BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord

Subject: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 11:33 AM

When we are good we are very very good, but when we are bad . . . .

It seems lately that on even-numberd days I am proud to be a Canadian because of our work in peace keeping, our work to better people's lives through such agencies as CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) and even the fact that we produce some of the greater writers of the English language.

On odd-numbered days I see that we sell asbestos to 'third world countries' (and thus allow their people to develop lung disorders), and then I read the paper to find that much of the world sees us as two-faced bastards who want to talk the talk but not walk the walk on the Kyoto Accord. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass who did not sign the Accord; I know it gives me great discomfort that we DID sign it and we have done NOTHING to live up to that agreement.

Signed,

A Pissed Off Canuck

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: pdq
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 11:43 AM

Polution and environmental destruction are almost directly corollated to population. Canada has but 1/220 th of the world's people. Nothing you folks do within your own borders will much affect on anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 11:43 AM

The above is the text of an e-mail I sent to Harper. If my body is found in any place other than a seedy bar--well, you'll know why.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 11:44 AM

True, pdq, but we agreed to it and thus should be doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Mooh
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 11:44 AM

Peace, agreed, but I don't want to screw with my blood pressure at the moment so I'll hold my tongue.

Peace, Mooh.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: pdq
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 11:51 AM

Here's a plan. Save all that money you would spend on Koyoto enforcement and spend it on birth control measures in South America and Africa. Did you know that, a present population growth rates, Niger will have 55 million people by in about 40 years? They can't feed themselves now. And I don't mean Nigeria. They have over 100 million now.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: pdq
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 12:08 PM

You may want to sit down before reading this list.

It covers 'urban areas' not 'cities' which always results in a number that does not reflect the size of 'urban sprawl'.

1. Tokyo, Japan - 34,100,000
2. Mexico City, Mexico - 22,650,000
3. Seoul, South Korea - 22,250,000
4. New York, United States - 21,850,000
5. Sao Paulo, Brazil - 20,200,000
6. Mumbai, India - 19,700,000
7. Dehli, India - 19,500,000
8. Los Angeles, United States - 17,950,000
9. Shanghai, China - 17,900,000
10. Jakarta, Indonesia - 17,150,000
11. Osaka, Japan - 16,800,000
12. Kolkata, India - 15,550,000
13. Cairo, Egypt - 15,450,000
14. Manila, Philippines - 14,850,000
15. Karachi, Pakistan - 14,100,000
16. Moscow, Russia - 13,750,000
17. Buenos Aires, Argentina - 13,400,000
18. Dhaka, Bangladesh - 13,100,000
19. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 12,100,000
20. Beijing, China - 11,950,000
20. London, United Kingdom - 11,950,000
22. Tehran, Iran - 11,800,000
23. Istanbul, Turkey - 11,400,000
24. Lagos, Nigeria - 11,000,000
25. Shenzhen, China - 10,450,000
26. Paris, France - 9,900,000
27. Chicago, United States - 9,750,000
28. Guangzhou, China (Canton) - 9,400,000
29. Chongqing, China (Chungking) - 9,200,000
30. Wuhan, China - 8,950,000
31. Lima, Peru - 8,500,000
32. Bogota, Colombia - 8,250,000
33. Washington-Baltimore, United States - 8,100,000
34. Nagoya, Japan - 8,050,000

Source: Th. Brinkhoff: The Principal Agglomerations of the World, http://www.citypopulation.de, Oct. 1, 2005.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Willie-O
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 12:39 PM

So...a lot of people live in and around big cities. Is this supposed to be a news flash? Cause it's nothing new to me.

The "birth control in Africa, not Kyoto protocols" suggestion is beneath contempt.

"Polution and environmental destruction are almost directly corollated to population."(sic). Not so, I can tell you're not acquainted with the Canadian landscape or industrial base, and are merely obsessed with the population factor. Which is only a FACTOR, not the game.

