Re: [Biofuel] No need for a Kyoto debate: It's over - Globe & Mail - 2006.10.06
-Darryl, my hero, I'm still reading your note-- I gotta add that while I was living in Switzerland in 1978 I had some eye-openers: Turn off the light when you leave the room, shut off the water in the shower while you are lath'ring up your shampoo, give your leftover salad to the chickens outside... This was normal for them in the way that it is not yet normal for us in Canada. Jess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Jesse Frayne wrote: > > >How did you feel about this one, Darryl? > > > >First reaction was something about journalism. Big > >Headline, then three columns of stuff about how we > are > >all going to lose our shirts. > > > >Finally, somebody says Hey, she's just scaring > >people!!! Hello? How about reducing use? And how > >did she find her statistics, anyway. > > > >Humm. Fuzzy journalism, I think. > > > > Actually, I thought Simpson was taking aim at the > feigned hysteria and > fuzzy journalism that has already characterized the > debate since Ambose > opened her mouth, because it certainly seems nobody > is listening to what > she is actually saying. > > I think the fact that the Minister is saying this > presents the proverbial > two-edged sword. There is the danger that it > becomes the self-fulfilling > prophecy. On the other hand, it could be taken as a > challenge and call to > action by those that feel more can be done. Pity we > haven't seen more of > the can-do attitude, and less of the strident > hand-wringing for the > cameras. > > It annoys me to see the federal Liberals wailing > about Kyoto, when they > had years in office and did nothing constructive on > the file. It seems a > trifle hypocritical to me to see the leadership > candidates posture for the > media on the subject, while their upcoming > leadership conference does not > offer delegates the option to make their trip carbon > neutral, let alone > the conference. I see much smaller events for less > affluent organizations > buying enough green power credits to make their > conferences carbon > neutral. > > Of course Canada could meet the targets. We just > won't choose to do so. > Because most of us just don't give a darn. Bigger > houses, bigger cars and > trucks, more consumer goods and status symbols still > win out over > maintaining a habitable planet for most Canadians, > judging by actions. I > think the mood is shifting, ever so slowly, but I > don't see the momentum > building that others claim to see. It's a challenge > even in my household, > where the time I spend on these issues is resented. > > In reality, it isn't the government that will meet > or miss the target; > it's the population of the country. It is our > actions and decisions that > make the difference. If we want zero-emissions > vehicles, it is up to us > to buy them. Where they are prohibited, it is up to > us to change the > rules (e.g., our recent victory to legalize electric > bikes in Ontario). > > If we're worried about the contributions of the oil > sands, we can reduce > our demand for heating oil, gasoline and diesel > fuel. If we're worried > about electrical generation from coal, we can reduce > our electrical > consumption from the grid. If we're worried about > depletion of fresh > water, we can take measures to reduce our use of it. > We're the consumers. > We're the demand for those commodities. > > Canada is committed to Kyoto; I can't imagine that > we will withdraw from > it. So, instead we'll try to cut a deal to buy > credits on the cheap, or > get exemptions or delays. The right answer is to > start a major campaign > to reduce our emissions enough to make those gains > at home. What's the > hurry to get the oil out of the oil sands in ten > years instead of fifty? > It's not going anywhere. The demand isn't going to > evaporate in 2016. We > can become more efficient. > > Here's an interesting story. I have just started > analyzing electrical > demand in Ontario since deregulation in May 2002. > Despite the Ontario > Power > Authority's decree that generation capacity must > increase by 2% a year > forever, the actual demand for electricity in > Ontario has *decreased* 0.5% > from the year May 2002-April 2003 to the year May > 2005-April 2006. That > is despite a growing population, a housing boom, > increased employment and > a growing economy during that period. We can > improve efficiency and > conserve, and reduce our raw energy consumption > without sacrificing our > economy or quality of life. > > We have six years to prove Ambrose and this > government wrong? Will we? > Only if we think it's important, and judging by our > actions over the past > decade, we don't think it is important. > > Darryl > > >Jesse--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> > >>JEFFREY SIMPSON > >> > >>Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was correct: > >>Canada will not, and > >>cannot, meet its Kyoto greenhouse-gas reduction > >>target. > >> > >>Opposition MPs were outraged at her assertion > >>yeste
