...Indeed, the NRTEE paper, Getting to 2050: Canada's Transition to a Low-emission Future warns 10 times that its proposals won't damage our economy only if the U.S. and our other major trading partners are simultaneously implementing similar measures. Its optimistic economic modelling is based on that.Exactly.
And yet bizarrely, it also concludes, without qualification, that: "It is not the NRTEE's view that any of this should be justification for not taking action now to either reduce emissions now, or put in place the most effective policy framework for deep, long-term reductions in the future." Excuse us?
So while our own efforts alone would likely return negligible results on a global scale and would likely damage our economy if the U.S., China and others refused to join the cause, we should still soldier on with the proposals in the faint hope that everyone else will follow our example?
Well, here's the problem. Not every country in the world has a Lemming mentality. If Canada's economy is going down the tubes, that is of little concern for the rest of the world. In fact, it could be a plus for China, which is already getting the benefit of our collapsing manufacturing sector.
I see little incentive for the others to join our little march over the cliff.
Perhaps the environmentalists should follow their own advice and try to tone down the gaseous emissions rising from this pile of manure.
* * * *
Related: Great discussion regarding carbon credits and other climate change topics at an earlier post - My 'email interview' with Lorrie Goldstein.
JR has an excellent post with more links - Carbon Tax Insanity.
Sunday Update: Cooling the hot air - Lorrie Goldstein.
JR has an excellent post with more links - Carbon Tax Insanity.
Sunday Update: Cooling the hot air - Lorrie Goldstein.
15 comments:
india, with a population over a billion, has about 8 million passenger vehicles on it's roads.
the US, with a population of 300 million, has over 230 million passenger vehicles of the road.
countries like india and china are suggesting that the west created the problem and should therefore bear the heaviest burden in correcting it.
canadians leave one the largest carbon footprints per capita in the world. we are morally obliged to provide leadership regardless of what the americans choose to do.
the you go first attitude adopted by the conservatives belongs in the playground.
...we are morally obliged??...are we morally obliged to help our fellow man in Afghanastan? Its amazing what and what is not considered our moral obligation by some Liberals. Lets be leaders in the war on GHG's, make no impact on GHG's and HOPE that the economic damgage is minimal..and you consider that moral? Yet, build schools, medical clinics, roads, bridges, highways, dig wells and, day after day, week after week free children to be educated, to be doctors, to be engineers, to be mothers/fathers, to be gay/strait is now considered to be someone else's problem by the Liberals and the NDP. What the hell has happened to the Liberal Party of Canada?? Billg
You misunderstood that Jeff. It is not "you go first," it is "let us all do it together at the same time."
At their current rate of increase India and China will account for 300% of the total world GHG production by 2025 or shortly thereafter. If India follows through on it's commitment to ease foreign investment restrictions this tripling of the world's GHG production by these two countries alone will come sooner. So Jeff, if you really believed the AGW theory you must admit that all nations have to be included in reducing GHG emissions.
I would say that India and China were morally obliged to control their population growth. The real problem is not Canada's 30 million people it the the third worlds 3 billion. This is just another wealth transfer were the responsible are supposed to bail out the irresponsible.
I suspect J.D. is either:
- A young man going to school
- A government bureaucrat that has a garanteed job for life even if his brothers in the private sector (Who create the wealth of this country so big government can exist in the first place) might loose their jobs because of his desire to fight the AGW BS...
Atlas will soon shrug...The caffe latte bureaucrats of Toronto and Ottawa better take note.
Grind a Grit
Hey Jeffy, here's an idea. Why don't we stop sending our oil to China and India? This decrease in oil production would greatly allow us to lower our emissions. We can simply use the oil for our own country. Think China and India would be ok with that?
Tell me Jeffy, you do realize China's ghg emissions increased more than Canada's total emissions last year right? Not their total emissions Jeffy, just the increase alone was more than all of Canada's emissions. In excess of 100 new coal-fired plants, with over 500 more in the planning stages.