IT'S INDUSTRIALIZATION, STUPID!!! Clearly, you'd be amazed at what a small population can do with the assistance of technology and global capital. You don't need a big population to wreck your air and waste your forests.

Alberta Tar Sands development is having a huge (negative) effect on our greenhouse gas emissions (and it seems, screwing up the Mackenzie River in the process). And if we allow full-ahead industrial clearcutting in the huge boreal forest, things will get that much worse.

Nothing but a comprehensive global strategy on climate change has a half a hope of succeeding. You can't trade one factor for another and expect to make any progress.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 12:57 PM

Nova Scotia has a total population of well under a million, however, I believe that small populations in industrial countries can do an enormous damage, Our Harbour is polluted to such an extent that falling into it results in an immediate trip to hospital, we have no more wild salmon, shell fish in many places cannot be eaten, our wilderness areas are being torn to pieces by off road vehicles, we are building huge houses for the wealthy which consume vast amounts of fuel and electrical power, not to mention destruction of our urban Green spaces. Our government in Nova Scotia encourages, strip mining, dragging as a means of fishing, monopolies that prohit wind power and clear cutting of our forests.
       Major damage has been done in this Provence in the name of greed, comfort, luxury and convience. We must stop our destruction of this planet and we must not support governments who put profit ahead of a viable future for all people.
       That is my rant for the day. Canada needs to smarten up and do the citizens who demmand frvilous frills at great cost tous all.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 01:31 PM

Now that I am off and running on this subject, let me say that we can all make make a difference by taking some measures in our own lives that will hel reduce pollution and send a political message. Here are a few small things we can all do, One car per family, ne bathroom per house, don't flush every time, don't fertilize the lawn, take the bus when possible,don't support businesses that disregard the environment, get a rainbarrel, walk to work///on and on....
We need to start with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Barry Finn
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 01:39 PM

And you guys think you got problems. You at least attended & signed the Kyoto Accord & then hosted a 2nd Summit. Here down south we wouldn't think of getting that close to a Summit or to signing on. We did get to one Summit but walked out in a show of indignent stupididy. Maybe with the new House & Senate we can at least agree that there is a problem. At present we can't even acknowledge that much.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: pdq
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 02:19 PM

Patrick J. Michaels
On the Kyoto Protocol

Kyoto Protocol: "A useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty"

Thank you for soliciting my testimony on the science of climate change as it pertains to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Nearly ten years ago, I first testified on climate change in the U.S. House of Representatives. At that time, I argued that forecasts of dramatic and deleterious global warming were likely to be in error because of the very modest climate changes that had been observed to that date. Further, it would eventually be recognized that this more moderate climate change would be inordinately directed into the winter and night, rather than the summer, and that this could be benign or even beneficial. I testified that the likely warming, based on the observed data, was between 1.0 and 1.5°C for doubling the natural carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

The preceding paragraph was excerpted verbatim from my last testimony before this House, on November 6, 1997. Since that last testimony, new scientific advances have been published in the refereed literature that have now proven the validity of this position. The key findings include:

*        Documentation that observed climate change is several times below the amount predicted by the climate models that served as the basis for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Hansen et al., 1998),


*        Documentation that observed changes are largely confined to winter in the very coldest continental airmasses of Siberia and northwestern North America (Balling et al., 1998),


*        Documentation that the variation, or unpredictability, of regional temperatures has declined significantly on a global basis while there was no change in precipitation (Michaels et al., 1998),


*        Documentation that, in the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased (Lins and Slack, 1997),


*        Documentation that carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below the most conservative United Nations' scenarios, because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation (Hansen et al., 1998),


*        Documentation that the second most important human greenhouse enhancer—methane—is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years (Dlugokencky et al., 1998),


*        Documentation that the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998), and


*        Documentation that the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will have no discernable impact on global climate within any reasonable policy timeframe (Wigley, 1998).


In toto, these findings lead inescapably to the conclusion that the magnitude and the threat from global warming is greatly diminished. They should provoke a re-examination of the need for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol.

