Ottawa dashes hope for climate treaty
Old 10-23-2009, 09:50 AM   #1 (permalink)
contemplating

The Killing Joke

 
Claudius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Burkina Faso, Disputed Zone
Posts: 10,030
Representing:
Send a message via MSN to Claudius
Default Ottawa dashes hope for climate treaty

Quote:
But Canada will continue to insist that it should have a less aggressive target for emission reductions than Europe or Japan because of its faster-growing population and energy-intensive industrial structure, Mr. Prentice said in an interview Thursday.

Canadians must also recognize that any national emissions cap has to reflect differing conditions across the country so as not to punish high-growth provinces, he added. The minister has been consulting with provinces on a plan that would impose a cap on industrial emissions, but allow Alberta's energy-intensive, emissions-heavy oil sands to continue expanding.

“The Canadian approach has to reflect the diversity of the country and the sheer size of the country, and the very different economic characteristics and industrial structure across the country,” he said in a telephone interview.

However, Ottawa will not release its detailed climate-change plan, including its proposed emissions caps on large emitters such as oil sands and power plants, until there is more clarity on how the United States intends to proceed in global climate-change talks in Copenhagen in December, and on what an international treaty would look like, the minister added.
Ottawa dashes hope for climate treaty in Copenhagen - The Globe and Mail



I'm glad that we're waiting on the US to see what they're going to do. There was a point in history when Canada saw itself as a sovereign nation that had the ability to actually influence change. What a shame.

Oh and I wonder what Jim Prentice will say when we exhaust our resources? Oh wait, let's not subject ourselves to long term outlooks and thinking. Yup, that would be silly. However, Bravo on actually recognizing the role developing nations must play in this economy. However, isn't it ironic that we (the collective we) were allowed the benefits of the industrial revolution but developing nations aren't allowed?
Claudius is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 10:14 AM   #2 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,592
Representing:
Default

Well hey, we've decided to regress 30 years and become a Resource nation again, slave to anyone who may want to buy what we have.

Awesome stuff really.

The Canadian myth of being clean and progressively persuing sustainable living is such bullshit it isn't funny. I'm embarrassed to be Canadian when this topic comes up.
Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 10:35 AM   #3 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Grrrr...really don't want to get into this, but we shouldn't sign the damn treaty. Where in the article does it say that we are waiting for the US, It says the opposite that the damn treaty does not fit with what Canada wants.

Even if it did say , we have to wait for the USA, I wouldn't have a problem with it. They are our partners, and we are (like it or not) married to them.



BAHHHHHHHHHHHHH damn you CG
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 10:47 AM   #4 (permalink)
landry fields forever

Administrator

 
Acie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 21,763
Representing:
Default

So being to the good to the enviroment is bad for the economy.

What these guys fail to realise or choose to ignore is that without a healthy planet their will be no economy.
Acie is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 10:54 AM   #5 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acie View Post
So being to the good to the enviroment is bad for the economy.

What these guys fail to realise or choose to ignore is that without a healthy planet their will be no economy.
20 years ago we were worried about the second comming of the ice age.

2 years ago Gore told us we were going to burn in the firey hell of Global Warming

NOW......whoops...not Global warming.,....its "climate change".

Each time, the nut jobs want to revolt against industry like they are the direct cause of whatever is going on, and then change the cause when their crusade is proven defunkt.

I have had enough....Kyoto would have fucking crippled us, and forced to pay countries that don't have to live up to the same rules.


In short being nice to the world is fine....overestemating our effect on it and willing to compromise industry on unproven mumbo jumbo is not.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:22 AM   #6 (permalink)
landry fields forever

Administrator

 
Acie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 21,763
Representing:
Default

Typical right-wing zealot answer.
Acie is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:28 AM   #7 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acie View Post
Typical right-wing zealot answer.
zealot? Oh geez....

I knew I shouldn't have posted here.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:28 AM   #8 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,592
Representing:
Default

totally, because hey, everything is fine and were on a GREAT path as a planet.

Fuck, Benzo, if you're gonna suppor tthe rich, please become rich so we can at least get free raps tickets from you?????
Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:30 AM   #9 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superjudge View Post
totally, because hey, everything is fine and were on a GREAT path as a planet.

Fuck, Benzo, if you're gonna suppor tthe rich, please become rich so we can at least get free raps tickets from you?????
This makes no sense....By "saving the planet" we are supporting the poor?

