Harper makes us proud once again

[ITcomputer]

Harper stands alone on climate change at Commonwealth summit
Last Updated: Friday, November 23, 2007 | 12:45 PM ET
CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is facing heavy political pressure to agree to binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions as Commonwealth summit delegates in Uganda attempt to form a strong, united front in the fight against climate change.

Other than Australia, Canada is the only member of the 53-nation grouping that has not fallen in line with the wording in a climate change resolution calling for binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

The three-day conference is trying to reach a consensus before December's United Nations meeting in Bali, Indonesia, where more than 190 nations will discuss the future of the Kyoto protocol.

"One of the biggest challenges we all face [is] climate change," Malta's Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said Friday in a speech in the Ugandan capital, Kampala. "The challenge of climate change not only requires a united front, but an unprecedented level of co-operation and firm action."

But the small island nation's drive for environmental unity faces challenges from Canada's Conservative government, which does not support binding reductions.
Harper lone opponent of binding targets

In Kampala, Harper stands alone in opposition to the binding targets, as his Australian counterpart, John Howard, is not attending the meetings. Instead, he is at home preparing for his country's federal election.


Other than the small island nations such as Malta, which fear rising sea levels could bring mass flooding, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has also stated his commitment to reducing greenhouse gases.

Diplomats have reportedly suggested Brown will attempt to persuade Harper to sign on to the agreement.

Unless the other leaders are able to win over Canada with the idea of binding targets, the nations will likely emerge from meetings with a slightly watered-down statement.

Before the climate change talks topped the agenda on Friday, the Commonwealth's suspension of Pakistan overshadowed the summit.

On Thursday, a committee of foreign ministers, including Canada's Junior Foreign Minister Helena Guergis, agreed to suspend Pakistan over President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's failure to lift a state of emergency and restore civilian rule.

The Commonwealth leaders agreed on Friday to endorse the suspension decision, made by a nine-nation Ministerial Action Group.

 

[Hydrogen]

I think the Prime Minister of Malta has been watching Al Gore's movie and not reading the IPCC report carefully (if he even bothered). There is no way Malta will be immersed according to their scenarios.

 

[Zephyr]

Now now Hydrogen ...

 

[Hydrogen]

Though speaking of Malta, interesting place to visit. The bus drivers are a little terrifying, though. And there seems to be a national obsession with killing birds.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Harper stands alone on climate change at Commonwealth summit

How is Canada standing alone? Isn't the real issue that the USA, China and India refuse to sign up? Canada's 30-odd million people and small industry can do little to affect climate change either way as long as these big three do nothing.

There's no point in increasing the production costs of Canadian products by implementing harsh environmental standards if the only result is that production of those products are diverted to India, China or the USA.

I'm tired of trying to set an example, while doing nothing to force the really bad guys to comply. How about this 50-odd grouping of nations enact sanctions against China, India and the USA to force compliance with Kyoto?

 

[unimaginative2]

Ahh, the typical "We're so tiny it doesn't matter what we do" line. It's the quintessential Canadianism. A reality check is sorely needed. We're in the top 10 economies in the world, we're one of the biggest per capita polluters in the world, we're one of the biggest (and fastest-growing) oil exporters in the world, and our oil is the dirtiest in the world. We're one of the world's largest manufacturers of automobiles, and close to the world's largest per capita user of them.

India only recently caught up to Canada's total oil consumption, and they're still only marginally higher (2.63 million bbl/d vs 2.2 million bbl/d).

 

[Hydrogen]

What kind of reality check?

Should we shrink our economy, reduce our industrial and agricultural output, shut down oil production, close automobile plants and restrict access to automobiles? Or should we ship our industries offshore, purchase "cleaner" foreign oil and have our cars all manufactured in developing nations? Then again, why bother. None of would be able to afford any of it.

 

[Zephyr]

Hydrogen - you can address these issues of pollution without the drastic alternative you posed. This is far from a black-and-white issue, and more of a matter of responsible actions in a world in which we share the air, and the resources we plunder are not unlimited.

 

[Hydrogen]

Howzabout this one, then?

Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert
By Jen Kelly
December 10, 2007 01:00am

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.

Professor Walters said the average annual carbon dioxide emission by an Australian individual was about 17 metric tons, including energy use.

"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.

"Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a 'baby levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle."

Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said it was ridiculous to blame babies for global warming.

"I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay carbon tax for all the hot air they create," she said. "There's masses of evidence to say that child-rich families have much lower resource consumption per head than other styles of households.

But the plan won praise from high-profile doctor Garry Egger. "One must wonder why population control is spoken of today only in whispers," he wrote in an MJA response article.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We're in the top 10 economies in the world, we're one of the biggest per capita polluters in the world

Ah yes, the per capita line. Forget about per capita. What we should care about is total pollution per country. If Canada's emissions per capita were 10% of China's, we'd still not make a statistically-relevant difference to the total global pollution. On the other hand, since China has so many people, its per capita pollution would be inaccurately shown to be low. If China only had 500 million people, it's per capita pollution would more than double, while its total pollution would likely not change much at all.

As a country Canada is not one of the top polluters. We simply do not have enough people, nor a large enough economy to make either a huge negative or positive impact.

What the world should be doing is forcing the truly large polluters, China, India, USA, etc into reducing their total national pollution. For starters, how about all Kyoto-signatories, including Canada, apply an immediate carbon tax on everything imported from China and India. This may be more difficult to apply against the USA due to trade treaties and the fact that Kyoto countries themselves export a lot to the USA (as opposed to India and China), but I think this is worth considering. You can still have your paper gestures, but I'd like to see some really strong forcible action taken against the big polluters, and forget about per capita.