Historical Background

Ten years ago, on June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. His testimony coincided with a very hot, dry period (much worse than the summer of 1998), and subsequent polls showed that, as a result of his testimony, the public believed that the 1988 drought was caused by human-induced global warming.

At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe's temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model was one of many similar calculations that were used in the First Scientific Assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC", 1990), which stated that "when the latest atmospheric models are run with the present concentrations of greenhouse gases, their simulation of climate is generally realistic on large scales."

That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Figure 2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. Lower atmosphere temperatures measured by ascending thermistors on weather balloons show a decline of 0.36°C and satellites measuring the same layer (our only truly global measure) showed a decline of 0.24°C.

The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC's 1990 statement about the realistic nature of these projections was simply wrong.

This failure did not surprise me. On a 100 year time scale, the models were predicting a warming of about 1.5° by 1988. The observed change was 0.5°C. That the models continued to fail in the last ten years at the rate that they were failing in the previous century was strong evidence for my original thesis. How much might we have saved, including the notorious Kyoto Protocol, if we had just listened to nature instead of a manmade computer?

By 1995, in its second full Assessment of climate change, the IPCC admitted the validity of its critics' position: "When increases in greenhouse gases only are taken into account...most [climate models] produce a greater mean warming than has been observed to date, unless a lower climate sensitivity [to the greenhouse effect] is used...There is growing evidence that increases in sulfate aerosols are partially counteracting the [warming] due to increases in greenhouse gases."

IPCC is presenting two alternative hypotheses: Either the base warming was simply overestimated, or, some other anthropogenerated emission is preventing the warming from being observed. IPCC omitted a third source for the error: Perhaps the greenhouse gases were not increasing at the projected rate.

As evidence comes in, the first and third reasons appear to be carrying the day. The direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998). Carbon dioxide is not accumulating in the atmosphere at even the lowest rate estimated by IPCC in 1992 (Hansen et al., 1998), and the the second most important greenhouse emission, methane, began to decrease its rate of increase in 1981 (Etheridge et al., 1998), some 15 years before the recent IPCC report that projects an increased rate of emissions for the next 50 years.

Only the sulfate hypothesis allows the exaggerated notion of climate change any credibility. It is not surprising that this is the one that IPCC continues to champion because it raises the spectre of "dangerous" interference in the climate system, which is what the Framework Convention on Climate Change was designed to prevent. If there is no "dangerous" interference, there is no need for the Convention, or the subsequent Kyoto Protocol, and the IPCC has failed in its mission. The U.N. General Assembly, more than ten years ago, directed the IPCC to provide the basis for the Convention.

Why did it not warm as predicted?

a. The sulfate hypothesis

Are sulfate aerosols responsible for the now-admitted dearth of warming? In previous testimony I have shown how poorly this argument stands the critical test of the data. Suffice it to say that the entire record of three dimensional atmospheric temperature does not appear consistent with this hypothesis. Instead of repeating that argument, I would simply point out that the southern half of the planet is virtually devoid of sulfates, and should have warmed at a prodigious and consistent rate for the last two decades. Unfortunately, we have very few longterm weather records from that half of the planet, and almost all come from the relatively uncommon landmasses. However, we do have nearly two decades of satellite data (Figure 3). They show a statistically significant decline in temperature—exactly the opposite to what the sulfate hypothesis predicts.

b. Was the sensitivity overestimated?

If sulfates do not explain the lack of warming, one option is that the sensitivity to climate change was overestimated. The large warmings predicted by the failed models that back the Framework Convention rely on a roughly threefold amplification of carbon dioxide warming by increased atmospheric moisture. Yet Spencer and Braswell (1997) have found that the expected moisture is not there.

Perhaps even more remarkable is that amount of direct warming by carbon dioxide was also overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998). This is the basic driving force behind the entire issue!

c. Was the increase in greenhouse gases overestimated?