Programs like this would put so many people out of work it isnt even funny, creating more poor....so in essence I am supporting the employeed. The is no proof that we have any detrimental effect on the planet.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:32 AM   #10 (permalink)
the next dictator of MLSE

fresh and clean
 
Windex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: uʍop ɹǝpun
Posts: 22,524
Representing:
Default

just curious
where is the technology that is going to offset the need for conventional "harmful" fuels
In the mean time you can expect increased taxes for the same type of energy
Windex is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:33 AM   #11 (permalink)
landry fields forever

Administrator

 
Acie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 21,763
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
zealot? Oh geez....

I knew I shouldn't have posted here.


Just trying to get you all fired up.

Two things I don't discuss - politics or religion.
Acie is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:49 AM   #12 (permalink)
is pounding the rock!

Senior Member
 
Superjudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,592
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windex View Post
just curious
where is the technology that is going to offset the need for conventional "harmful" fuels
In the mean time you can expect increased taxes for the same type of energy
well we were working on it about 20 years ago but that got shelved when they found out the could make easy money in the tar sands. once that happened, a good amount of cash got moved away from a national mandate to push research and technology in Canada.

But whatever.

What do I know, I'm just a worker ant.
Superjudge is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:50 AM   #13 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windex View Post
just curious
where is the technology that is going to offset the need for conventional "harmful" fuels
In the mean time you can expect increased taxes for the same type of energy
I am all for sourcing alternatives to coal and oil.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:53 AM   #14 (permalink)
contemplating

The Killing Joke

 
Claudius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Burkina Faso, Disputed Zone
Posts: 10,030
Representing:
Send a message via MSN to Claudius
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
This makes no sense....By "saving the planet" we are supporting the poor?

Programs like this would put so many people out of work it isnt even funny, creating more poor....so in essence I am supporting the employeed. The is no proof that we have any detrimental effect on the planet.
Ask yourself this; have humans had an impact on the planet? Undoubtely the answer is yes. Cities for e.g. are not natural occurrences.

Therefore by proxy, one must ask themselves, do such effects have both negative and positive effects? Of course. It may be subjective, but such instances exist.

Ex. Our use of the rain forest. It has had an impact on the planet. Any way you want to cut it, it has had an impact. The Industrial Revolution HAS had an impact on water supply. Take a look at the figures pre industrial revolution in GB and post. There's a marked difference. So the argument there is no evidence we've had no influence on the planet is egregious one.

Therefore, theoretically, if such influences have been quantified and even verified it is entirely possible that we are having an influence on individuals. The fact that we actually have "environmental refugees" (islands being flooded) is something that should be noted.

However, no one is paying attention to these things as they occur in remote regions where mass individuals are not being affected. There are very real occurences happening in the far region of the north pole (beyond polar bears) yet very few know of this being of their remoteness. However, if we saw the changes in a populated region such as NYC we would be drastically aware.
Claudius is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:01 PM   #15 (permalink)
I believe in Masai!

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 16,700
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
20 years ago we were worried about the second comming of the ice age.

2 years ago Gore told us we were going to burn in the firey hell of Global Warming

NOW......whoops...not Global warming.,....its "climate change".

Each time, the nut jobs want to revolt against industry like they are the direct cause of whatever is going on, and then change the cause when their crusade is proven defunkt.

I have had enough....Kyoto would have fucking crippled us, and forced to pay countries that don't have to live up to the same rules.


In short being nice to the world is fine....overestemating our effect on it and willing to compromise industry on unproven mumbo jumbo is not.
it's pretty easy to make an argument look bad by referencing only the more extreme views. no one in their right mind called for an ice age, and no one in their right mind called global warming a firey hell.

the difference between ice ages/global fireball and climate change is exactly that. a move away from the extremes to a more appropriate understanding of what our world is going through as we pollute it. i don't see how you can mock the poor attempts at understanding it for being extreme, and then also mock the more serious attempts to come to a nuanced understanding, as if it is just one guy who is flip-flopping all over the place.

denying that there is any problem at all, and insisting on the right to keep on blindly polluting simply because we haven't pin-pointed the specificity of the problem seems to me to be just as foolish. yes, our understanding of the effects of polluting is incomplete, but it appears to me to be quite obvious that spewing out tonnes of industrial by-product into the atmosphere can't be all good. we have enough evidence of what happens when you disrupt the balance of nature with humanity's waste products. why would this be any different?

