As you all know, our current government in power is in favour of Kyoto but the second most powerful party is threatening to call an election if Kyoto is forwarded into action even more. It would be another spring election, almost 1 year from the last.

Are you in favour of Kyoto?


An election would cost our government about $250 million. That's enough to buy 600 humvees, enough to replace our military, and 27 hospital MRI's. After that, we still have $25 million leftover - perhaps, get another governor general of the same nature and attitude? :cheers:

In favour of Kyoto, not in favour of a pointless election.

I am very much against the Kyoto Accord.

Standing behind Kyoto 100%.

I'm behind it, and I am doing my best to join in on the "One Tonne" challenge. I have a fluorescent lightbulb in my computer room (the only light that really is on a lot during the evening) and whenever I am out of the room, I turn the lights off. There are normally only 2 lights on at a time in my house. If my car will be sitting for more than 10seconds, I don't idle, I simply turn my car off. How can anyone be against this? Honestly, I think you'd have to be high to be against Kyoto. I also recycle. All people have to do is make smarter individual choices without threatening our economy.

I am also 100% behind Kyoto. I think it is in the interest of all (except maybe the greedy fat cats making crazy money off of oil) to take measures to protect our environnement. This is a small step in the right direction, but much more needs to be done, especially in this era of the over population of our planet.

I am behind Kyoto but am not entirely confident in the governments plan to meet the objectives.

I am behind Kyoto but am not entirely confident in the governments plan to meet the objectives.
Don't wait for a government plan, make your own choices. Recycle all that you can, don't idle your car as much, turn off lights in your house, and buy fluorescent lightbulbs.

Do you know that if every Canadian household replaced one normal lightbulb with a fluorescent lightbulb, it would be the same as taking 80 000 vehicles off of our roads? My 13W Fluorescent lightbulb gives off as much light as a 60W conventional lightbulb. That's almost 5x less energy being used. I also just touched the fluorescent lightbulb after it has been on for the last hour, and it's barely even warm! A typical fluorescent lightbulb should last roughly 7 years. Some more, some less- depending on which type you buy.

^I have, in another thread of which I can't remember the name I told everybody how we reduced our electricity consumption by 35% just by replacing lightbulbs, reducing leakage of electric devices like phone chargers, lowering the thermostat, buying low power usage appliences, installing motors in fans that are part of the furnace and water heater.

We also decreased our usage of natural gas by getting rid of the old furnace and getting a new one as well as replacing the old school hot water heater with an "on demand" system that heats water up as you need it.

Of all the people in my household, none commute to work by car. Two including myself take the TTC, one walks and the other Tele-Commutes.

It is not the average person that needs to be reined in by the Gov't, its big companies and coal fire generating stations like Nanicoke.

I am strongly opposed to the Kyoto accord. Kyoto is a feel good political tool to enhance canadians feelings of "moral superiority". Canada right now contributes 2% of the worlds airborn polutants right now if I can remember and reducing our own emmisions will not even dent the global polution levels. Look at it this way, Kyoto is trying to cut a sliver out of an ever expanding pie. This is all not to mention that Kyoto is based off of highly disputed early 1990's climatology research that supported the hockey stick phenominon. I believe that 17000 US scientists signed on in not supporting the basis of kyoto. Another major problem with Kyoto is its implimentation, a majority of canada's contibution to kyoto will be by purchasing polution credits from 2nd world countries like Russia. I don't see why canada should funnel billions of dollars out of this country to "fight polution" when that money would be best spent in canada on research on climatology. I have no problem with cutting polution, the health benifits are enough to sell me. But Canada needs a "made in canada" approach that doesn't penalize our industry; industries that every canadian benifits from. This deal with the conservatives voting against a budget implimentation bill that involved kyoto is true, however if you look at the bill more closely you may understand why the conservatives would strongly opose it, even more than kyoto itself. Basically the liberals want to lump C02 emissions into the enviromental laws. C02 is what plants use, it is what humans produce, to lump this into environmental law would be therefore causing every human being, dog, cat, bird, in canada to be breaking the law.

