I'm surprised there has not been any talk yet on his sub-forum about Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto project. Peter Kent, the same man who in 1984 told Canadians that 'Absolutely we can do something about global warming' explained to a news conference a few days ago that The Kyoto Protocol does not represent the path forward for Canada. It goes to show that as long as profit is a main goal for most politicians we will not see a green earth. I can see an immediate domino effect happening in the near future as Russia is already backing Canada's decision. Once again Harper ****s up. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/12/canada-formally-withdrawig-from-kyoto-protocol/
Why be part of Kyoto when the top 2 Carbon producers in the world are not interested in being part of it. It was a mistake to sign it in the first place, we knew we would never make the targets even in the 90's. It's no surprise to those who know anything about the subject that we're abandoning it.
And there, ladies and gentlemen is all that need be said. Kyoto was a politically based income distribution move.....it never did have anything to do with green house gas emissions...
Why? Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) is Canada to have to be setting an "example" for China and India" In case you haven't noticed it is cold in Canada. Everyone in this country needs to heat their home for about six months of the year. Right there we have a one billion dollar deficit we would have to pay. Thank that slithering misfit Jean Chretien for this...he missed a bowel movement one day and decided the only way to bolster his sagging fortunes was to sign on to the stupidest, most ill conceived, one sided international agreement since the United States stole Alaska from Russia. Don't blame Harper, he's cleaning up Chretien's odiferous turds.....
Funny China is setting an example for Canada with their development of technology they're also developing as is India. Canada is cold but our country is one of the greatest polluters of the cold countries. Why does Sweden only produce 1/3rd of the co2 we do they're cold. Our countries climate policy is being warped by industries which are the most harmed by it. Industries like the tar sands have too much influence. Also Canadians are very materialistic and wasteful we have massive waste from packaging, the meat industry and poor public transport in many cities. Our countries is extremely inefficient.
Could also be that the distance between major centers in most parts of the country are larger than the distance of Sweden and therefore we have far higher transportation issues. Tar sands does not help one bit however. Poor public transport in 'many' cities, I assume you're talking about the ones outside of Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal etc. Our cities are laid out differently than those in Europe having to do with the fact that they were mostly built in the 'suburbs' era and therefore our population is not centralized even within our urban areas making public transportation far less efficient even when it is implemented. Europeans use trains far more, because they're practical as the distances are short. Do you know how long it takes to take a train from Vancouver to Toronto? It's just not feasable.
The use of trains in Europe is a very valid point and I'm glad you brought it up. Cross country trains in Canada are not effective nor will faster, efficient passenger trains be made here at least not for a long time. There is little incentive to build them because of lack of use, maintenance, and the initial cost. Our country would have to develop unrealistically to meet the same level as Sweden perhaps in the future when better technology exists we could catch up but you're right i choose an unrealistic standard hastily. Still some cities like my own need to put a greater effort into public transportation and better thought-out expansion. Currently i think Edmonton is surrounded on all sides by suburbs even the east with the large industrial area. I'm pretty sure they are flanked with more expansive housing.
Speaking as an Edmontonian and a Calgarian, I can tell you that this is true for both our cities. In addition, plans for a high speed rail have not had much lee-way here, in large part because not many people would make use to it, given how sparsely populated the province and a large portion of the country is. Not to mention, most of our goods do face long transportation times, we are a colder nation (colder and more consistently cold than most) and even with all that, we are still a world leader in the amount of energy produced from our green industry. To be quite frank, Kyoto never took into account anything about the countries signing on, save for Iceland -- due to the coldness of their nation, their carbon caps they signed on for were waived. Any comparison to Canada to any other nation, including Russia, which is largely centered to the European side of their nation, is creating an equivalency where there is none. Sweden also has a GDP which is not close to comparable to Canada's, trades mostly with neighbours who are right next door, and is geographically distinct from neighbours along with a friendly atmosphere for environmental growth. With the States south of us, that simply isn't possible for us -- most of our goods go thousands of kilometers for manufacturing, not to mention processing or returning it to the shelves. China uses a solar technology which causes long term negative and serious impacts to the environment because they cut corners during production process. Even making use of these cells, only a small fraction of all solar energy is actually used, and most of that solar energy is not used domestically. Indeed, one of the most recent productions by the Chinese was supposed to be produced by Ordos City -- one of China's infamous ghost cities, which were built (mostly out of concrete, a major part of Kyoto, not to mention the costs of producing and building this stuff) in many parts of China, and which are being powered by one of the over 630 new coal burning plants which were planned when China signed on for Kyoto. The unfortunate reality is that a very small fraction of energy is green-sensitive in China. Much of it is green-washed, like the solar panels, or not used domestically. Because of the unique spot of development India and China are in, both are likely to want to avoid anything which requires caps on them, since that would slow economic development. Kyoto's next round of debates came off more as a "we need the money to be transferred to us, but we don't want to be tied down by details like caps." I would not be surprised that even if China had agreed to caps, to see them over-run them incredibly expediently. Salty_Dogg, Japan, Russia, and Canada all made the decision distinct of each other. If anyone influenced the decision, it was the US who took point, but many nations were uninterested in following Kyoto further. Only the EU was strongly attached to the idea of following it -- most other nations were developing nations, and only a handful, inclusive or a China or India who were reluctant to say anything, were going to be held to any caps. China essentially based their policy response on what the USA did. I can't help but think they were looking for a patsy to put blame on, personally. Mostly nations with larger populations in the North, with long winters and long transportation lines (or in the case of Japan, a thirst for concrete due to their unique road situations). As ubiquitous as the tar sands became in the discussion, they still only make up a fraction of a percentage of world carbon output, something to the tune of 0.1% to 0.2%.
