Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Climate-change goals fall short at G8

CAMPBELL CLARK

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 8:56 PM EDT 07/07/08

Canada joins resistance to targets for reducing emissions as members opt to wait for next year's UN summit – and next U.S. president ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Dr. Winston O'Boogie from London, United Kingdom writes: George and Steve just bought Big Oil another year. Nice work boys.
  2. martha stewart from Canada writes: Not news. No move was expected. Specifically mentioning Canada and the U.S. is just this writer's biased way of creating blame for a false failure.

    And the first poster fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
  3. D. MacKay from Atlantic, Canada writes:

    The U of Toronto has a G8 research centre with experts?

    wow!
  4. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Thinking small - made necessary (or would that be expedient) by domestic exigencies. They separate the men from the boys, or - more politically correct - the wheat from the chaff, or the politically expedient from the courageous. I really think the populace is up to it, but their leaders, sadly, fall short.
  5. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: martha stewart:-- In my opinion, you much overuse the phrase, "hook, line, and sinker". While pointing fingers are those who, you are certain, have been hooked, you fail to notice that your own lip has been pierced.
  6. Hendrick Larose from Canada writes: Can anyone deny the statement that the CO2 problem cannot be resolved without China and India's involvement. Truer words were never spoken.
  7. P. M. from Canada writes: I am proud to call myself a Canadian. Mr. Harper is working in the best interest of all Canadians! If climate change is to be addressed seriously, ALL countries including China and India must be on board. China is now the LARGEST source of man made CO2 on the planet. Anyone who does not acknowledge this basic fact is not interested in REAL solutions. Bravo to Mr. Harper for protecting the economy of Canada... and pushing for REAL solutions to climate change instead of bogus tax schemes ... a la Dion!
  8. B. Goode from Canada writes: Mr. Harper should set a good example and get rid of his limo. He could keep his chauffeur, but use say, a Toyota Corolla or better yet, keep it domestic and use a Ford Focus for example.
  9. V ADS from Canada writes: Canada should just say: Climate change is natural and can be managed through adaptation and mitigation. Let's focus instead on our planet's pollution crisis, using good science and innovation.
  10. Hendrick Larose from Canada writes: There was an article last weekend where China was asking for help from Canada's environmental industry. China is where the issue will either be resolved or languish yet these experts will not go to China to assist. In their opinion this is a global challenge of epic proportions that needs action now. Why are these Canadians dedicated to this cause not going to where they can make a difference? You would think this is a minor sacrifice to save the globe but they would rather complain about Canada's progress which is a head of a pin relative to the issue in China and India.

    I await the wisdom of my posting colleagues
  11. Crazy Canuck from Canada writes: If India and China do not believe the GW problem is serious enough to justify action on their part then it cannot possibly be serious enough to justify action on the part of countries like Canada. In fact, their reluctance to commit to CO2 limits is pretty strong evidence that the science of AGW is far from certain. If it was as certain as alarmists claim then the leaders of these countries would be rushing to act since their populations would suffer more from the effects that those of us in Canada.
  12. P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: V ADS from Canada writes: Canada should just say: Climate change is natural and can be managed through adaptation and mitigation. Let's focus instead on our planet's pollution crisis, using good science and innovation.
    ============>
    I am confused. The climate change is alsoe caused by the pollution. Do you mean that if we fix teh pollution, the climate change will be resolved.
  13. Steve Church from Canada writes: With Kyoto derailed, there's not going to be any new agreement. Baby-steps didn't work. Now it's too easy to wreck. China did at Bangkok with the western legacy responsibility; Bush did it every-year by setting up expectations and then confusing it into the dirt; Harper did it by using both of his faces. Copenhagen will be the same embarrassment as Bali. Just another small victory for pro-pollutionists everywhere.
  14. Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: >>Hendrick Larose from Canada writes: Can anyone deny the statement that the CO2 problem cannot be resolved without China and India's involvement.

    Dion probably would.

    >>Truer words were never spoken.

    Fiberals are not interested in the truth, just getting elected.
  15. martha stewart from Canada writes: diane marie - That's cute diane. But since that is only the second, or perhaps third, time I have ever used that phrase posting here for the past year and a half, its too cute.

    I use it when it fits perfectly, as in this case. This 'journalist' distorted this story by implying that it was just Bush and Harper who downplayed the climate issue when in reality they all did.

    But the Pavlovian response is to salivate about Bush and Big Oil, and of course Harper.

    They are going to get back to climate change later, they say. At this meeting they have far more important things to talk about. Unlike some politicians, these ones can set priorities.
  16. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: A global policy on environmental emissions without China and India means it is not a global policy.