Dlugokencky et al. (1998) recently demonstrated that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere—currently 30% of the human greenhouse potential—is rapidly stabilizing. It has done this because its concentration is coming into chemical equilibrium with other atmospheric reactants. His calculations strongly suggest that the concentration will remain stable in the future. The IPCC assumed that, without any controls, the methane warming effect would double by 2050 and increase by 125% by 2100.

Hansen et al. (1998) recently calculated that the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are increasing at approximately 60% of the rate that is normally projected. Notably, he argues that the biosphere is absorbing CO2 at a rate much faster than anticipated, as he wrote that "Apparently the rate of uptake by CO2 sinks, either the ocean, or, more likely the forests and soils (our emphasis) has increased."

DECLINING PROJECTIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING

In the ten years since my first testimony, estimates of global warming to the year 2100 have declined. When the latest findings are factored in, the projected warming is now at the lower limit I noted in 1989. Following is a summary of that decline in median projected warming for the next century:

IPCC 1990 initial estimate: 3.2°C

IPCC revised 1992 estimate: 2.6°C

IPCC revised 1995 estimate: 2.0°C

After allowing for overestimation of direct CO2 warming: 1.7°C

After allowing for flattening of Methane concentration: 1.4°C

After allowing for decrease in carbon dioxide accumulation: 1.0°C

The Nature of Observed Change

Winter Warming

Greenhouse physics predicts that the driest airmasses should respond first and most strongly to changes induced by human activities. These, in fact, are generally the coldest airmasses, such as the great high pressure system that dominates Siberia in the winter, and its only slightly more benign cousin in northwestern North America. When the jet stream attains a proper orientation, it is this airmass that migrates south and kills orange trees in Florida.

A look at the trends in the satellite data—our only truly global record of lower atmosphere temperature—is remarkably revealing. While there is no overall global warming trend, there is a pronounced warming trend in the coldest winter regions.

Balling, Michaels, et al. (1998) examined surface temperature records since 1945 and found also that warming was largely confined to the coldest winter airmasses, in agreement with the satellite. A warming of the coldest, driest airmasses, is by definition, a relative warming of the nights compared to the days. And, by extension, this is the type of climate change that slightly lengthens the growing season, as the coldest temperature occurs at night.

Climate Variability

Michaels et al. (1998) recently examined the surface temperature history in order to answer three questions:

Is the temperature becoming more variable from year-to-year? We found a statistically significant decline in interannual variability worldwide (Figure 4) .

Is the variation from day-to-day increasing? We found no statistically significant change.

Are the number of record high or low temperatures increasing? We found no statistically significant change.

In summary, here is what the climate has done during the greenhouse enhancement: The most notable change is that the coldest airmasses of winter in Siberia and North America have warmed slightly. The only change in weather variability has been a tendency towards reduced year-to-year variability.

Our results should be integrated with a recent study of U.S. streamflow by Lins and Slack (1997). In an investigation of undisturbed sites, they found no change in the frequency of highest flow (flood) events, but a decrease in the lowest flow (drought) events.

We are not entering a world of increased variability, unpredictability and peril, but rather the opposite. If this is a human interference in the climate, it is hardly "dangerous."

The Kyoto Protocol: How Much Warming is Prevented?

This analysis assumes the IPCC's "consensus" estimate of 2.0°C of warming by the year 2100 in the absence of substantial emissions stabilization. Please note that my testimony indicates this is a considerable overestimation.

The Kyoto Protocol requires that the United States reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions by a remarkable 43% for the 2008-2012 average, compared to where they would have been if we continue on the trajectory established in the last two decades. The economic costs are enormous, they are but not the subject of this hearing. What are the climate benefits?