So I don't have a huge problem with the intents of kyoto, but this treaty is not good for canada, it is not good for business and is definately not good for most of our parents. Lets do a made in canada solution based on sound science and not an international agreement that is heavy in words but light in content and practicality.

Well Canada is, what, the 8th largest oil consumer in the world? Canada has the highest consumption of energy per capita. The whole of Canada uses more energy than the entire continent of Africa. It's a start.

I agree, though, a made in Canada approach would be better. But excuses like the one Bush made is unacceptable- along the lines of "It will damage our economy."

http://www.mississauga.com/images/mi/xtq_pictures/20030618-images/19163-10681.jpg

Well Canada is, what, the 8th largest oil consumer in the world? Canada has the highest consumption of energy per capita. The whole of Canada uses more energy than the entire continent of Africa. It's a start.

As far as Canada having a high consumption of energy, a lot of that is simply because of our climate/location/density. It is naturally going to take more energy to produce/disribute goods. It's far more practical for many to drive more often since walking/bus/bikes are not an option for a sizable part of the year.

As far as Canada having a high consumption of energy, a lot of that is simply because of our climate/location/density. It is naturally going to take more energy to produce/disribute goods. It's far more practical for many to drive more often since walking/bus/bikes are not an option for a sizable part of the year.
I wouldn't necessariliy call that a great analogy. Russia has almost 5x Canada's population, but barely consumes twice as much oil per day. Yes I know it's not as developed but we're talking about 140million+ people versus 32million people. China has 40x the population of Canada, but doesn't even consume 3x as much oil per day. Yes I know China is still not developed but there is still a good chunk of it that is. Regardless, they still have 1.3billion people. Germany has almost 3x the population of Canada, but doesn't even consume 20% more oil per day.

The government has announced that their plan for Kyoto will cost in between $8-10 billion. it includes plans to cut automobile emissions dramatically, fund environmental projects provinces have, and create a west to east-east to west electrical grid system across this country to lessen the demand of those provinces that rely on polluting power plants (coal, natural gas, etc.) and instead supply them with the power from the provinces that have hydroelectricity.

I tend to say that we should use the money to build retrofit plants, better efficeny etc. THe guise of Kyoto and giving money to Russia for instance is stupid as it wont make us less environmentaly friendly

The government has announced that their plan for Kyoto will cost in between $8-10 billion. it includes plans to cut automobile emissions dramatically, fund environmental projects provinces have, and create a west to east-east to west electrical grid system across this country to lessen the demand of those provinces that rely on polluting power plants (coal, natural gas, etc.) and instead supply them with the power from the provinces that have hydroelectricity.

This plan reeks of the National Energy program of the Trudeau liberals. Transfering electical energy across the country would be very expensive and extremely wastefull. The amount of energy loss on these high voltage energy lines is quite high and therefore I feel that this is a retarded plan. If they plan on getting rid of these "evil" coal and natural gas plants with what? For one, hydroelectricity is not on demand energy, nor is wind energy for that matter. We need coal, natural gas and nuclear energy as "running power" since we cannot store large sums of energy economically or efficiently. Hydrogen is automatically out because it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than what you recieve in return in a fuel cell. Plus fuel cells to polute greenhouse gasses that some reason the Liberal government wants to tax. Canada will not be able to meet these kyoto targets without harming the economy, or funneling billions of dollars out of the country in polution credits.

Kyoto is a joke!, lets do a made in canada and create localized programs in our cities because it isn't the rural canadians jobs that should be affected by these socialist ideolistic urban residents that don't even know what is at stake.

$10-billion Kyoto plan tabled in Parliament
Wednesday, April 13, 2005 Updated at 4:37 PM EST

Canadian Press and Globe and Mail Update



The Liberal government finally revealed Wednesday its plan to meet Kyoto targets -- spending approximately $10-billion over the next seven years.

The plan requires annual reductions of 270 million tonnes a year within the next seven years, as reported by The Globe and Mail last month.

However, it does not specify how much of that will be obtained by cutting actual pollution and how much by purchasing emissions credits from poor countries.

