Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

[Altair]

That's true, but I was trying to point out the pain at this end for the gain at that end. All has be thrown into the calculus, no?

Yes, you are right, it does.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I guess the Paris accord, signed by 191 nations, is stupid then.

Yes. No realistic hope of being achieved. It's just eye candy for the people who like to hear the right words.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In terms of total emmisions China is the worst.

Unfortunately, it's total emissions that drive the problem. Per capita measures are a political distraction for the weak-minded.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The 5 parties in parliament representing 338 MPs have all come to the conclusion that this is the best way forward.

Suddenly politicians are capable of solving a problem which requires a realistic appreciation of economics and physics. We know they are correct because they are in agreement. Sure, sure.

 

[Altair]

Yes. No realistic hope of being achieved. It's just eye candy for the people who like to hear the right words.

There is a more realistic chance of meeting the Paris climate targets before 2030 than getting 191 nations around the table again for a completely new framework and reduce emissions before 2030.

Unfortunately, it's total emissions that drive the problem. Per capita measures are a political distraction for the weak-minded.

And China argues that first world nations use more per capita carbon than developing nations and since they want to ascend to first world status it would be unfair to kneecap them. Now agree or disagree, but finding a compromise is better than having one if the biggest polluters on the planet not be part of the agreement at all and driving up emissions while the rest of the world is trying to lower them.

Suddenly politicians are capable of solving a problem which requires a realistic appreciation of economics and physics. We know they are correct because they are in agreement. Sure, sure.

Just like with gay marriage, eventually everyone gets on the same page and it ceases to be a topic of discussion amongst political parties.

I think we reached that point now and its pretty awesome that every party in parliament agrees with a carbon tax and the one that did not won zero seats.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is a more realistic chance of meeting the Paris climate targets before 2030 than getting 191 nations around the table again for a completely new framework.

I doubt there is any political hope at all of getting to any meaningful framework that will make a useful difference. The Paris Accords are a stage show for the consumption of fools who need reassurance, performed by people who will continue to exert large carbon footprints as they have done throughout the life of the "climate emergency". And some of the fools will doubtless make excuses for those who exempt themselves from feeling any of the pain. Animal Farm, but with emissions in lieu of liquor and other consumption goods.

 

[Altair]

I doubt there is any political hope at all of getting to any meaningful framework that will make a useful difference. The Paris Accords are a stage show for the consumption of fools who need reassurance, performed by people who will continue to exert large carbon footprints as they have done throughout the life of the "climate emergency". And some of the fools will doubtless make excuses for those who exempt themselves from feeling any of the pain. Animal Farm, but with emissions in lieu of liquor and other consumption goods.

You fight climate change with the accord you have, not the accord you might want or wish to have at a later time.'.

~Donald Rumsfeld, circa 2000 or something.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The accord isn't the "army"; the accord is just one CoA. Try harder.

Those who have agreed to pinch the Canadian economy to achieve no useful emissions reduction will undoubtedly follow through and pinch the economy. That will reduce resources to deal with that and all other problems.

 

[Altair]

The accord isn't the "army"; the accord is just one CoA. Try harder.

Those who have agreed to pinch the Canadian economy to achieve no useful emissions reduction will undoubtedly follow through and pinch the economy. That will reduce resources to deal with that and all other problems.

Okay, again, if you have another CoA that will reduce domestic emissions 30 percent or higher that doesn't involve a price on carbon, please share with the class.

Bonus points if you can do this without mentioning China.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Okay, again, if you have another CoA that will reduce domestic emissions 30 percent or higher that doesn't involve a price on carbon, please share with the class.

Bonus points if you can do this without mentioning China.

The inconvenient truth that guy on the ladder conveniently forgot to mention:

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined​

China emits more greenhouse gas than the entire developed world combined, a new report has claimed.

The research by Rhodium Group says China emitted 27% of the world's greenhouse gases in 2019.
The US was the second-largest emitter at 11% while India was third with 6.6% of emissions, the think tank said.
Scientists warn that without an agreement between the US and China it will be hard to avert dangerous climate change.
China's emissions more than tripled over the previous three decades, the report from the US-based Rhodium Group added.

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined

The country is responsible for 27% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report.

www.bbc.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

The inconvenient truth that guy on the ladder conveniently forgot to mention. A global climate accord is useless. Some kind of agreement between the three largest emitters would be a better option:

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined​

China emits more greenhouse gas than the entire developed world combined, a new report has claimed.

The research by Rhodium Group says China emitted 27% of the world's greenhouse gases in 2019.
The US was the second-largest emitter at 11% while India was third with 6.6% of emissions, the think tank said.
Scientists warn that without an agreement between the US and China it will be hard to avert dangerous climate change.
China's emissions more than tripled over the previous three decades, the report from the US-based Rhodium Group added.

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined

The country is responsible for 27% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report.

www.bbc.com

 

[Altair]

The inconvenient truth that guy on the ladder conveniently forgot to mention:

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined​

China emits more greenhouse gas than the entire developed world combined, a new report has claimed.

The research by Rhodium Group says China emitted 27% of the world's greenhouse gases in 2019.
The US was the second-largest emitter at 11% while India was third with 6.6% of emissions, the think tank said.
Scientists warn that without an agreement between the US and China it will be hard to avert dangerous climate change.
China's emissions more than tripled over the previous three decades, the report from the US-based Rhodium Group added.

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined

The country is responsible for 27% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report.

www.bbc.com

I wont for a second say China doesn't have a big part to play in this.

