Canada First Nation To Pull Out of Kyoto Accord 561
Hugh Pickens writes "Canada will become the first country to formally withdraw from the Kyoto protocol on climate change, dealing a symbolic blow to the troubled global treaty. 'Kyoto, for Canada, is in the past,' says Environment Minister Peter Kent. 'We are invoking our legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto.' Kent, a Conservative, says the Liberals should not have signed up to a treaty they had no intention of respecting and says Ottawa backs a new global deal to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, but insists it has to cover all nations, including China and India, which are not bound by Kyoto's current targets. Kent adds that meeting Canada's obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6 billion: 'That's $1,600 from every Canadian family — that's the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent liberal government.' Kent's announcement came just hours after negotiators in Durban managed to thrash out an agreement at the very last minute — an agreement to begin a new round of talks on a new agreement in the years ahead. 'Staying under 2C will require drastic, immediate action — with global emissions peaking in the next five years or so,' writes Brad Plummer. 'The Durban Platform, by contrast, merely prods countries to come up with a new agreement that will go into effect no later than 2020.'"
By 2019.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We could learn a thing or two.... (Score:5, Informative)
Wait... you know that the US was never in the Kyoto Accord, right?
And that part of the reason Canada is pulling out is that the world's biggest CO2 outputting nations (US and China) weren't reducing their output?
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
He's the Environment Minister. Official part of the "Harper Government"(tm).
Yes, it's an embarrassing time to be a Canadian. There used to be a time when we would take part in multinational initiatives and act as a positive mediator who helped countries reach consensus. Now we sabotage them.
Re:We could learn a thing or two.... (Score:5, Informative)
China and the US not pulling their weight is only the official reason I guess.
The true reason must be the enormous CO2 pollution that the exploitation of the tarsand oil or what is it called is causing.
Re:If they're not doing it, we're not doing it. (Score:3, Informative)
Japan started first (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-30/world-shouldn-t-wait-for-u-s-resolution-on-climate-agreement-japan-says.html [bloomberg.com]
Canada may have been the first to formally withdraw but Japan started the ball rolling by refusing to extend the Kyoto Accord.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We could learn a thing or two.... (Score:5, Informative)
>>And that part of the reason Canada is pulling out is that the world's biggest CO2 outputting nations (US and China) weren't reducing their output?
Are you aware that the only countries that significantly reduced their output... didn't? That it was only a statistical artifact from the badly-chosen start date of 1990? And that 1990 was deliberately chosen because it would give these fake savings to the UK, Germany, and Eastern Europe?
The UK "reduced" its emissions by choosing 1990 as a start date, which was right before they switched from coal to NG as a way of fighting the coal miners' unions.
Germany "reduced" its emissions by absorbing Eastern Germany. Eastern Germany reduced its emissions via the mechanism below.
Eastern Europe "reduced" its emissions by having the USSR implode, which subsequently killed its industry and thus CO2 emissions.
Australia also liked a 1990 start date, due to unusually high emissions during that year.
Read Liverman's discussion of the process here: http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf [arizona.edu]
She makes a very good point that the date was set so that business could continue as usual, with certain countries winning "free" carbon reductions via a shady political process. Well worth the read.
Re:We could learn a thing or two.... (Score:5, Informative)
The UK switched from coal to NG? That's news to me.
At this exact moment in time, UK electricity generation is:
Coal: 21.42 GW
CCGT 12.23 GW
Nuclear 7.29 GW
Wind 2.9 GW
It's not a switch from coal, rather increased capacity via CCGT. Coal still produces the lion's share of electricity.
"Reduce the Intensity" (Score:4, Informative)
"China announced that it will reduce the intensity of its carbon dioxide emissions..."
Please be aware that the term "intensity" refers to the increase of the rate of production i.e. the acceleration. It's not putting the brakes on.. not even coasting... just lifting your foot a bit off the accelerator. I hope the U.S. numbers are indeed about reducing emission rates.
Re:We could learn a thing or two.... (Score:2, Informative)
Most of the oil in Canada is in the form of tar sands. The product requires a lot of processing to extract and I'm guessing that releases a lot of emissions. So for every say, 6 barrels you export, you have to burn a barrel yourself.
This really impacts the ability to exploit fossil fuel resources without busting your emissions cap. Which to be fair, is probably by design.
If you roll the emissions from extraction into the emissions count for the nation that purchases the oil, it discourages purchase from low EROI fossil fuel sources ; which would continue to have the desired effect of reducing emissions. But Canada are still not going to like it, because it makes their product less desirable.
The EROI of tar sands is now marginally worse than that of photovoltaic cells [greenbuildingadvisor.com] ; barring significant improvements in the production process for tar sands, and zero progress in solar panel research, this comparison is only going to get worse.
Re:We could learn a thing or two.... (Score:5, Informative)
They're not. They're carbon trading with India, among other places. So while developing and third world nations are trading worthless cash for a carbon cap they will NEVER hit this Century unless by some freak accident the country catches fire, the US, China and other industrialised nations carry on as normal and PRETEND that they have reduced their carbon output. No, all they've done is buy an offset to top off their own cap which they're hitting so hard it's bruising.
It's all one big con, a huge lie and a fucking ripoff, and the losers in this are you and I.
Re:TCO (Score:3, Informative)
More farmable land is actually one of the predictions: some models show America's "wheat belt" migrating northwards, so the plains of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba will become productive in the way that Iowa, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas currently are for the U.S.: here's a map [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Huh? (Score:1, Informative)
What the fuck is that? Did you mean American? B/c the name of the country is the United States of America thus, the appropriate term for someone from the United States of America is American. Or do you call people from Great Britain UKers?
Re:TCO (Score:2, Informative)
Those aren't really plains. They're boreal forest.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Harper (Score:4, Informative)
It has been embarrassing to see my fellow Canadians elect Harper and his "Conservatives" (read: Reform Party in disguise/Canadian Republican Party) in the first place. I think his only goal is to maintain power so he can remake Canada into a miniature version of the US under the Republicans. No doubt he wants to have us give up our sovereignty and become additional states down the road. Sorry to all you US /. readers but I see that as a very bad thing :(
I wouldn't buy a used car from him. I am deeply embarrassed that my fellow citizens have been stupid enough to elect him and then give him a majority government.
Whatever they say is the reason for pulling out of Kyoto officially, the real reason will be that his corporate owners do not want to spend additional money to be environmentally responsible instead of making profits and he knows he has a stranglehold on Canada at the moment and can do whatever he wants.
Re:TCO (Score:2, Informative)
That is literally the only reason we HAD to pull out.
Gigity.