The plan calls on large emitters to cut emissions by 36 megatonnes, substantially less than the 55 megatonnes called for in the original Kyoto plan.

Morag Carter, the Director of the Climate Change Program at the David Suzuki Foundation pointed out that the plan means the average Canadian will bear the brunt of cutting emissions.

"With our calculations, 74 per cent of targets will be achieved through individual contributions to cut emissions but Canadians are only responsible for 23 per cent of emissions," Ms. Carter told globeandmail.com.

The plan's centrepiece is a $1-billion Climate Fund, which could be increased to up to $5-billion in coming years. It would be used to fund emissions-cutting projects.

The plan is intended to "mobilize Canadians in a national effort" to create a low-carbon economy, and will require frequent revision as times goes on, officials said.

Some environmentalists were highly critical.

"There are significant problems with the plan," Ms. Carter said. "There are no details of how the milestones will be met and there is an absence of instruments in measuring success."

Dale Marshall, of the David Suzuki Foundation, told the Canadian Press that there is "a really disturbing lack of detail" in much of the plan.

"One of the major flaws of the plan is the weak targets for industry which puts an incredible burden on the rest of the Canadian economy," he said.

The details on cost estimates and implementation were revealed Wednesday afternoon by Environment Minister Stéphane Dion, Natural Resources Minister John Efford and Industry Minister David Emerson.

The opposition parties have criticized the Liberals for delaying the announcement, considering that the Kyoto accord took effect nearly two months ago.

Canada signed the agreement, which commits 55 nations, in 2002.

A main component of the plan is to replace coal-fired generating plants with cleaner electricity sources.

It also includes cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by using new technologies that capture carbon dioxide that would otherwise escape during petroleum production.

Matthew Branley, the director of climate change for the Pembina Institute, spoke to CBC Newsworld on Wednesday about the plan.

"Essentially what the government is expected to announce is it's going to be spending money to essentially purchase emission reductions ... and also through purchasing international credits," said Mr. Branley, a critic of the Kyoto plan.

"Because Canada really has wasted so much time since the Kyoto conference — more than seven years now, our emissions are still rising. We're going to have to make substantial use of purchases of international credits to meet our targets as well."

For. We can drag our feet by drafting other plans and thus doing nothing, or we can start doing something about a very immidiate problem. My only concern is that it doesn't go far enough. The Greens, I think, have some great ideas in this field (as they should); taxing inefficiency and providing subsidies to energy efficiency is a good way to start doing more.

The government has announced that their plan for Kyoto will cost in between $8-10 billion. ...

I'm sure there will be government kickbacks to Liberal freindly companies who take part in this!!!

I am for Kyoto, but against our goverments plan.

I support the idea of Kyoto to a point, but I'm totally against spending one penny for CO2 "credits" from other countries - it's just throwing money away.

A main component of the plan is to replace coal-fired generating plants with cleaner electricity sources.

It also includes cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by using new technologies that capture carbon dioxide that would otherwise escape during petroleum production.

These are really the only good parts of the plan, and we can do this with out hurting buisness and loosing jobs I think, Hydro electricity works great , If you have a large River and room , you can have Hydro. Or let us in BC supply t to ya for the same money Quebec gets.

^ There's clean (or at least they claim it to be clean) coal-burning technology out there that is starting to come into use. It's cheaper just to go with that for now. I'm sure at least a few other forumers have heard of this stuff, it was on the National a little while ago, and they said some coal mines in NB might open back up because of it.

Alberta Environmental Accomplishments (http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/climate/accomplishments.html#coal)


Clean coal

Alberta companies and institutions are leading initiatives to minimize the environmental impact of burning coal:
-combining coal with paper waste to test if the mix burns cleaner
examining how the makeup of different coals and cokes affects how they burn
-The University of Alberta, with the support of industry, has established an industrial research chair for advanced coal cleaning and combustion
-The Canadian Clean Power Coalition is moving forward with plans to demonstrate clean coal power generation at a new plant by 2012. The Coalition has completed the first phase of a feasibility study into technologies to eliminate greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants


I am against Kyoto, but for environmental protection. It's better to just let the industry change itself. Companies are already doing this.
http://www.climatechangecentral.com/resources/c3views/C3Views200501_Issue13.pdf

Every day, 70 per cent of Canada’s crude oil and natural gas flows from Alberta wells, providing the energy needed to heat homes, power industries and drive cars. Alberta isn’t the only beneficiary, sharing its petroleum wealth with other parts of Canada and the United States...

