Canada withdraws from the Kyoto treaty.

Team Brian GB

Canada is becoming the first country in withdrawing from the Kyoto Accords, which basically withdraws North America entirely from such efforts seeing as the Americans never signed up in the first instance.

These are the sort of efforts that go down well with people when economies are strong but when they are weak they are detested, Canada's participation has always been somewhat hollow anyway considering they are the largest supplier of oil and gas to the United States.

The Canadians have a point, whether they burden their economy with energy reduction costs or not, overall emissions across the globe is continuing to rise due to the explosive growth of the developing world who have little in the way of formal commitments to carbon reduction.

w'or bobby

Whether Harper reflects Canadian opinions on this is moot.

Alberta - but of course.
Certainly not Quebec.

The disarray of the opposition - Liberals emasculated, NDP just lost their charismatic leader to cancer and (thanks be) the Bloc Quebecois finally dying - would explain his continuation as prime minister.

His climate policy certainly doesn't fly in this neck o' the woods.

Team Brian GB

These are the sort of things you have to do, Cameron last week attracted ire from the international arena for backing Britain's financial services and this week Harper is attracting it for backing your oil and gas industry. Whilst unpopular amongst many, you cannot simply constrain your most critical wealth creators in such a fashion, especially so in a turbulent world economy.

I must say, Stephen Harper's survival all of this time never ceases to surprise me, after failing to get his majority in the shock 2008 election and a constitutional crisis later he looked to be on borrowed time, looking far less secure than Gordon Brown did here when he had his own party trying to take him down. I have always found Canadian affairs to be interesting to follow.

So what is your concern in Quebec, is it simply because you are thousands of miles from the oil fields and therefore don't have the vested interests to support it or is there something else?

rcoobc

Such a joke

Team Brian GB

It is not difficult for most of that map to support it when they have few obligations, I'd like to see a map showing compliance and the likelihood of countries achieving their targets as so many sign up to these sort of things and then forget about them.

Silva

It can't be easy to be trailing behind third world countries though..

Team Brian GB

Though the wealth in Canada from the exploitation of fossil fuels has driven the country onward and keeps it amongst the wealthiest of the wealthy and all that comes with it. In the third world, the biggest ticket to joining the first world is to have fossil fuel reserves - the Middle East would be as impoverished as much of Africa if it wasn't for oil and gas.

rcoobc

South America has as much natural resources as North America (or so we are told). The excuses of the past should have no baring on the future, but unfortunately they will.

Mick1991

There is no way in hell South America will be reaching any targets promised.

Team Brian GB

UNASUR will have a significant impact on the development of South America, as will the growth of Brazil which always gets forgotten due to China and India.

Though much of South America's resources are not verified - Venezuela's declared proven oil reserves have grown three fold in the last five years to become the largest in the world, though that of course means we have to take Hugo Chevez's word for it.

Dr. Dwayne

Getting rid of our long gun registry, too.

It's like we're leading the fight in throwing off the shackles of financially wasteful, feel-good policy that is in reality useless.

Twisted_Woody

Unfortunately we are throwing off the shackles not because it is financially wasteful but because the governing party doesn't actually believe in climate change or gun control.

Dr. Dwayne

Are you sure about that? Sounds like that NDP girl is getting inside you head.

Sir Matt

Canada withdrew because they're going on strike. For more internet money.



More likely, the 'nucks are as bent over the (oil) barrel by corporate interests as us.

Wibble

They don't have a point. If nobody does something then everybody will do nothing, ever. Developed nations have a moral obligation to take the lead.

Wibble

Canada is desperate to develop the filthy oil sand reserves that they have. You can't pretend to care about global warming and exploit the sands at the same time.

w'or bobby

These are the things you have to do?

Depends - a dead planet is really bad for business.
If the global warmers are right, that is one awful piece of business - bit like Torres.

Quebec is largely hydro-electric powered, green - ish, left-ish.
The people's socialist republic- leaning, if truth be told.

Quite out of tune with the rest of North America.

One of the things I like about it.

Twisted_Woody

The gun control bit is just me winding you up (although I think there is some truth to it).

The climate change comment I stand by given the following observations:

1. Our minister of Science and Tech is a young Earth creationist who doesn't believe in scientific principals/evolution etc etc.

2. The previous party leader - Stockwell Day - believed man and dinosaurs walked the Earth together.

3. Several friends and people I know who work at Environment Canada have been sacked. The common theme is they all worked in greenhouse gas/climate related work. Other good people have been sacked from other important areas as well such as scientists that study soil contamination.

4. If we had a proactive government that truly wanted to help the environment they would have proposed an alternative to Kyoto instead of simply giving the world the finger and moving on. The approach they took is indicative of a group of people who don't believe climate change is happening.

5. I read in the paper today that Fisheries and Oceans are being told to fire up to 200 scientists. The shit-cherry on the shit-cake if you will...

But they believe in climate change and protecting our environment. Right.

Dr. Dwayne

Careful how you word it. I'm sure they believe climate change is happening, as the evidence is ample that the earth's climate is always changing. The question is are we accelerating/influencing the process to any serious degree?

One thing I know is that they are not fans of big government. Neither am I. I'd prefer not to have the government that I have to protect the environment by enacting laws and international agreements. The onus should be on the individual, but my freaky libertarian views would send the Tories running for the hills.

Dr. Dwayne

They're already quite developed.

niMic

No, it isn't. There is no "scientific debate". The science is already settled, though obviously it can always improve. Yes, we are accelerating and influencing the process to a quite serious degree. Yes, there will be consequences whether we do something about it or not; if we don't do anything the consequences will be massive.