Wigley (1998) recently calculated the "saved" warming, under the assumptions noted above, that would accrue if every nation met its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. According to him, the earth's temperature in 2050 will be 0.07°C lower as a result. My own calculations produced a similar answer. Wigley is a Senior Scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

0.07°C is an amount so small that it cannot be reliably measured by ground-based thermometers. If one assumes the more likely scenario that warming to the year 2100 will be approximately half of the IPCC estimate, the saved warming drops to 0.04°C over the next fifty years.

This is no benefit at an enormous cost.

*****

In conclusion, the observed data on climate and recent emissions trends clearly indicate that the concept of "dangerous" interference in the climate system is outmoded within any reasonable horizon. This makes theKyoto Protocol a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty. It is time to reconsider the Framework Convention.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: pdq
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 02:23 PM

Read the Kyoto Protocol yourself, or are you just repeating the opinions of others?

                      well here it is...Kyoto Protocol

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 02:28 PM

You can have all the accords you like, if people in industrial nations do not look at their own lifestyles, we are doomed.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: gnu
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 02:36 PM

I hear ya, Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: pdq
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 02:41 PM

GUEST,

It would be difficult to argue with your points. Every human being on planet Earth should make a serious effort to reduce his/her ecological 'footprint'. We are wasteful, careless and arrogant.

That said, the accords mentioned here claim to reduce air polution (at least one part thereof) and eliminate Global Warming. They do neither, and may cost the US and Canada, if fully implemented, over 3 1/2 trillion dollars. They also makes us less competeiive with China, India and other powerful nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: pdq
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 02:44 PM

GUEST,

It would be difficult to argue with your points. Every human being on planet Earth should make a serious effort to reduce his/her ecological 'footprint'. We are wasteful, careless and arrogant. Driving less, living in an efficient house, growing a portion of your own food, etc...all good ideas.

That said, the accords mentioned here claim to reduce air polution (at least one part thereof) and eliminate Global Warming. They do neither, and may cost the US and Canada, if fully implemented, over 3 1/2 trillion dollars. They also makes us less competeiive with China, India and other powerful nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 02:45 PM

"there's much stronger evidence now of human actions on the change in climate that's taken place"

Tuesday, November 14th

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/International/2006/11/14/2351324-sun.html

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 02:45 PM

BBC News last night-
France is suggesting that it tax products from countries that don't agree to or abide by the Kyoto agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 02:54 PM

I am not against the accord. However, we cannot depend on governments to do it all. We must change the way we as individuls behave. This change in personal behaviour along with international accords would, I think, go a long way to making the planet a place with a future.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 04:36 PM

I consider myself to be left of centre on most issues but I have some real problem accepting that Kyoto is the salvation of any of us and I think the issue of its rejection is overblown.
I think that we should make a real worldwide effort to reduce the crap that we dump upon mother nature, not just because of global warming, but for many other more obvious reasons. One part of the Kyoto Accord that I see as pure hypocracy is polluting nations buying credits from the third world, so that they can continue to pump out pollution. This money then would probably end up in a Swiss bank account of some damn dictator in Africa and we would be paying the shot while industry continues to belch. Pdq is right in his belief that we can do little to effect climate change, and to think otherwise is just accepting bad science. Climate change is a part of nature, always has been and always will be, from droughts to floods to ice ages. Mankind throughout antiquity has been a nomad who changes location with the changing climate. Today we have put in place everything from national borders to fixed infastructure that makes it much more difficult to relocate. There is also far too many of us and we must accept that as well. Not only is the worlds population too high but it is concentrated into small areas. Of course this also concentrates the pollution.
Capitalism has become very short sighted and only worries up to the point of the next dividend and greed rules. Koyota started with good objectives but was castrated by the "Global Economy" long before it was signed.
We must go back and start with a clean slate!

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 06:14 PM

anyone who denies that climate is happening is, scientifically speaking..on the lunatic fringe. This just another way of saying..it ain't my fault. Well, guess what ? it is our fault..WE have to change. there is no other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Nov 06 - 08:37 PM

and we have to change worldwide.