 

[Hipster Duck]

^We emit 2.5%, or 1/40 of the world's greenhouse gases. That is not insignificant.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Anything that would require the good admiral to stop emitting greenhouse gases as a form of entertainment is of course bad. That's why he is such a strong supporter of Harper.

 

[unimaginative2]

Beez, we're one of the 10 biggest economies in the world. We're also one of the highest polluters per unit of GDP of the OECD countries. Do the math. We consume the same amount of oil as India, and we've been doing it for a lot longer. You can stick your head in the sand, but consuming the same amount of oil means that we emit the same amount of carbon as that "truly large" polluter.

What kind of reality check?

Should we shrink our economy, reduce our industrial and agricultural output, shut down oil production, close automobile plants and restrict access to automobiles? Or should we ship our industries offshore, purchase "cleaner" foreign oil and have our cars all manufactured in developing nations? Then again, why bother. None of would be able to afford any of it.

The kind of reality check that shows that we're not a small, insignificant country.

Here's an idea: stop burning clean natural gas in order to produce highly polluting oil that as a side benefit poisons whole watersheds. Then, use that gas to replace some of our domestic oil consumption! Now there's a nightmare scenario for ya.

Our auto production isn't a major carbon emitter, it's our automobile use. We drive big cars long distances (and I'm not talking about trips across Canada, I'm talking about commutes of more than an hour in the 'burbs) and there's absolutely no reason why we couldn't switch to smaller, more fuel-efficient European-style vehicles. Did you ever notice that the plants in Canada that produce fuel efficient cars are doing very well (Honda Civics in Alliston, Toyota Corollas in Cambridge, even Cami) while the Big Three plants turning out gas guzzlers are dropping like flies? Becoming more environmentally-friendly will save our economy, not destroy it. I know you like to use worst-case scenarios to make it seem like the only choice is between the stone age and business as usual, but there is a middle ground. Do you work for an oil company? Are you instinctively contrarian? Why is it that you don't believe in climate change science when the overwhelming majority of professionals in the field do?

 

[Hydrogen]

Overwhelming majority of climate scientists? Are you a climatologist of any type? Have you done any surveys? No, of course not. There are plenty of skeptics out there with very strong evidence that counters your beliefs. You just have to pay them some attention. They won't come looking for you.

When you say car pollution I assume you mean carbon dioxide - which is not a pollutant. Otherwise, North American cars are among the cleanest running. Pollution emissions have dropped considerably over the last four decades, all the while the bar for what constitutes clean air has been set ever higher. Most contemporary automobile emission standards were set in North America. Is there room for improvement? Sure. But you can't expect everything over night, either.

As for the car companies that are doing well, they also have a reputation for quality manufacturing. That always helps sales. They also produce a few models that are on par with some North American models in terms of fuel consumption.

As for becoming more environmentally-friendly as a means to saving the economy, one does not automatically follow the other. It is not that you do it, it's how you do it. So the automatic assumption you present is simplistic. Do things in a haphazard, rushed or stupid fashion and you will greatly increase your risk for lousy outcomes. People will pay that price.

As for long drives, unfortunately those habits were set a long time ago, and are a persistent problem. Not that you'd care to acknowledge it, but I have mentioned here that land use management is an issue. Most important environmental issues are local and can be quite obvious. I think poor land use is something we will pay dearly for in the future.

In answer to your question, no, I don't work for an oil company (but do remember that environmental organizations such as the Pembina Institute receives money from oil companies, and the David Suzuki Foundation gets cash from car companies).

As for climate change, it is a natural occurrence. Human impact is localized to city regions. According to the scientific evidence, there is nothing unusual about the slight increase in temperature that has been seen over the last 100 years. High resolution oxygen isotope records indicate that contemporary globally-averaged temperatures fall well within the +2.5C to -2.5C average range of fluctuation over the last four thousand years. Tree remnants from Roman times are found underneath Alpine glaciers of today because it was warmer then than it is today. The late 20th century warm period is cooler than both the Medieval and the Roman warm periods, and reflects a rough thousand year temperature cycle. However, go back ten thousand years, and the temperature record over that period shows a cooling trend when moving to present times.

Interestingly, the most recent global average measures for surface temperature compiled by the Climate Research Centre at the Hadley Centre show that the Earth's surface temperature has flatlined from 1998 on. That's why you will read newspaper articles about carbon (dioxide) emissions, but with very little reporting in terms of presenting temperature measures.

 

[unimaginative2]

There are plenty of skeptics out there with very strong evidence that counters your beliefs. You just have to pay them some attention. They won't come looking for you.

I find that very surprising considering the vast amounts of funding they can get from oil companies, conservative groups and the like.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant in your opinion. Are you a climatologist? An atmospheric scientist of any kind? I'm not the contrarian here, so it would make rather more sense for you to have some background in the field.

I agree that doing things in a stupid fashion isn't a very good idea. It rarely is. I believe that the best solution the the problem of climate change, and I've articulated this on the forum before, is a carbon tax which replaces some other taxes on income and investment. A large number of climatologists and economists (even the conservative C.D. Howe Institute) support such a course of action. You'll naturally agree with such a solution to the problem, since you don't think that climate change is a problem.

I know you've mentioned land use as an issue. That doesn't surprise me, and I agree with you. In fact, I generally agree with you on most issues other than this one.