While all this activity is generating economic benefits for Canada, it is also producing a significant portion of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. According to Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Canada’s petroleum industry in 2002 contributed about 143 million tonnes (Mt), or about 20 per cent of Canada’s total GHG emissions. Of that amount, upstream oil and gas production contributed 99.2 Mt, the transmission of natural gas 16.6 Mt and the downstream (refining and marketing) 27.6 Mt. Since 1990, the upstream petroleum industry’s emissions have risen by 29.6 Mt due to increasing
exports, which resulted in a 41.6 per cent growth in GDP...

“While some companies are hoping the Kyoto Protocol will go away, a lot of others are jumping on board,” says Shell Canada’s Roy Kanten, head engineer of energy and green-house gases, E&P. Shell Canada has long been on board, joining the Voluntary Challenge & Registry (VCR, now known as the Canadian GHG Challenge Registry) in the mid-1990s and reducing its exploration and production emissions by 333,000 tonnes between 2000 and 2003. Shell has set a very challenging voluntary target: to reduce its emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by 2008, four years ahead of Canada’s overall pledge...

Similarly, BP is committed to maintaining its overall emissions at 2002 levels throughout its global operations, while still expanding the company’s business by five per cent a year. “We have to continue making reductions to make room for growth,” says Bryan Forsyth, BP Canada’s energy efficiency and emissions specialist.“Our goal, globally, is to improve our energy efficiency, from 2002 levels, by 15 per cent by 2012.”...


I would keep going but it's a very long PDF file...

This guy is just SOOO right..

“There’s very little taste in Calgary for buying foreign credits,” says BP Canada’s Bryan Forsyth.“The preference is to keep investing in Canada and finding a Canadian solution, rather than buying abroad.”

The industry self-regulation cannot be trusted as a matter of common sense. Either we change the structure of the corporation so that revenue isn't its only goal, or we regulate it. Since the former won't happen, and since voluntary targets tend to not be met, we need a way to tax consumption.

I do agree that foreign credits are generally smoke and mirrors, though, and are based on some questionable science (how much does a heatsink provide in CO2 relief...). Still... they're not a complete loss - properly invested credits (say, in the Amazon Rain Forest) can give some unstable ecosystems a second lease on life.

...or give some certain developing economies some investment...*cough* China *cough* <_<

Corporations are being pressured by public opinion. They don't need regulation. You act like anyone that works at a corporation isn't humane...

Consumption taxes are a good way to go, so long as they cut my income tax at the same time...

Think about it. How much more likely is it that I will go out and buy a hybrid car if you let me have a little more money in my pocket and then tell me that you'll tax the crap outta me if I buy an SUV??? Thus we make the one-tonne challenge possible for the average Joe.

Corporations are being pressured by public opinion. They don't need regulation. You act like anyone that works at a corporation isn't humane...

No, no. I have nothing against anyone that works at a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity that does what it is supposed to do, i.e. make money, relatively well. It has a extremely limited democratic mechanism, however; public opinion is easily shaped. Their contributions are often a few meaningless sponsorships instead of large-scale changes in the way they conduct business. There's exceptions, of course, corporations which lean towards a community structure model, in which revenue isn't a zero-sum game. But it's rare, and without some way to equal out the playing field, I don't think there's a future here.

Regulation, in the hard sense of the word of simply slapping a levy, may not be necessary in all instances though, as long as we move towards environmental accounting in which we come to recognize the true cost of environmental resources. These are remarkably underpriced at the moment.


Consumption taxes are a good way to go, so long as they cut my income tax at the same time...

Sure :yes:

The Green Party, if I remember, had the idea to eliminate the income tax alltogether arguing that the more self-sustainable you are, the less taxed you should be. So, instead of doing blank cheque income taxation, one is taxed according to their environmental footprint.

