greenhouse emissions, or are they just using credits from eastern europe?
Germany cut its carbon dioxide emissions by more than 20% since 1990 and it cut most of that after 1995 when most of the East German industry was already dismantled.
Got any links?
What I've read is that Europe (to give credit where credit is due) is doing better at slowing the increase in CO2 emissions, but that the sizeable decrease was almost entirely due to eastern europe.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 13, 2011, 04:04:27 PM
Time to add a little more green to the map... :mad:
I remember when it was the 'Terrorist Seven' (you know, because of all those Cuban Terrorists). Now I guess it is the 'Terrorist Five'.
Actually it is the Terrorist Four now. North Korea got removed but the Cubans have not stopped their regime of vile terrorism.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:23:21 PMGot any links?
What I've read is that Europe (to give credit where credit is due) is doing better at slowing the increase in CO2 emissions, but that the sizeable decrease was almost entirely due to eastern europe.
Here is an article on Greenhouse gases in general from our environment agency:
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-presse-e/2011/pe11-020_greenhouse_gases_well_below_the_limit.htm
And here in the upper right corner is a graph on CO2 emissions:
http://www.umweltbundesamt-daten-zur-umwelt.de/umweltdaten/public/theme.do?nodeIdent=2541
EDIT:
Here is a United Nations source which allows you to compare e.g. per capita CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2010 for lots of countries. Canada stagnated, other countries considerably reduced their CO2 emissions per capita. But also lots of European countries that increased their per capita CO2 emissions...
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2011, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:23:21 PMGot any links?
What I've read is that Europe (to give credit where credit is due) is doing better at slowing the increase in CO2 emissions, but that the sizeable decrease was almost entirely due to eastern europe.
Here is an article on Greenhouse gases in general from our environment agency:
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-presse-e/2011/pe11-020_greenhouse_gases_well_below_the_limit.htm
And here in the upper right corner is a graph on CO2 emissions:
http://www.umweltbundesamt-daten-zur-umwelt.de/umweltdaten/public/theme.do?nodeIdent=2541
Okay, so the biggest declines were 1990-1995 from the chart, but still steady declines after that.
How did you manage that?
We made CO2 emissions expensive, mainly by taxes on them, and subsidized energy-saving stuff, e.g. better isolation for houses, and renewable energy production.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:13:38 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 13, 2011, 04:10:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:01:38 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 13, 2011, 03:54:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 03:42:47 PMAnd if I recall correctly, due to the US not ratifying, and the developing world not having any restrictions put on it, Canada was one of the only countries in the world that would actually be required to make any cuts whatsoever. Europe was saved because 1990 nicely co-incided with the collapse of communism and they were able to just close down a bunch of highly inefficient eastern european factories.
Where's this country called Europe, pray tell? I only know about a continent with that name.
:rolleyes:
So tell me - has any European country done anything of substance to reduce greenhouse emissions, or are they just using credits from eastern europe?
All those windmills they've been installing all over Spain in the last couple of decades must be there just so people can tilt at them, then.
Seriuosly Larch - the more I keep reading, the more I see that despite the fact that Kyoto itself only has national targets, the EU has only talked about its overall target under Kyoto - which it set to meet.
The EU might have its own target, but individual countries have them as well. Spain, for instance, increased its emissions beyond its target.
I don't know where you read stuff about EU actions regarding climate change, here's the official website on that:
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F4b%2FKyoto_Parties_with_first_period_%25282008-2012%2529_greenhouse_gas_emissions_limitations_targets_and_the_percentage_change_in_their_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990_and_2009.png%2F704px-Kyoto_Parties_with_first_period_%25282008-2012%2529_greenhouse_gas_emissions_limitations_targets_and_the_percentage_change_in_their_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990_and_2009.png&hash=329c2be5aee9b52ba85fb7268d07b4eb7d42f5bb)
Of the Western European countries, Sweden and UK seem to have reduced their emissions considerably too.
Looks like the Emissions rate went down mostly in former communist states.
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2011, 04:41:48 PM
We made CO2 emissions expensive, mainly by taxes on them, and subsidized energy-saving stuff, e.g. better isolation for houses, and renewable energy production.
Alas, we're too conservative here to even consider such common sense solutions. :(
That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the reason for Canada pulling out...that is, "fuck no one else is doing it, why should we?". That said, I think 20 years from now those still alive will be commenting on how we passed up an opportunity to do something whilst we still can. Cause 20 years from now it will be too late.
Quote from: Valmy on December 13, 2011, 04:26:25 PM
the Cubans have not stopped their regime of vile terrorism.
[derspiess] Damn right. :mad: [/derspiess]
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:01:38 PM
So tell me - has any European country done anything of substance to reduce greenhouse emissions, or are they just using credits from eastern europe?
The UK did a fair bit. I think the former government actually set a target beyond the Kyoto minimum. Not sure if we met that but meeting Kyoto was certainly taken seriously here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 13, 2011, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:01:38 PM
So tell me - has any European country done anything of substance to reduce greenhouse emissions, or are they just using credits from eastern europe?
The UK did a fair bit. I think the former government actually set a target beyond the Kyoto minimum. Not sure if we met that but meeting Kyoto was certainly taken seriously here.
Most of this was accomplished by the move from coal to gas generated electricity, makes a hell of a difference, and by the off-shoring of much of our basic consumer goods. All the rest was window dressing.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:38:34 PM
How did you manage that?
they don't subsidize oil production, maybe? Seriously, why give oil companies money (or tax breaks) when that money could be diverted to encourage clean energy research? This is beyond me that a right-wing government would still be doing that. The Liberals, I understand. But the Cons?