Being libertarian is no excuse not to be informed on a subject.

Twisted_Woody

So to answer that question we fire all the scientists and researchers who are studying the topic? Makes sense.

As far as big government goes I'd prefer cutting the fat off the bureaucrats rather than front line science research.

w'or bobby

This puts you on the border of the climate change sceptic brigade.

Thin ice and keeping pretty poor company.


Your second paragraph is a conflation that is astounding.
No big government, I get.
Individual responsibility I'm all for.
But you seriously think the environment can be protected merely
through that?

Team Brian GB

No they don't.

Red Dreams

its common sense really.

there are ways to pressure countries. It takes political will.

w'or bobby

I agree - the very notion of moral obligation is ill-placed.

What we could do though is exercise a little judgement.

If we get this wrong, this will be about as stupid as it is possible to be as sentient beings.

Wibble

Blah blah blah

There is always an excuse or equivocation as to why no action should be taken. Not doing the right think because another country won't is the moral politics of the schoolyard.
.

Wibble

Good luck with that

Wibble

I wouldn't expect baby Cameron to agree. There are far more important things to do like bail out your banking buddies from your dining club days to the cost of 10x what climate change would cost or isolate yourself in Europe.

Raoul

You think leading states don't have an obligation to shape the discussions on important global issues ?

w'or bobby

Apres moi, le deluge.

Would be a reasonable description of the position being taken.

Or desperately trying to keep the rabble out of first class on the Titanic, perhaps?

Team Brian GB

I don't think countries developed or developing have any moral obligation to do anything on the global stage. No country should be criticised on the climate change front when there is a lack of universal global action, especially so when what Canada does to reign in their carbon use is neither here nor there with regard to global emissions.

Raoul

Conversely, there can be no universal global action if countries randomly abscond from shaping the discussions that make up such actions. This isn't about Canada pulling out of Kyoto as much as about the broader implications of individual nations ignoring global interests in favor of economically convenient national self-interest. These types of issues can no longer be constrained at a national level. They're global and as such, they've become the world's business.

Team Brian GB

Despite the ever growing emphasis on globalisation we remain a world of westphalian states. What is more, Canada is heavily tied into the American economy seeing as something ridiculous like 75% of their trade goes south - when Canada is subservient to Kyoto and the United States isn't that makes them uncompetitive within NAFTA.

The only viable solution ultimately to relieve reliance on fossil fuels is to replace them with a different energy form as opposed to lessening its usage - the only way that will happen is if the developed world is wealthy enough to produce them. It is simply not acceptable for western countries in a time of great difficulty to be burdening themselves with substantial costs whilst the developing world is becoming ever increasingly wealthier and competitive isn't doing much in the way of Kyoto at all.

Raoul

Its not quite that simple. States are no longer segregated entities that can afford to ignore the broader global interests of humanity. Environmental issues would rate at the top of the list. The U.S. was wrong to not participate, and other countries are certainly not in the right to walk away from their responsibilities in shaping the debate. And I'm not aiming my comments at Canada specifically, but more so at the worryingly delusional concept that national interests somehow trump global ones.

Team Brian GB

States have never been segregated entities but they remain solely responsible to their own citizens and likely always will be.

For instance, in the United Kingdom 25% of households are in what we call 'fuel poverty' - that they cannot afford to heat their homes, one of the reasons is rising fuel prices but also because subsidies for renewable energy are largely derived from added costs for consumers. Nearly 2.5 million are unemployed, inflation is nearly 5%, pay rises are far below inflation - we produce 1% or so of the world's carbon emissions and are laboured by this whilst China is booming yet her carbon emissions have increased by 50% in five years.

Whilst such double standards exist, nations like Canada shouldn't have to put up with them.

niMic

You're right, the UK is certainly one of the biggest innocent victims of this whole thing.

Yup.

Team Brian GB

Millions of people struggling to pay the bills as it is are not being helped by making those bills artifically more expensive to fufil carbon reduction costs. If subsidies come from general taxation that is one thing, but tacking it on everybody's bills is another entirely.

w'or bobby

The investment in the illusions that are nation-states is enormous on an emotional level for so many.
The return is poor.

The issue of being citizens of one earth is lost on the blindly parochial.
Even on many who should know better.
Blind self-interest calls itself libertarian.
Says the market will solve it - until they come with their begging bowls.

The model is broken.

While your counterpart in this discussion continues to argue for an eventual ( when, by the way, Brian ? Would 2.5 degrees celsius or 3 be ok ?) move from fossil fuels and a seamless transition (- to what?) with no pain for the rich and developed countries

and refuses to see the probable urgency for a plan, an agreement, a simple addressal of an issue of such over-arching importance if the science is right

there's not much to be gained.

Team Brian GB

The science is inconclusive to the point where both supporters and deniers point to prolonged weather patterns as evidence either for or against climate change, what is even more inconslusive is the connection between emissions and climate change.

Kyoto will have no impact on this as all it does is slowdown emissions growth but does not reverse it, it artificially increases energy costs in the developed world thus giving the developing world a further boost when they least need it.

It also doesn't address the link between emissions and fossil fuel extraction - Saudi Arabia exports 8 million barrels of oil or so a day, it's economy is worth $25,000 per capita - yet it has no obligations when many countries in Western Europe produce virtually nothing yet are getting laboured with the renewable energy costs.

If a realistic energy reduction plan that had worldwide participation was to be produced, and was implemented in a way that it insulated consumers from the costs involved then that would be an entirely different matter.