Indeed, there is some fairly persuading logic to this, although I've not made up my mind about it completely - a flaw in this plan is that it will be easier for a wealthy person working in the service industry to eliminate their environmental footprint than would be for the poor, so we may end up taxing those that, in part, depend on cheap, but inefficient and short-lasting, goods; a subsidy that is bracketed based on income levels may work in this case, though.

Basically, I've not made up my mind about the total elimination of income taxes, but an income tax reduction coupled with an appropriately levied consumption tax is a step in the right direction, I think.


Think about it. How much more likely is it that I will go out and buy a hybrid car if you let me have a little more money in my pocket and then tell me that you'll tax the crap outta me if I buy an SUV??? Thus we make the one-tonne challenge possible for the average Joe.

Indeed, I couldn't agree more.

^ I should say, I don't trust corporations completely either. I just feel that public pressure (remember, you are the consumer) does have a more powerful effect than is attributed to it. It's sad though, Canadians could be much more responsible consumers...

Heh, my mid-sized sedan is a few years older than the 13 years the Alberta government would like your car to be to turn it in. However, my Cutlass ain't going nowhere anytime soon...until I can afford to go out and buy something newer.

I've also been much more interested in the Greens lately. Who knows, I might vote for them provincially...

After years of jabbing Kyoto, the CONSERVATIVES now support KYOTO. Yes, this is no joke. They're definetely preparing for another election and if they do win, they'll probably backstab Kyoto.


Harper is the new Mr. Dithers.

^ a prudent political move is what it is, though. A solid majority is behind Kyoto; Alberta will vote for Conservatives regardless, and this makes them more palattable elsewhere. I'm sure the other parties will milk this about face for all it is worth, however.

^ I should say, I don't trust corporations completely either. I just feel that public pressure (remember, you are the consumer) does have a more powerful effect than is attributed to it. It's sad though, Canadians could be much more responsible consumers...

I don't know, public opinion seems quite easily manipulated, and with the corporation's ability to purchase airtime and other PR relation gimmicks, people can easily fall prey to corporations. After all, no interest group is stronger than pro-business groups. Transfats is a clear example of how slow it takes the industry to respond to such health issues.

I tend to agree that the law's definition of corporation is to be blamed for this mess.

^ a prudent political move is what it is, though. A solid majority is behind Kyoto; Alberta will vote for Conservatives regardless, and this makes them more palattable elsewhere. I'm sure the other parties will milk this about face for all it is worth, however.

The Conservatives are slowly morphing into the liberal party in the sense that they're abandoning everything they believe in just to get votes. It wasn't all that long ago that Stephen Harper was part of the National Citizen's Coalition, a group that was founded by insurance companies to fight universal heathcare. It also wasn't long ago that he stood in the went on Fox news to appologize for Canada's refusal to go to Iraq, and him standing in the house of commons to say that abortion should be illegal.

McKay must be kicking himself, though. He probably could have been the next Prime Minister if he didn't merge with the Alliance, LIKE HE PROMISED HE WOULDN'T.

I'm voting Green.

^ maybe the Conservatives are finally realizing that the only way to win is to forget about much of the Alliance wing, and pay more attention to the reddish PC wing. Our political tastes in Canada (for better or worse) are fairly narrow and generally centrist. The old job of the (with a slight exception of Mulroney) Progressive Conservatives was to be the Liberals when we got mad of Liberals enough to throw them out. So yeah, if PC still existed, I would bet serious money that the party would go right back to the top.

Well, the current Conservatives are realizing, 'yes, we need to out-Liberal Liberals,' a strategy they were flirting with, but one they could never quite pull off, during the last election. Their future success will fully depend on how much they embrace the red Tory ideals.

On a completely unrelated note, McKay is a dick. He sold what could have been a viable party once again for a dubious political gain. Ugh.

Victoria has two stadiums and they'll probably put in temporary seating into both stadiums. Its either Centennial Stadium or Royal Athletic Park. Does anybody know which one it is?