Re: [Biofuel] No need for a Kyoto debate: It's over - Globe & Mail - 2006.10.06
Jesse Frayne wrote: >How did you feel about this one, Darryl? > >First reaction was something about journalism. Big >Headline, then three columns of stuff about how we are >all going to lose our shirts. > >Finally, somebody says Hey, she's just scaring >people!!! Hello? How about reducing use? And how >did she find her statistics, anyway. > >Humm. Fuzzy journalism, I think. > Actually, I thought Simpson was taking aim at the feigned hysteria and fuzzy journalism that has already characterized the debate since Ambose opened her mouth, because it certainly seems nobody is listening to what she is actually saying. I think the fact that the Minister is saying this presents the proverbial two-edged sword. There is the danger that it becomes the self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, it could be taken as a challenge and call to action by those that feel more can be done. Pity we haven't seen more of the can-do attitude, and less of the strident hand-wringing for the cameras. It annoys me to see the federal Liberals wailing about Kyoto, when they had years in office and did nothing constructive on the file. It seems a trifle hypocritical to me to see the leadership candidates posture for the media on the subject, while their upcoming leadership conference does not offer delegates the option to make their trip carbon neutral, let alone the conference. I see much smaller events for less affluent organizations buying enough green power credits to make their conferences carbon neutral. Of course Canada could meet the targets. We just won't choose to do so. Because most of us just don't give a darn. Bigger houses, bigger cars and trucks, more consumer goods and status symbols still win out over maintaining a habitable planet for most Canadians, judging by actions. I think the mood is shifting, ever so slowly, but I don't see the momentum building that others claim to see. It's a challenge even in my household, where the time I spend on these issues is resented. In reality, it isn't the government that will meet or miss the target; it's the population of the country. It is our actions and decisions that make the difference. If we want zero-emissions vehicles, it is up to us to buy them. Where they are prohibited, it is up to us to change the rules (e.g., our recent victory to legalize electric bikes in Ontario). If we're worried about the contributions of the oil sands, we can reduce our demand for heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel. If we're worried about electrical generation from coal, we can reduce our electrical consumption from the grid. If we're worried about depletion of fresh water, we can take measures to reduce our use of it. We're the consumers. We're the demand for those commodities. Canada is committed to Kyoto; I can't imagine that we will withdraw from it. So, instead we'll try to cut a deal to buy credits on the cheap, or get exemptions or delays. The right answer is to start a major campaign to reduce our emissions enough to make those gains at home. What's the hurry to get the oil out of the oil sands in ten years instead of fifty? It's not going anywhere. The demand isn't going to evaporate in 2016. We can become more efficient. Here's an interesting story. I have just started analyzing electrical demand in Ontario since deregulation in May 2002. Despite the Ontario Power Authority's decree that generation capacity must increase by 2% a year forever, the actual demand for electricity in Ontario has *decreased* 0.5% from the year May 2002-April 2003 to the year May 2005-April 2006. That is despite a growing population, a housing boom, increased employment and a growing economy during that period. We can improve efficiency and conserve, and reduce our raw energy consumption without sacrificing our economy or quality of life. We have six years to prove Ambrose and this government wrong? Will we? Only if we think it's important, and judging by our actions over the past decade, we don't think it is important. Darryl >Jesse--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >>JEFFREY SIMPSON >> >>Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was correct: >>Canada will not, and >>cannot, meet its Kyoto greenhouse-gas reduction >>target. >> >>Opposition MPs were outraged at her assertion >>yesterday, as they often are >>when truth smacks them in the face. Any politician >>who argues that Canada >>can meet its Kyoto targets consciously abuses the >>facts, or doesn't know >>them. >> >>Here they are: Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Canada >>pledged to reduce >>emissions by 2008-2012 to 6 per cent below those of >>1990. >> >>Emissions in 1990 were 599 megatonnes of carbon >>dioxide and other >>climate-warming gases. Canada needed to cut 6 per >>cent from that total. >>Instead, by 2003, emissions had jumped to 740 >>megatonnes and, in 2004, to >>758 megatonnes. This week, Natural Resources Canada >>predicted that >>emissions would be 828 megatonnes by 2010. >> >>Therefore, to fulfill Kyoto