    It is a political patchwork and the last time I watched Discovery Channel pictures from the space station, there were no political boundaries drawn on that very thin envelope protecting the Earth.
  17. Haper must Go from Canada writes: Just another Harper excuse to do nothing. The Cons attack ads on the Carbon Tax out today, they slam Dion for his plan and do not have a plan of their own - unless you call delay and do nothing is a plan.
    tough decisions on CO2 and fuel conservation have to be made Harper and Bush have once again proven they have no leadership abilities - a leader would have a plan.
  18. Joseph Bloggins from Canada writes: CO2 emissions are nothing more than a scam. As time goes on and the "science" is revealed to be fraudulent, this will die out in time. Hopefully, in the meantime, economies will not be devastated nor will too many people die from hunger due to the idiotic move to turn food into fuel. Pretty much EVERYTHING the UN is involved in is fraudulent or at the very least causes far more problems then it solves.
  19. CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes: Without the big boys (China, India, U.S) at the table, there will not be any meaningful accord.

    Western leaders by partly political correctness pressure had gone along with IPPC reports "The Science is clear, global warming is heavily due to human contribution, via GHG emission".

    Developing countries may pay lip service. China's leader often praise the West for its Kyoto program, but it contributes little. Stopping half the car traffic from entering Beijing and painting the City with green dye for the Olympics is hardly the action the West expect.

    With much Global Cooling stats in the past year, maybe at the back of their mind: "Science is clear for the West, but once we are as well off, then we have the luxury to determine if Science is clear for us"
  20. D. MacKay from Atlantic, Canada writes:

    Why is it that countries who signed Kyoto no longer wish to give money to China and India , again?

    Didn't Dion host a conference of sorts in Montreal as environment minister?

    Why is Kyoto dead if the Liberals hold the balance of power in a minority government?

    What does this U of T G8 expert mean when he states :
    The failure of the existing Kyoto Protocol, he argued, was “a little group of countries agreed to do a little bit for a little while and then didn't do it.”

    Didn't the Liberals mean what they said on the environment?
  21. Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: There is a great irony in regards to global warming.

    The countries whose current governments seem to be the least interested in doing something about global warming, United States, China and India, are also the countries that would be most negatively affected by global warming should the predictions come true.

    Canada on the other hand who contributes almost nothing to global warming would actually benefit overall should the predictions come true. I certainly wouldn't mind a slightly warmer climate up here. Perhaps southern Ontario could be the new Florida, while the current Florida goes under water.
  22. P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: Hendrick Larose from Canada writes: There was an article last weekend where China was asking for help from Canada's environmental industry. China is where the issue will either be resolved or languish yet these experts will not go to China to assist. In their opinion this is a global challenge of epic proportions that needs action now. Why are these Canadians dedicated to this cause not going to where they can make a difference? You would think this is a minor sacrifice to save the globe but they would rather complain about Canada's progress which is a head of a pin relative to the issue in China and India. ==========> The problem is that no one want to scarfy and to change the habit. When you have a min-van/SUV, do you want to go back to your 1.8 L civic. You may be but many will save no. Actually, I am the lucky one because I plan to buy one. With all the information, I change my mind. I normally drive my CIVIC instead of my 3.0L Maxima. I don't think that it does matter if G8 agree or not. Canadian did change. I saw a lot of reuse bag are used in the supermarket. Cafe/Restaurant uses bio-degradable tableware. When I shop in supermarket and dollar store, all the paper/biodegradable tablewarse are sold faster than the foam tableware. People does not mind to pay the extra dollar. It may not be enough but it is a good sign. BTW, I only 3 days this year on air condition. The noise change my habit.
  23. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Fuel economy standards...

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/06/business/0706-sbn-webOIL.gif

    The fact is...in many ways, China is doing more than we are to combat global warming, despite more limited resources.

    When we demostrate that we are willing to get our own issues in order, the Chinese and Indians will certainly come to understand that its in their best interests to do so as well.

    That will especially be the case if we back up our action with tariffs on goods coming from nations that do not comply with emissions standards. That is, if we value our future more than we value cheap goods and petrochemicals coming from high pollution jurisdictions.
  24. Scared Yet Courageous from Quispamsis, NB, Canada writes: have you people ever heard of the term leadership??? obviously you do not know what the term means. Yes, I will wait to save the baby drowning because nobody else is jumping in to save him. That's not leadership folks.
  25. P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: Hendrick Larose from Canada writes: There was an article last weekend where China was asking for help from Canada's environmental industry. China is where the issue will either be resolved or languish yet these experts will not go to China to assist. In their opinion this is a global challenge of epic proportions that needs action now. Why are these Canadians dedicated to this cause not going to where they can make a difference? You would think this is a minor sacrifice to save the globe but they would rather complain about Canada's progress which is a head of a pin relative to the issue in China and India. ==========> The problem is that no one want to scarfy and to change the habit. When you have a min-van/SUV, do you want to go back to your 1.8 L civic. You may be but many will save no. Actually, I am the lucky one because I plan to buy one. With all the information, I change my mind. I normally drive my CIVIC instead of my 3.0L Maxima. I don't think that it does matter if G8 agree or not. Canadian did change. I saw a lot of reuse bag are used in the supermarket. Cafe/Restaurant uses bio-degradable tableware. When I shop in supermarket and dollar store, all the paper/biodegradable tablewarse are sold faster than the foam tableware. People does not mind to pay the extra dollar. It may not be enough but it is a good sign. BTW, I only 3 days this year on air condition. The noise change my habit.
  26. Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: >>Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: That will especially be the case if we back up our action with tariffs on goods coming from nations that do not comply with emissions standards. That is, if we value our future more than we value cheap goods and petrochemicals coming from high pollution jurisdictions.