Kyoto is not perfect but its a start. Why dump Kyoto when so much work and discussion has already gone into it. Lets face it, Bush didn't refuse to sign because he didn't like the credit plan. There are a limited number of credits so worldwide it is a fair option and each nation has the choice.

Guest reasons that, "Today we have put in place everything from national borders to fixed infastructure that makes it much more difficult to relocate."

We are more nomadic than ever. Jets and cars are a big part of the problem! Not to mention industrial waste and deforestation. Do some research, Guest, before you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 15 Nov 06 - 04:20 PM

We are not nomadic at all! We are anchored to a fixed location. New York city can't just pack up and move to Albany because the Hudson is overflowing its delta. Transportation has little to do with it but infastructure has us tied down. What we do as individuals means nothing if the masses can not follow suit.
A prime example is New Orleans, a city which from common sense should never have existed, is being rebuilt on the floodplain. If the ocean rises, and someday it will, Katrina will be nothing compared to what will happen but mankind is too stupid or greedy to see that. Get those tourists back as soon as possible and all else be damned! Please do not feel that I am not sympathetic to the poor souls that lost everything including many lives there. It is just that we don't learn from our mistakes.
If Koyota was to work it would have required full participation of the worlds nations. It never received that so was doomed to failure from the start. Things like giving China an exemption was beyond stupid. They are powered by coal and slave labour and would be allowed to continue to pollute the atmosphere so Wal-Mart and sneaker companies could make fortunes.
If we are to make big changes in Earths ecology we must start where we can effect the greatest immediate improvement and go on from there.
How about a worldwide ban on bottom dragging for fish to begin.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 04:32 AM

Obie - You may have a point. Stop dragging the bottom our our oceans, for sure, but we also have to have clean air and water. Kyoto is definitely flawed. I'm afraid, however, that Canada and the U.S. are no more committed to Kyoto than China. Unless we can get an agreement from all nations, we are doomed.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 05:25 AM

Agreed dianavan!
For example:
      Hydrogen can be used to fuel our autos. The internal combustion engine can be modified on existing cars to burn it. New ones would be produced using fuel cells with no combustion. The technology is proven and if mass produced fuel cells may become cheaper to produce than what we now have. Electricity is needed to produce hydrogen, but there are untapped forces of nature such as tides , wind, geo-thermal etc. that we could use.
The problem:
    Production and distribution. The big oil industry has no interest in doing this because they are making a killing (pun) overcharging us for what they now produce. To allow them to continue raising prices (some ecologists advocate this) is folly because their bottom line is all that they can see.
   pdq is right in that there is much that we can do but we should focus on what makes the most sense.
   To get agreement of all nations is next to impossible. The only body that can really exert any pressure is the UN and it has become rather gutless.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Metchosin
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 10:49 AM

Missed this documentary last night due to a 5 hour power outage due to high winds and inclement weather. We've just broken our 100 year record for rainfall. LOL. We escaped most of the, at times, hurricane force winds, but lot of the southcoast here is in a shambles this morning and still without power.

The Denial Machine will air again on the 17th. Some of the movers and shakers behind the "no global warming" viewpoint were the same PR people hired by the tobacco industry to try to disprove and dismiss the ill affects of cigarette smoking.......this time around, funded by Exxon et al.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 10:59 AM

I still ain't heard back from Harper's office.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 11:06 AM

. . . but the black Suburbans are getting on my nerves.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 11:26 AM

The Kyoto accord is an archtypal fig-leaf, just enough cover to carry on regardless, without making the slightest practical difference. As it doesn't include the US, China, Inda, and a host of smaller developing countries, it's totally useless.

The idea of helping to limit population growth in developing coutries was dismissed as beneath contempt somewhere above. It's not. Risisng populations throughout Africa have acted as one of the biggest triggers of poverty, enviromental degredation, and wars. Doing something to control that sounds good, but HIV is doing so quite well on it's own.