Re: [Biofuel] No need for a Kyoto debate: It's over - Globe & Mail - 2006.10.06
How did you feel about this one, Darrly? First reaction was something about journalism. Big Headline, then three columns of stuff about how we are all going to lose our shirts. Finally, somebody says Hey, she's just scaring people!!! Hello? How about reducing use? And how did she find her statistics, anyway. Humm. Fuzzy journalism, I think. Jesse--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > JEFFREY SIMPSON > > Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was correct: > Canada will not, and > cannot, meet its Kyoto greenhouse-gas reduction > target. > > Opposition MPs were outraged at her assertion > yesterday, as they often are > when truth smacks them in the face. Any politician > who argues that Canada > can meet its Kyoto targets consciously abuses the > facts, or doesn't know > them. > > Here they are: Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Canada > pledged to reduce > emissions by 2008-2012 to 6 per cent below those of > 1990. > > Emissions in 1990 were 599 megatonnes of carbon > dioxide and other > climate-warming gases. Canada needed to cut 6 per > cent from that total. > Instead, by 2003, emissions had jumped to 740 > megatonnes and, in 2004, to > 758 megatonnes. This week, Natural Resources Canada > predicted that > emissions would be 828 megatonnes by 2010. > > Therefore, to fulfill Kyoto, Canada would need to > reduce emissions in the > next two to six years by 265 megatonnes: from 828 > megatonnes to 6 per cent > below the 1990 level of 599 megatonnes, or 563 > megatonnes. That reduction > is absolutely impossible -- unless Canada did > something extremely stupid. > > Canada could buy emission credits from other > countries, but the cost would > be billions and billions of dollars. Nothing would > have changed in Canada. > A stupider public policy choice would be hard to > imagine. > > Having said that, Canada's greenhouse-gas-emissions > record remains a > national, even international, scandal. If nothing is > done, the National > Round Table on the Environment and the Economy > predicts that emissions > will reach a staggering 1,300 megatonnes by 2050. > > The Liberals presided over the policy scandal, so > have no business > criticizing anyone but themselves. Their terrible > record was documented > last week by Canada's Environment Commissioner. > > The Conservatives have not done anything except > scrap a few modest > programs. Nothing suggests that Ms. Ambrose and the > Harper government will > get really serious about carbon emission reductions. > Everything suggests > that, when the Conservatives reveal their policies, > these will only slow > down the increase in emissions, not reduce them. > > Slowing down increases won't cut it. When Ms. > Ambrose insists that Canada > will remain part of Kyoto, what does that mean? It > must mean changes > beyond anything the government has contemplated. > > As a Kyoto signatory, Canada in the post-2012 period > would have to make up > for all the emissions it had failed to reduce in the > pre-2012 period -- > plus an extra 30 per cent! > > In other words, Canada would need to (a) make up for > the roughly 35 per > cent by which it missed the Kyoto target, and (b) > add another 30 per cent > reduction. > > The subsequent reduction of about 65 per cent by the > early part of the > 2020s is supposed to occur while energy use > continues to rise and more and > more oil is produced from the tar sands. > > Just yesterday, EnCana and ConocoPhillips of Houston > announced plans to > spend $10.7-billion (U.S.) to produce and upgrade > 400,000 barrels a day of > raw oil sands crude by 2015. > > A barrel of oil from bitumen produces about two to > three times the carbon > from conventionally pumped oil. By 2020, 80 per cent > of Canada's oil will > come from the tar sands. If nothing is done to > radically change the > capturing of carbon from producing all that oil, > Canada's greenhouse gases > will rise, and rise sharply. And what does Ms. > Ambrose propose to do about > that? > > How Canada, or more precisely Alberta with its > constitutional control of > natural resources, is developing oil sands is > environmentally crazy: using > relatively clean natural gas to produce heat that > allows the oil to be > extracted from the sand. We are using a clean fuel > to produce a dirtier > one. > > We are doing this when conventional gas supplies are > declining. These must > be replaced in part by coal bed methane or > gasification of coal, both of > which can be greenhouse-gas unfriendly. > > We also know, as the Natural Resources report > underscored this week, that > the future mix of oil in Canada will be heavier, > thereby requiring more > processing, which, in turn, will produce more > emissions. > > So the debate over whether Canada will meet its > Kyoto commitments is a > false one, because it's over. Those targets will not > -- cannot -- be met. > > Every sign points to this country's emissions > continuing to rise for > years, short of an upsurge in