    And if we do this, and prices begin to rise, what do you say to those people who currently cannot even afford those "cheap goods and petrochemicals coming from high pollution jurisdictions"? If they can't afford to live now what would they do under this plan?

    I suppose Dion could legislate that everyone be wealthy.
  27. Hendrick Larose from Canada writes: Scared Yet Courageous from Quispamsis, NB, Canada writes: have you people ever heard of the term leadership??? obviously you do not know what the term means. Yes, I will wait to save the baby drowning because nobody else is jumping in to save him. That's not leadership folks.

    Good leadership is prioritizing issues and knowing where you can make a difference and then leading people there. In that regard Harper is an amazing leader. He has picked a number of issues where he has made a difference. CO2 is not one that hinges in the balance for Canada because it is a global problem. If the bay is drowning why won't Canadians go to China to help them with CO2 technology. There are real and current issues that need to be dealt with now and those are the ones that Harper is leading
  28. More CO2 Gas from Canada writes: Politicians, unlike academics, have to be practical when making decisions that will negatively effect their economies. The facts are 1. population growth ensures that CO2 emmission will never be lower then they are today..... 2. Economies cannot function withjout oil and natural gas. 3...... Science, while convincing to many, is not without it's pitfalls and inaccuracies. 4...... Too many environmentalists, like Al Gore & Davius Suzuki, are spinning the hype to raise funds for their personal greed, self rightousness and private charities. 5...... If professionals were serious, they would demand the government ration gas & oil rather then let the rich consume like drunken sailors.
  29. Steve Church from Canada writes: Now Joe Bloggins is reduced to calling CO2 emissions a scam. There's no place to go with a brick that thick is there? Peter Wojnar - your statement is the reverse of the truth. Canada is a major contributor - greater than Great Britain. Here, play with this:- ................ http://worldcoolers.org/co2map/
  30. martha stewart from Canada writes: Africa takes centre stage as G8 kicks off summit

    Sun Jul 6, 2008 9:48pm EDT

    By Chikafumi Hodo and Jeremy Pelofsky

    TOYAKO, Japan (Reuters) - The Group of Eight rich nations will seek to convince a skeptical Africa on Monday that it is living up to promises to double aid to the world's poorest continent.

    Underlining the importance of the issue, the G8 has invited seven African leaders to join the opening day of its annual summit, taking place at a plush hotel on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido.

    Climate change, record oil prices and a deteriorating global economy add up to a crowded agenda for the three-day meeting, but President George W. Bush, who has made aid to Africa a personal priority, said he would hold fellow leaders to account on that issue.

    -------

    Africa, record oil prices/deteriorating global economy, and then "climate change."

    No doubt the deteriorating global economy will be everyone's first priority.

    Climate change always happens so it can wait forever. But what they really mean is the 'global warming' concerns, which the G8 can do nothing about in any case.
  31. V ADS from Canada writes: "I am confused. The climate change is alsoe caused by the pollution. Do you mean that if we fix teh pollution, the climate change will be resolved. "

    Solar output, cosmic rays, cloud formation and other powerful natural forces (ocean currents, earth's tilt and wobble, etc.) have long been acknowledged as the primary drivers of climate change, including the cyclical glacial advances and retreats of our present Ice Age.

    In the 1970s, environmentalists warned that pollution was triggering global cooling. In the 1990s, they said man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs were triggering global warming.

    Now they say pollution triggers "climate change", and that if we pay hefty carbon taxes, somehow government bureaucrats will clean up pollution and stop the climate from changing at the same time.

    Small wonder you're "confused."
  32. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Bali was a farce.

    There was not one motion with either caps or timelines, other than to meet again.

    There are currently 1109 Kyoto Protocol CDM projects registered since 2006 and there are 70 projects requesting registration.

    News reports have indicated that the number of registered projects is plateauing, 2009 will be half and there are no requests for 2010.

    The methodology that Western developed nations set an example to be followed by developing nations has again proven the error of using the verb "assume" .... making an AS' of U and ME.