But China unfortunately has a point.

If first world nations simply burn more carbon to enjoy a first world lifestyle, is it fair to force countries trying to achieve first world status to stop all their emissions?

And is it fair to consider total emissions which is unfair to nations with bigger populations when emissions per capita show China far behind?

Canada

18.58

675,918,610

36,382,944

Australia

17.10

414,988,700

24,262,712

USA

15.52

5,011,686,600

323,015,995

China

7.38

10,432,751,400

1,414,049,351

Those at the Paris conference decided to compromise, and bring down western nations emissions while telling China to slow and stop emission growth. China and the rest of the west will meet somewhere in the middle by 2030 is the hope I think.

Again, come up with any agreement that doesn't take this calculus into effect and China walks and the accord falls apart.

So unless someone else thinks that there can be a consensus of all nations on a climate plan that can achieve results before 2030 then its moot as to whether the Paris accord is the best way forward. Its the plan humanity has and its too late in the game to rip up and change the playbook now.

 

[mariomike]

The 5 parties in parliament representing 338 MPs have all come to the conclusion that this is the best way forward.

Whatever team one supports, nice to see they are on the same page.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Imposing unnecessary limitations is foolish.

China will move to cheaper fuels if those fuels are cheaper and sufficiently abundant.

China will move to less polluting fuels to mitigate air quality.

China is the global low-hanging fruit - an obvious place to concentrate efforts to mitigate total emissions. Transportation by sea is the most cost-effective mode we have, and an ocean is all that separates Canada from China.

None of these factors involves or requires accords or quotas. Canada should disregard accords, and go full bore on LNG exploitation. If some of the contributors here are to be believed, not all people working high in governments and other agencies are mediocrities; those capable of empiricism will at least quietly understand and applaud even if the official positions of governments are derogatory.

[Add: there are security benefits, for those who care. China will not like dependency on foreign LNG supplies any more than it likes dependency on Australian coal. But if Chinese energy consumption costs fall, the people are happier. If air quality improves, the people are happier. If the people are happier, domestic political stress is mitigated. That and dependence on continued and increased international trade give China two incentives to be less bellicose.]

 

[daftandbarmy]

Imposing unnecessary limitations is foolish.

China will move to cheaper fuels if those fuels are cheaper and sufficiently abundant.

China will move to less polluting fuels to mitigate air quality.

China is the global low-hanging fruit - an obvious place to concentrate efforts to mitigate total emissions. Transportation by sea is the most cost-effective mode we have, and an ocean is all that separates Canada from China.

None of these factors involves or requires accords or quotas. Canada should disregard accords, and go full bore on LNG exploitation. If some of the contributors here are to be believed, not all people working high in governments and other agencies are mediocrities; those capable of empiricism will at least quietly understand and applaud even if the official positions of governments are derogatory.

Exactly... do whatever it takes to help China cut emissions (because they're making stuff mainly for us).

 

[Altair]

Whatever team one supports, nice to see they are on the same page.

Yeah, and that's what I like. It will cease being an issue going forward if everyone is on the same page.

Granted, there will be some individuals who continue to try to make this an issue, same way certain individuals continue to try to make abortion an issue, but all the parties are in lockstep and that's all that I really care about.

 

[YZT580]

lockstep indeed, just like lemmings heading for the cliff. All a tax does is cost the taxpayer. It doesn't do a damn thing to reduce emissions. To do that requires either ceasing production or finding a more efficient way to use the fuel we have now because except for hydro, none of the choices are viable. Europe in the last month is proof positive of that. I am not counting nuclear because the greenies have made it too big an issue. All our tax does is drive industry to a less costly locale: such as China, but it is only a for instance. The job market in Oshawa, Windsor, Oakville, St. Catharines stands as testimony. Every significant electiric rate hike has been accompanied by the loss of at least one production line. Oil is 80 a barrel yet petrol is over 1.40. The vast majority of that is tax. So I pay more for fuel. I have the same destinations so I have to cut back on other items such as vacations or entertainment (my prime discretionary costs). That means I don't support local theatre and concert venues and there is a vacancy at the lodge we normally frequent. Tell me please in simple terms how taking money out of the economy is saving the planet? Most of my car is manufactured in China because the parts lines that used to support domestic production have been re-located to China. Again, tell me how supporting their carbon output so Ford can avoid carbon costs in Ontario has done one thing for the environment?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Carbon tax can contribute to reduced emissions, if the response to the incentive (increased cost) is to reduce fuel consumption. But there are other courses of action for reducing costs. I'm sure some estimators take this into account; I'm skeptical that proponents of taxes are sufficiently pessimistic (ie. I expect the results to fall short of their forecasts).

Internalizing externalities (which is what is being attempted) means someone has to pay the cost.

 

[Altair]

lockstep indeed, just like lemmings heading for the cliff.

Like I said, I'm more than okay with individuals being against it so long as all the parties are for it.

Because you'll either accept that the CPC will put in their own carbon tax and accept it or go vote for the PPC. I'm cool either way.

 

[YZT580]

Like I said, I'm more than okay with individuals being against it so long as all the parties are for it.

Because you'll either accept that the CPC will put in their own carbon tax and accept it or go vote for the PPC. I'm cool either way.

So in very simple terms, it doesn't matter to you if the economy goes to hell in a hand basket, your neighbour is unemployed and the breadline extends clear around the block as long as we have reached this decision via consensus. Wow