[Biofuel] No need for a Kyoto debate: It's over - Globe & Mail - 2006.10.06
JEFFREY SIMPSON Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was correct: Canada will not, and cannot, meet its Kyoto greenhouse-gas reduction target. Opposition MPs were outraged at her assertion yesterday, as they often are when truth smacks them in the face. Any politician who argues that Canada can meet its Kyoto targets consciously abuses the facts, or doesn't know them. Here they are: Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Canada pledged to reduce emissions by 2008-2012 to 6 per cent below those of 1990. Emissions in 1990 were 599 megatonnes of carbon dioxide and other climate-warming gases. Canada needed to cut 6 per cent from that total. Instead, by 2003, emissions had jumped to 740 megatonnes and, in 2004, to 758 megatonnes. This week, Natural Resources Canada predicted that emissions would be 828 megatonnes by 2010. Therefore, to fulfill Kyoto, Canada would need to reduce emissions in the next two to six years by 265 megatonnes: from 828 megatonnes to 6 per cent below the 1990 level of 599 megatonnes, or 563 megatonnes. That reduction is absolutely impossible -- unless Canada did something extremely stupid. Canada could buy emission credits from other countries, but the cost would be billions and billions of dollars. Nothing would have changed in Canada. A stupider public policy choice would be hard to imagine. Having said that, Canada's greenhouse-gas-emissions record remains a national, even international, scandal. If nothing is done, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy predicts that emissions will reach a staggering 1,300 megatonnes by 2050. The Liberals presided over the policy scandal, so have no business criticizing anyone but themselves. Their terrible record was documented last week by Canada's Environment Commissioner. The Conservatives have not done anything except scrap a few modest programs. Nothing suggests that Ms. Ambrose and the Harper government will get really serious about carbon emission reductions. Everything suggests that, when the Conservatives reveal their policies, these will only slow down the increase in emissions, not reduce them. Slowing down increases won't cut it. When Ms. Ambrose insists that Canada will remain part of Kyoto, what does that mean? It must mean changes beyond anything the government has contemplated. As a Kyoto signatory, Canada in the post-2012 period would have to make up for all the emissions it had failed to reduce in the pre-2012 period -- plus an extra 30 per cent! In other words, Canada would need to (a) make up for the roughly 35 per cent by which it missed the Kyoto target, and (b) add another 30 per cent reduction. The subsequent reduction of about 65 per cent by the early part of the 2020s is supposed to occur while energy use continues to rise and more and more oil is produced from the tar sands. Just yesterday, EnCana and ConocoPhillips of Houston announced plans to spend $10.7-billion (U.S.) to produce and upgrade 400,000 barrels a day of raw oil sands crude by 2015. A barrel of oil from bitumen produces about two to three times the carbon from conventionally pumped oil. By 2020, 80 per cent of Canada's oil will come from the tar sands. If nothing is done to radically change the capturing of carbon from producing all that oil, Canada's greenhouse gases will rise, and rise sharply. And what does Ms. Ambrose propose to do about that? How Canada, or more precisely Alberta with its constitutional control of natural resources, is developing oil sands is environmentally crazy: using relatively clean natural gas to produce heat that allows the oil to be extracted from the sand. We are using a clean fuel to produce a dirtier one. We are doing this when conventional gas supplies are declining. These must be replaced in part by coal bed methane or gasification of coal, both of which can be greenhouse-gas unfriendly. We also know, as the Natural Resources report underscored this week, that the future mix of oil in Canada will be heavier, thereby requiring more processing, which, in turn, will produce more emissions. So the debate over whether Canada will meet its Kyoto commitments is a false one, because it's over. Those targets will not -- cannot -- be met. Every sign points to this country's emissions continuing to rise for years, short of an upsurge in public concern and the application of sustained political will. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
