Star dreck
The editorial admits:
1) that "most Canadians accept it will take a few years beyond 2012 to meet our Kyoto targets," ie the Tory position,
2) that the Liberal alternative, involving "the purchase of emissions credits from other countries," while cheaper, is "a huge waste of money because it means billions of dollars would be shipped out of Canada."
To repeat, the Tories are right that there's no way to meet our Kyoto targets by 2012 (actually by 2008-2012) without causing massive economic disruption; and they're right (in the Star's view, not mine) that buying massive amounts of credits overseas, in an effort to reach the target, would be a huge waste of money. Yet it still concludes with the Tories being in the wrong, and the Liberals in the right. As the Star puts it:
While Dion's plan would be better if he extended the target by a few years rather than waste money on foreign credits, no one can doubt his commitment to move much more quickly on the domestic front under a plan that is far more ambitious than Harper's expected go-slow approach.So the Liberals are wrong in practice but right in principle, while the Tories are the reverse. Oh, bravo.
4/20/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
14 Comments
"The fastest way to achieve the targets – a 6 per cent cut in emissions from 1990 levels – would be for Canada to buy costly emissions credits"
How to confuse eh ? Credits will not do anything to help achieve our targets. Credits are about our obligations. We'll pay somebody else to not emit GhG's so we can do it without a guilty conscience. Just like Al Gore does for his mega carbon Bigfoot print. Except he owns the company he buys his credits from, so he pays himself. Very cool deal for the Goreacle, who has found a way to make mega bucks off the Kyoto socialist money sucking scheme - Harper was accurate in his description of Moe's grand scheme.
Baird is right - achieving our targets means HUGE cuts and HUGE economic impact.
But not to worry. The bloom is coming off the global warming hysteria as the warm spell is ending. 15+ years of satellite derived temperature data shows the next climate period - a cooling period is starting. We are in the transition years now. Just delay a few years and little damage will be done.
In a few years some other Preacher of Hysteria will be screaming (again) "the Ice Age is coming" and even the true zealots of the Church of Kyoto, the Al Gore's, the David "Dr. Fruit Fly Guy" Suzuki will blame it on humanity and jump on that bandwagon.
Should give the good folks at the Red Star something new to harp about. They seem to currently forget the the largest single emitter isn't an Albertan oil sands plant, its the 30% of Ontario's electricity that OPG makes from dirty, dirty coal.
Shut down Nanticoke tomorrow ?? Ya right.
This post has been removed by the author.
Does the Tsar editorial board even realize that the date is as much a part of the requirement as the emissions level?
Their whole premise seems to be that we can take as long as it takes to reduce our emisssions, and still be compliant.
As AC correctly points out, the Protocol requires that emission levels average a certain fraction of 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012 (i.e. starting in just over eight months).
And Canada has already been in violation of the Protocol since 2005, specifically Article 3, Paragraph 2 which requires that "Each Party included in Annex I shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this Protocol." (Canada is an Annex I Party.)
Isnt it horible when they'll say anything, justify any inconsistency to remain true to "their guy"
;->
For the record, there's nothing wrong with buying credits overseas, in my view. But there are limits to what is practical in the short term, as I argue in tomorrow's column.
Credits are interesting I just dont think the market for them is properly setup.
I would much prefer to see a domestic market established with proper oversight. In general I like market solutions to these problems, assuming the problem is real and the solution being traded is. My question is who is certifying each credit and ensuring that what is being bought really meets the criteria.
Essentially where are the basics of the contracts that would be formed. Underlying all proper markets is trust and good solid law.
Not saying they cant be there just that I dont believe they are there today, particularly in some of the places we would be buying credits from.
I think alternate paragraphs were assigned to two different writers and stitched together without review.
Either that or it was a UN draft document with lots of brackets around words like not and they just printed it without the brackets.
They made a great case for slow it down a bit and don't ship money overseas and then said don't listen to anyone who says slow down 'cuz foreign credits aren't so bad.
The last line is every prof's nightmare. The thesis statement stuck in at the end with absolutely no evidence to get there.
A definite keeper for the collection.
(BTW, why not just accept the penalties in the treaty and include a focus on changes with huge upside that take more than a few years decade. What does the cost of sequestering CO2 (rather than sequestering valuable ground water) look like 10-20 years out as a mature technology? How does that investment curve compare to the investment the world wants to make in the oil sands the next 10-20 year? If every $ of penalties on an economic driver like the oil sands was retained in the sector, how long before emissions technology in that sector catches up. How long is the penalties go overseas?)
If we think Enron was shaky bring on trillion dollar paper markets in emissions credits.
On account of the underlying fungible being C02, markets still stuck in the 17th century will be just fine.
"there's nothing wrong with buying credits overseas, in my view"
I look forward to seeing how you deal with the example provided by HFC-23 (and HCFC-22).
I really expect to read in the papers tomorrow that Suzuki/Gore/Euroweenies/Greenpeace have determined that the end of world will be here next week unless we do something drastic today.
Presumably The Star's support could be had for any politician who demanded that we produce no more greenhouse gases ever, starting..... now. It would be a disaster, but how can you oppose the principle?
15 years of data eh Fred? whoa its a good thing you are around to counter balance what is as close to a scientific consensus as there has ever been. Good hard data from 15 years surely disproves data collected by hundreds of scientists, going back tens of thousands of years into earth's record....
As to AC's post. I would tend to agree that we have now by-passed the time needed to effectively meet our lawful commitments to Kyoto, because of both the Liberals and Conservatives. However, there is also the public who can talk the talk, but won't actually walk the walk when it comes right down to it.
However, we should still be committed to reducing our emissions as fast as possible, as of yesterday, not next year or ten years down the line. The current approach of the government (stall, spin, stall) is reckless and dangerous in the long run
Andrew wrote:
So the Liberals are wrong in practice but right in principle, while the Tories are the reverse. Oh, bravo.
Except that the Tories are not right in any portion because they have not unveiled any sort of plan. They've floated a few ideas and leaked a few "secret" documents that they have then refused to take responsibility for. And they've made promises to produce regulations that were supposed to have come out almost a month ago. So you have the flaws-and-all Lib plan vs. nothing. You point to the nothing and claim, my goodness! that it has fewer flaws!
As to your post column today, your mistake there lies not in following out the implications of the Tory numbers, but in refusing to question the assumptions behind those numbers. Which is of course pretty difficult because when Baird is asked how he did the math he refers people to an all of 200 word blurb on the CPoC webiste. As I have noted back at BCLSB, the rumor is that the Tories got these numbers from Mr. Harper's psychic.
BCL, you do know who Don Drummond is, don't you?
When did he become Harper's psychic???
Dion is toast. He's put himself in a lose-lose position. Harper's gonna run ads detailing how billions will be spent in other countries, so we can conform to Kyoto. It's over right there ...
Even in the minute chance that Dion pulled off a win, he's committed himself to his plan, or to flip-flopping on it. Either way, he's slicing his own throat.