so in the end, we need to do something, and business will have to suffer temporarily for that as we adjust. you will disagree, undoubtedly, but i'd rather make an honest effort at slowing down our propensity to pollute under the guise of wealth creation than prop up industries that will ultimately need to go through a cleaning-up adjustment at some point anyways. it's just going to get harder for them as time goes on. and meanwhile, pollutant waste will continue to accumulate in our air and our water, etc. we're delaying the inevitable and mocking the science instead of trying to find a workable solution. it's the rhetoric in place of praxis that frustrates me.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:06 PM   #16 (permalink)
contemplating

The Killing Joke

 
Claudius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Burkina Faso, Disputed Zone
Posts: 10,030
Representing:
Send a message via MSN to Claudius
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
20 years ago we were worried about the second comming of the ice age.

2 years ago Gore told us we were going to burn in the firey hell of Global Warming

NOW......whoops...not Global warming.,....its "climate change".

Each time, the nut jobs want to revolt against industry like they are the direct cause of whatever is going on, and then change the cause when their crusade is proven defunkt.

I have had enough....Kyoto would have fucking crippled us, and forced to pay countries that don't have to live up to the same rules.


In short being nice to the world is fine....overestemating our effect on it and willing to compromise industry on unproven mumbo jumbo is not.

The far stretches of either wing should be ignored.

Beyond even the climate, I can make the argument that industry and our over reliance on it has decimated the western world.

What made the world such a great place prior to the Industrial Revolution was our constant need to be better (see: Scientific Revolution, Renaissance period, Enlightenment etc.) Since 1700 we've been on an entirely different plane, moreso of maintaing power and status for ourselves.
Claudius is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:10 PM   #17 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius View Post
Ask yourself this; have humans had an impact on the planet? Undoubtely the answer is yes. Cities for e.g. are not natural occurrences.

Therefore by proxy, one must ask themselves, do such effects have both negative and positive effects? Of course. It may be subjective, but such instances exist.

Ex. Our use of the rain forest. It has had an impact on the planet. Any way you want to cut it, it has had an impact. The Industrial Revolution HAS had an impact on water supply. Take a look at the figures pre industrial revolution in GB and post. There's a marked difference. So the argument there is no evidence we've had no influence on the planet is egregious one.

Therefore, theoretically, if such influences have been quantified and even verified it is entirely possible that we are having an influence on individuals. The fact that we actually have "environmental refugees" (islands being flooded) is something that should be noted.

However, no one is paying attention to these things as they occur in remote regions where mass individuals are not being affected. There are very real occurences happening in the far region of the north pole (beyond polar bears) yet very few know of this being of their remoteness. However, if we saw the changes in a populated region such as NYC we would be drastically aware.
If you asked do we have an effect on rain forests and water supply, the answer would be yes. There is not proof the erosion of either affect the "global climate". There is no proof that islands would be flooded with or without human interference.

I am all for looking at new technologies, I am all for worrying about an island in the south pacific, but give me a plan that works, not Kyoto, that actually does nothing to reduce emissions, but actually allows the biggest polluters to profit off of environmentally conscious countries.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:15 PM   #18 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claudius View Post
The far stretches of either wing should be ignored.

Beyond even the climate, I can make the argument that industry and our over reliance on it has decimated the western world.

What made the world such a great place prior to the Industrial Revolution was our constant need to be better (see: Scientific Revolution, Renaissance period, Enlightenment etc.) Since 1700 we've been on an entirely different plane, moreso of maintaing power and status for ourselves.
CG what do you count as "industry" in regards to decimation. Sounds awfully Marxist.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:17 PM   #19 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,289
Representing:
Default

Sorry to post again CG, but can you address my first post as to where it says we are waiting on the USA?, or was it just an effective lure to get me hooked...if the later is true...well done.
Benzo is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:30 PM   #20 (permalink)
the next dictator of MLSE

fresh and clean
 
Windex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: uʍop ɹǝpun
Posts: 22,524
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
I am all for sourcing alternatives to coal and oil.
and nuclear energy
Windex is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nice read. hope it happens for him...someday Ammo Toronto Raptors 1 11-08-2009 11:30 PM
Change and Hope Ugo Ferst The Podium 50 03-07-2009 12:19 AM
Jayhawks in Ottawa MangoKidHoops Entertainment Lounge 18 09-08-2008 09:30 AM
The Nuggets Hope To Avoid NBA History Dr. J. Naismith NBA Talk 4 03-23-2008 10:41 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24