Trying to get people to curb their lifestyles and demand less is going to be very, very hard. It will take time we don't have, so we need to make our lifestyle less damaging. I belive the only practical measure we can take is a heavily industrial one.

The West needs to start a massive programme of building carbon-free power stations, renewables where it's practical, and nuclear where it's not. Let the Chinese ignore the patents as they do so often, and build them as well. The loss in missed licence fee's is less than the flood defense for Lousiana and Holland will cost if they carry on building dirty coal stations.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 11:46 AM

One of the things I have noticed about this thread is the modern tendancy not to accept responsibilty for our own actions. We tend to blame, the auto companies, big oil, government or other countries for this mess. The bottom line is that the problem is US. As individuls we are not prepared to admit to a lifestyle that is hugely damaging to the planet and all of the people on it.
We want someone else to take care of the problem and that is not going to happen . There may be, in the opinion of some, too may people on the planet. However, there are also too many stupid frivolities, leaf blowers, gas mowers, throwaya appliances, junk mail (I get about two pounds a week of it) Rv's, oversize autos and so on. Nobody wants to part with this stuff and until we do part with it..we need to stop bitching about what others aren't doing and take a long hard look at how selfish we all really are .

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Nov 06 - 11:57 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 12:04 AM

Selfish?
Of course we are and the world's economy is fired by greed! To suggest that we stop being selfish is great but it ain't gonna happen. There needs to some major committment from government and industry.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 02:23 AM

Why should I not blame the Government & the Big Industries.
I'm looking for a new car for my wife, our car gets roughly 34-36 mpg. With her new job she drives twice the distance. There are only 2 vehicles on the American Market that gets 40 or better mpg & 1 that gets 50 mpg or better & she ain't quitting to be closer to home. That's criminal to offer that on the public & not offer better than that. The government gives power plants the ok to write off to lower standards, again criminal. What the public on their own could do by be being personally responsible in a year is wiped out in a day by what the government lets big industry get away with. Let's be honest here. No matter what the people of the US do it won't change all that much unless they demand a change in their government & in the policies toward the mega industries. We can all do our little parts but they don't amount to a hill of beans compared to what's really causing the problems. Truth be told gas & diesel should be obsolete by now as well as the use of fossil fuels & until industry & government can figure out how to gear themselves up to really exploit energy from tides, wind, wave, solar, hydro, magnetic, geo-thermal & other non destructive & non polluting alternatives we're sunk. Lifestyle changes alone won't do squat & neither will relying on government & industry until they are forced to change their policy (not ours lives, simple education will go a long way there). When it finally comes down to survival, which is fast approaching, & it's a matter of government & industry or us, government & industry will change because they've drained all the profit out it what ever it is they're supplying & there's not a penny more to be had by continuing. Then they'll tell us that change is in the wind, probably to late by then but that's when & how it'll happen & not before. We just will not face the fact that this is what's happened & that it can't happen here & that this is where we are & that we did it to ourselves & let it go this far. Unless we become radical & extreme & demand change NOW, not tomorrow, we can't afford to wait & let these forces continue to act as if they're acting in our best interests, they are NOT. I'm not saying a revolution but it's gonna take damn near close to one to make a reversal in nature. We're now seeing a loss in artic animals along with the ice, not to mention the global deterioration going on elsewhere. Nature keeps throwing us the signs but we're culturally blind & we are only beginning to pay the price, wait till she decides to exact a toll on us, it's not gonna be pretty. Ok, the sky ain't falling & the sun's still shinning you say & you're right but the sun doesn't need to stop shinning & the sky doesn't need to fall & we don't need to be here to see that it doesn't happen either.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 09:06 AM

Cars should be obsolete by now. Individula ownership of transport ought to go the way of the dodo. But it won't because we all want our own little hampster ball to roll about in. Yes, we are selfish, but we can get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Canada: Kyoto Accord
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 06 - 11:11 AM

lifestyle changes will send a powerful message to governments. It will also send a powerful message to big business (we made them big). If we don't but it, they will get the message.