27

After Kyoto


 

Andrew Leach considers the past, present and future of Canada’s involvement in international climate negotiations.

So, while Canada is right to abandon Kyoto, and Canada is right that an effective treaty to address global carbon emissions needs to include most/all countries, I don’t think they’re on the right track in demanding an agreement with binding targets for all countries.  First, it’s unlikely you’ll see binding emissions targets imposed on developing countries. That makes it less likely that Canada will have a role in formulating whatever agreement does come around if they’ve disavowed interest based on that condition..  Second, an agreement with binding emissions targets for everyone is, in my view, the last thing Canada should be pushing for.  Canada should, and I will write more on this later, be pushing for an international standard by which a facility operated in the UK, in Alberta, or in India would face the same effective carbon price, or the same reward for reducing emissions. That doesn’t mean carbon tax – it means a system which measures effort, and doesn’t reward historic emissions.

In a follow-up, he explains what withdrawing from Kyoto means in practical terms.


 

After Kyoto

  1. Canada will pay dearly for this stupidity. Eventually we’ll end up buying green tech from China, and they will make the money we refused to.

    • “Canada will pay dearly for this stupidity.”

      What do you mean will pay? We already paying for people’s idiocy. ChiComs will be laughing at us if we start buying ineffectual green technology from them to fight non-existent problem.

      Interview with Phil Jones:

      Q) Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
      A) So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
      Q) Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
      A) Yes, but only just.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

      “The Ontario Green Act promised to create 50,000 jobs. Our study concludes that each of those jobs will require a ratepayer subsidy of $200,000 annually, which effectively means that — as the LTEP reaches fruition — $10-billion will be extracted from ratepayers each year.”
      http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/04/ontarios-power-trip-the-4000-electricity-bill/

      • If you choose to remain ignorant by misquoting and cherry-picking, that’s your problem.

        It will also be your money, because ignorance is costly.

      • Get with it TA. The time for selectively misquoting Jones is over…even your misinformation is passe. :)

        • Science ~ Nov 2011:

          Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2 to 4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and nonzero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.

          http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/22/science.1203513

          • That’s not the point. The point i had was your misrepresenting Jones. I’ve read that BBC interview too you know – all of it, not just the bits i like.

          • If you check out his link, you’ll find he’s misrepresenting there too.

          • OE

            How so? I thought about checking but couldn’t be bothered.
            Is it another weatherman pretending to be an expert? Or another so called academic site that turns out to be funded by a reactionary rep. senator? I can’t be bothered to check deniers so called facts anymore. 

          • @kcm2:disqus 

            It’s an abstract for a paper
            ‘Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum’

    • It never was, in reality, going to be purchased from producers here for long. The value proposition for producing goods overseas is just too good to pass up. It’s not as if there are many who are actually demanding local, artisinal solar panels or windmills. Heck, a significant (and growing) proportion of solar panels are being produced in Asia as it is now. The domestic proportion is already dropping.

      • The money is not in production lines, it’s in the tech.

        • Which is something else that we’re unlikely to make much of a splash in. I’m sure you’ve noticed that the IP markets don’t exactly swing our way. Even if we did develop some excellent green technologies, it’s also equally likely that we’d aim directly for a quick cash-out – as we have in nearly every other industry.

          • Yeah, we’re real keen on selling everything we have…or giving it away, or just giving it up.

            A cultural trait I’m not fond of

    • Canada would pay dearly if it alowed itself to be a part of the Kyoto Ponzi scheme.

      Our government finally has the gonads to stand up for the regular Canadian.

      The people drawing paychecks from the special interest agw groups should start looking for real jobs.

      Try supporting the economy instead of leaching off of it.

      • Clearly you don’t understand Kyoto….or even know the meaning of Ponzi scheme

        I gather there are also ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ Canadians. LOL

        Nor do you understand ‘economy’

        You’re just spouting slogans without thinking.

        Good little conbot….pat pat.

  2. Why is this economist writing about this – he doesn’t seem to know much about Kyoto?

  3. A rhetorical question: 

    If, as a result of the Keystone XL setback, and as the Canadian Gov’t has vowed to no longer tie itself as tightly to the whims of the US- looking to other outlets for its products, does this mean that we no longer have to wait for US action on GHG’s? Or does this mean that we will now defer to the inactions our new preferred customers, China, for example? 

    If only Harper was “master of his own domain.”

     *ahem* [National Energy Strategy].

    • So we will be moving all our eggs to another basket?

    • While we in Canada were waiting (Harper foot dragging) the UK leaped into the Green socialist scheme,
      blew $210 BILLION with little measurable results in ghg reduction.
      Now UK looking at ditching the green thing, can’t afford it anymore.
       

  4. “I don’t think they’re on the right track in demanding an agreement with binding targets for all countries.  First, it’s unlikely you’ll see binding emissions targets imposed on developing countries. That makes it less likely that Canada will have a role in formulating whatever agreement does come around if they’ve disavowed interest based on that condition”

    But Mr leach wasn’t this pretty much the original logic underpinning Kyoto? We[ the industrial west] should set an example by taking the first steps since the developing world was adamant they weren’t going to be the first in? It was to be our bargaining position – “See, it’s not as hard as you thought – now you try it.”
    True the original baseline targets were ludircrously optimistic with hindsight[ and maybe not much of that] and should not have been so cavalierly adopted without thought to our national circumstances[ bad liberals] but by your own logic we’re right back at the same problem – how to persuade DN’s to sign on when they each have their own perfectly reasonable set of reasons for not doing so? Indeed SH has sanctified their positons by insisting shrilly on our own.
     Again, Kyoto ws set up to head off this very difficulty and SH has done little or nothing to offer anything to shift big emitters other then saying we wont set any sort of example, so there!
     So, what exactly is the incentive for DN’s to move, other then fear of runaway warming. Which our govt has done nothing to help sell as a consequence of inaction, since it doesn’t really believe the science anyway. Indeed the signal seems to be – well inthat case i guess we’re still free to develop our economy in whatever manner we so choose, and a warming climate is good for Canada in any case, so there!
    Someone has to go first. Standing around like little school boys arging about who’s first in is hardly a hopeful sign.

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/11/30/china-lectures-canada-on-climate-change/#disqus_thread

    I rest my case. You have to be particularly hamfisted politically speaking when you allow yourself to be put in a position where china of all people can call you out…jeesh!

  5. The lunatic left will rant and scream.

    Logic escapes them.

    • Your slogans will soon be all you have left to count, because you’ll be broke.

      • I can’t figure out how he manages to type with that giant turd balanced on his head. I guess it helps to keep it short – thankfully.

        • LOL I can’t imagine why an adult human being would nickname themselves that….even in jest!

          • Try deleting the word adult.

          • Heh….true, dat.

    • And you expect to be taken seriously with that lunatic hat?

Sign in to comment.