Son of Kyoto: Copenhagen ll

104 posts / 0 new
Last post

North Report's link to the Gaurdian article showed this interesting fact about the COP 15 pledges on Day 8:

 Calculation by Climate Interactive groups special software:
"If the promises that are on the table now on Day 8 were kept, such as the American offer of 4% below 1990, the Chinese promise to reduce "energy intensity", the EU pledges, and so on, that by 2100 the world's CO2 concentrations (currently 390 ppm) would be 770 ppm."


770 ppm will translate into global average temperature increases of hitting 6oC within 100 years of being over 400 ppm. 770 ppm would spell utter disaster - the world has NEVER warmed up that fast before. Naturally caused temperature increases have taken 1000s of years, not 100 years.




Noah_Scape wrote:

Oh I dunno canu, on this:

Quote canu:  "Several technological strategies are in the process of making bitumen extraction less energy intensive and less intrusive than open pit mining."

The oil industry says they intend to expand the tar sands to 4 times the size they are now, and all that expansion is going to use the same technology they are using now, which is VERY energy and water intensive. They use as much energy to get a barrel of oil from the bitumen as there is in that barrel of oil.

I agree with hsfreethinkers that it IS stupid. What technologies are you referring to? Links?


And about the BENEFITS of the tar sands to eastern manufacturing industries, I believe they would be better off within just 10 years if they embraced renewable energy to run their factories, because renewables have a long life span of usefull operation and that makes the electricity from them CHEAPER than from fossil fuels. But Tar Sands are not used for electricity, most of it is exported to the USA, so how does tar sands help the eastern factories?



Ontario industry benefits from the manufacture of components -simple castings to complicated instrumentation and control modules


Finally, about the jobs - i.e. expat workers from the east coast: It is a fact that renewable energy employs TEN TIMES the number of workers per unit of energy produced as compared to fossil fuels. The renewable energy jobs are not as prone to sudden layoffs and calls to return to work "tomorrow" as in the oil industry. Generally, the economics of renewable energy is MUCH MORE STABLE than fossil fuels, and therefore so would the entire nation's economy where they use renewable energy - look at any nation that has lots of renewable energy, such as Sweden, Denmark, etc and you will see that their economies have GROWN since they made the switch away from fossil fuels.


Renewable energy is still naescent and will be decades before it replaces hydrocarbons. Who, exactly, will OWN the renewable energy installations? Who will INVEST the CAPITAL required?


It is BS that the oil industy keeps Canada afloat. Most of the profits go to oil corporations, not the people or the government.

PS: some quotes about oil and gas subsidies in Canada and worldwide:

* oil and gas is subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of $250-billion a year worldwide.


And, you honestly believe that "the people or the government" will benefit from renewable energy? Do you really think that the same corporations, who have agressively positioned themselves to profit from the anticipated 'renewable energy subsidies' have the public interest at heart any more than the "oil corporations'?

* Canadian taxpayers subsidize oil and gas interests by $1.4-billion a year. Export Development Canada supported $13.2-billion of overseas oil and gas projects. Public subsidies make up 5% of oil profits.

* The Canadian oil industry turned a profit of $26.4-billion in 2007 ;
Why are our provincial and federal governments subsidizing the most profitable companies in the world with taxpayers' money?


Do you have ANY idea of the massive transfer of wealth from the little person to the promoters of "renewable energy" involved in the scheme to privatise renewable energy profits through subsidies while transfering the risk to the public purse?


I'm prepared to devote the time required to address the concerns you raise. I'm not against positive climate change and the sacrifices necessary to implement them but altruistic activists do not comprehend the impact of complex policy on the standard of living of the average individual. They rail against the "tarsands" and, "corporations" in political and ideolgical dogma that plays into the hands of the same corporations that will control the 'renewable energy markets'. I'm not refering to sacrifices that create positive change but rather sacrifices that will benefit the profit of corporations at the expense of the individuals' standard of living with NO benefit for climate change except purely incidental happenstance.
Here is one example: Provincial Hydro contracts for wind power at $.19 per kwh when residential rates are @ ~$.06-08. This wind power is subsidised by the taxpayer. What isn't publicly announced is that the power is purchased at source, leaving the ratepayer on the hook to capitalise ALL the transmission infrastructure. These costs must be passed on and while many consumers will "sacrifice" incurring increased personal power costs, the fact is that this increased cost will percolate throughout the entire economy, increasing the cost of everything from foods to fuel to delivery AND, of course taxation on the same.
My issue isn't with sacrifice for climate change, but being manipulated to sacrifice for corporate profits.

scott scott's picture

Noah_Scape wrote:
Minister Prentice, Canada's chief climate negotiator, meets every morning with his team of 13 advisors, a team that includes such people as Trans Canada Pipelines Corp CEO [my brother]. I guess we know where Prentice is getting his opinion from!!

Does anybody have a complete list of who these advisiors are? AFAIK another one is Holmes from the Holmes on Homes home improvement show.