Quote from: viper37 on December 14, 2011, 10:36:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:38:34 PM
How did you manage that?
they don't subsidize oil production, maybe? Seriously, why give oil companies money (or tax breaks) when that money could be diverted to encourage clean energy research? This is beyond me that a right-wing government would still be doing that. The Liberals, I understand. But the Cons?
Why would we do that? Oil is far more useful than 'clean energy'. We want oil companies to be bringing as much oil out of those sands as possible, and climate change is pretty much irrelevant. It'll be fun to see things change, and then change back.
Quote from: The Larch on December 13, 2011, 04:10:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:01:38 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 13, 2011, 03:54:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 03:42:47 PMAnd if I recall correctly, due to the US not ratifying, and the developing world not having any restrictions put on it, Canada was one of the only countries in the world that would actually be required to make any cuts whatsoever. Europe was saved because 1990 nicely co-incided with the collapse of communism and they were able to just close down a bunch of highly inefficient eastern european factories.
Where's this country called Europe, pray tell? I only know about a continent with that name.
:rolleyes:
So tell me - has any European country done anything of substance to reduce greenhouse emissions, or are they just using credits from eastern europe?
All those windmills they've been installing all over Spain in the last couple of decades must be there just so people can tilt at them, then.
If installing windmills is what gets you on the 'Yeah, we are so green!' list the USA is all set.
Americans need not apply.
Why don't we use a lot more natural gas? It's clean and we have a ridiculous amount of it. Serious question.
Don't the same companies that drill for oil also drill for natural gas?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 15, 2011, 02:05:54 AM
Why don't we use a lot more natural gas? It's clean and we have a ridiculous amount of it. Serious question.
Don't the same companies that drill for oil also drill for natural gas?
Oil is just as natural.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 15, 2011, 02:05:54 AM
Why don't we use a lot more natural gas? It's clean and we have a ridiculous amount of it. Serious question.
Don't the same companies that drill for oil also drill for natural gas?
I think the main reason is that gas is simply harder to move around and requires even more expensive infrastructure than oil. But it is much cleaner than coal and oil, gas-fired power stations are probably the best green way forward in the medium term.
In HK, we are reluctant to move to natural gas fully because this requires a substantial capital investment, which will lead to increased electricity prices. The power companies have the technology and capital to do it easily. The problem is that the working class families can't afford the price increase afterwards.
Quote from: Berkut on December 14, 2011, 10:59:38 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 13, 2011, 04:10:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 04:01:38 PM
Quote from: The Larch on December 13, 2011, 03:54:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2011, 03:42:47 PMAnd if I recall correctly, due to the US not ratifying, and the developing world not having any restrictions put on it, Canada was one of the only countries in the world that would actually be required to make any cuts whatsoever. Europe was saved because 1990 nicely co-incided with the collapse of communism and they were able to just close down a bunch of highly inefficient eastern european factories.
Where's this country called Europe, pray tell? I only know about a continent with that name.
:rolleyes:
So tell me - has any European country done anything of substance to reduce greenhouse emissions, or are they just using credits from eastern europe?
All those windmills they've been installing all over Spain in the last couple of decades must be there just so people can tilt at them, then.
If installing windmills is what gets you on the 'Yeah, we are so green!' list the USA is all set.
Flippancy notwhitstanding, making a significative effort to improve the environmental performance in terms of CO2 emissions of energy production is one of the biggest areas of work in the fight against climate change. That's why nuclear energy has been so touted as the main solution in that sense in the last pre-Fukushima years, and why natural gas is slowly replacing oil and coal for energy production.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 15, 2011, 03:39:13 AM
I think the main reason is that gas is simply harder to move around and requires even more expensive infrastructure than oil.
This is my understanding. You have to cool it (and keep it cool?) so that it liquifies and can be transported. That's why most places that produce natural gas as a by product of oil drilling just flare it off. Those are the flames you see at the topps of oil rigs.
Quote from: Neil on December 14, 2011, 10:44:07 PM
Why would we do that?
I knew you were a commie. Subsidizing private corporations is against economic liberalism. We take money from the poor and give it to the rich. And in this case, we give them money so they can pollute even more. Wich is silly. You don't give government grant to incite to bad behavior.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 15, 2011, 02:05:54 AM
Why don't we use a lot more natural gas? It's clean and we have a ridiculous amount of it. Serious question.
It's not clean. It's cleaner than coal and cleaner than oil for sure, but it's not clean. And there can be other problems with the drilling process, apparently, though I remain unconvinced.
The best process would to be use gaz for heating, hydro/nuclear/windmill electricity for everything else. Electric cars in big city would be nice too. A tax reduction would be ok for the new buyers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2011, 08:10:26 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 15, 2011, 03:39:13 AM
I think the main reason is that gas is simply harder to move around and requires even more expensive infrastructure than oil.
This is my understanding. You have to cool it (and keep it cool?) so that it liquifies and can be transported. That's why most places that produce natural gas as a by product of oil drilling just flare it off. Those are the flames you see at the topps of oil rigs.
It can be shipped through a pipeline as a gas. It just requires a separate pipeline network from oil. In places where oil is still hauled away from the well by truck you're probably right. I'm not sure if there are still places like that in this country.
Where I grew up the flares were burning off "sour gas" (gas containing dihydrogen sulfide) which is highly toxic and not safe to pipe into buildings. Even there there was a movement 10 years ago or so to eliminate these and use the gas for electric generation. I don't know how that has progressed since.