And let me see if I understand your Liberal Leftoid argument. China and India have been third-world countries while we have prospered. So now, to even it out, we should allow our economy to be destroyed, and allow our jobs to go to them? And at the same time have the worlds ghg emissions continue to rise? Brilliant Jeffy.
But I thought it was about saving the planet, the polar bears, Al Gore's swimming pool, Dion's dog?
Jeff, we a sure that you are doing the right things to show your commitment to reducing Canada's carbon footprint. We know you grow all your food to save the gas wasted in shipping. We know you hand make all your own clothes to reduce the GHG emissions from all the machinery used in clothes you buy in in the store. We know you life in less than 100 sq. ft. of living space to reduce all the wasted resources of large dwellings. We know that you walk everywhere to eliminate the fossil fuels that would otherwise be wasted in transporting you to your destination. But what the rest of us can't figure out is why you waste so much energy surfing the net.
But what the rest of us can't figure out is why you waste so much energy surfing the net.
lol!! Or why you leave 'hit and run' comments everywhere.
Lorrie Goldstein has kindly left a response to Jeff's comment after I sent him an email asking for his reaction. Here it is, with his permission:
The developed world was mainly responsible for most GHG emissions up to now. The developing world will be in the very near future because it's now starting to undergo the rapid industrialization the First World did starting a a century ago.
By many counts, China has already taken over from the U.S. as the worlds' No. 1 GHG emitter and everyone who has seriously studied the issue agrees that even if it hasn't already, it will within a very few years.
The "per capita" argument about Canada being a big emitter is specious.
As the environmentalists say "you can't fool the planet. A tonne of carbon is a tonne of carbon" no matter whether it's produced in Canada, China or the U.S. and regardless of so-called "per capita" emissions.
Environmentalists can't complain on the one hand (as they do) that government plans to reduce "carbon intensity" (the amount of carbon produced per a given amount of economic activity) are dishonest because "you can't fool the planet, a tonne of carbon is a tonne of carbon" and then come back in the next breath and argue exactly the reverase with regard to "per capita" emissions.
Of course they will try to.
Finally, nowhere in my column did I say we should do nothing. I said the NRTEE's logic, as illustrated by its own report and for the reasons I indicated, makes absolutely no sense.
Which it doesn't.
Too bad so many already rose to the bait but since the waters already been broken .....
I was just ruminating here a bit about how the silly liberal trolls seem to have vanished or gone on a holiday over Christmas.
Then Low and Behold up pops BUG BOY to share with us still more of his "profound" knowledge and understanding of the world.
How illuminating the the most childish of all trolls sees fit to admonish his betters about what belongs on the playground!
Yet in his earnest little mind he must be the wiser of us all.....
The mistake that is continually made when dealing with little Jeffy is taking him seriously enough to respond... as so many have done in so many places for so long by patiently explaining the factual errors of his statements or his failure(s) to actually read the material being discussed.
Which brings us to Goldstein's article .... as he often does .... he reduces the issue to it's roots which in this case is the statement of the NRTEE about taking action!
The mistake that is continually made when dealing with little Jeffy is taking him seriously enough to respond... as so many have done in so many places for so long by patiently explaining the factual errors of his statements or his failure(s) to actually read the material being discussed.
Actually, I don't see this as a case of being 'suckered in', or wasting time and energy.
We're exchanging ideas and formulating arguments that can be used to challenge all the Jeffy's out there.
get a grip jeff. Canadians need first and foremost to be "morally obligated" to look after ourselves, and our country FIRST and not buy into some half-baked scheme that essentially gives our money away and continues to let the big polluters get continue as they wish.
I'm not obliged to following blindly behind the Lemming Liberal entitled nation. Leave that to the cocktail socialists.
...we are morally obliged??...are we morally obliged to help our fellow man in Afghanastan? Its amazing what and what is not considered our moral obligation by some Liberals.
That is a point which I have also thought about myself.
This talk about Canada being a 'laggard' with respect to Kyoto, and yet saying we should get out of the heavy-lifting in Afghanistan?
You can't have it both ways, Jack.
Joanne, Excellent column by Lorrie Goldstein. I couldn't agree more. Your post and comments too.
And thanks for the heads up.
Post a Comment