    The developing nations have surpassed, China, or are coming to close to developing nations in emissions while developing nations react to market forces and inhibit energy usage. It is of interest that the developing nations have substantial subsidies for domestic consumption of pump gasoline.

    I'm not into self-abuse or paying tithes to people laughing behind their hands.
  33. P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: That will especially be the case if we back up our action with tariffs on goods coming from nations that do not comply with emissions standards. That is, if we value our future more than we value cheap goods and petrochemicals coming from high pollution jurisdictions.
    =============>
    Actually, we shoud buy more product from them. If they are too polluted, they will change it. If we don't buy the stuff from them, where they get the money to improve. When I visit china 15 years ago and India 5 years ago, all the cars are imported used from developed countries. All the equipnments in the factories are unused from the developed countries. It had been improved. It is depended on how you want to attacked the issue.
  34. CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes: Some of the highest carbon footprint per person increases are in China and India.

    Unlike India, China with a all controlling state, has a one child policy of encouragement. By 2030, Chinese population will peak while India will pass China by 2040.

    Population decrease is perhaps one reason Chinese leaders are not doing much about global warming.

    The one big curveball, is that as Chinese get richer, the economic discouragement of one-child policy will be overcome and ignored.
  35. martha stewart from Canada writes: Oh great, Steve Church is here. A known Duck Death Denier and expert on the Ice Age that ended 8,000 years ago.

    I look forward to tonight's lectures.
  36. Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: >>Steve Church from Canada writes: Canada is a major contributor - greater than Great Britain. Here, play with this:- ................ http://worldcoolers.org/co2map/

    I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Canada is a major contributor by looking at this map.

    As others have pointed out in these discussions, Canada's contribution is around the 2% range of world total.
  37. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: And if we do this, and prices begin to rise, what do you say to those people who currently cannot even afford those "cheap goods and petrochemicals coming from high pollution jurisdictions"? If they can't afford to live now what would they do under this plan?

    Which is exactly why lowering the tax burden on those with lower income levels as Dion has proposed makes sense. Those that cannot afford to consume these products will not have to worry about paying any taxes for carbon, and will be able to earn more income without paying tax.

    Work and income is beneficial for all of us, so tax it less (or don't tax it at all). Pollution and waste is bad for us, so tax it more.
  38. Uncle Fester from Canada writes:
    The 1990 target date is the source of the problem. The EU countries forced this date through because it was very friendly to their economies and easy to achieve, for three main reasons:

    1. The fall of the iron curtain meant that Europe was forced to absorb the stagnant dying economies of the old solviet block countries. This gave them lots of room to rebuild their economies.

    2. Most of europe was under going a transition in their manufacturing industries, they were switching from coal to natural gas, which emits far less CO2. This gave them an additional buffer. North America had undergone the switch to natural gas in the 1960's.

    3. Europe is far more reliant on nuclear energy than north America.

    The United Stages (initially one of the leaders of the Protocol) dropped out because of these european stacked targets. Also because the Russians and the Chinese were not expected to make cuts.

    Chretien swallowed the whole thing hook, line and sinker, knowing full well that in Canada meeting these European friendly targets was a hopeless proposition.

    The liberal Kyoto track record proved that the Americans were correct.

    For a good summary take a look at the recent WWF scorecard.

    http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2008/WWFPresitem9507.html
  39. martha stewart from Canada writes: Art Vandelai writes: "When we demostrate that we are willing to get our own issues in order, the Chinese and Indians will certainly come to understand that its in their best interests to do so as well."

    Why?

    Ed Long writes: "Bali was a farce."

    No it wasn't Ed. It was a December vacation on a tropical beach for the chosen people, activists, and fawning journalists.

    Though it must have been a little hot in those polar bear suits.

    And by choosing that jet set location, it was the ultimate display of CO2 hypocrisy.
  40. Jeff S from Canada writes: A non-solution to a non-issue.

    Sounds good to me.

    Down with the global warming hoax. The evidence it is a sham is becoming irrefutable.
  41. Tim Cares from Canada writes: Steve will do nothing that will affect Alberta's economy. Get rid of him.
  42. martha stewart from Canada writes: Uncle Fester - Great analysis.
  43. Uncle Fester from Canada writes:
    Al Gore fought to have creationism taught in American Schools during the 1990 election campaign. Many think that this is what cost him the election.

    I have always wondered how he rationalized the 400,000 year ice core graph in his powerpoint presentations when he believes that the planet is less than 6000 years old..
  44. BUB ImumI from Canada writes: ..//

    I don't care... oil is $150.00 a barrel and I have to heat my house this winter.

    ..//
  45. Steve Church from Canada writes: More CO2 Gas, pretty good pro-pollutionist outline. 'It's inevitable. It's unavoidable. It's necessary. There's no consensus. It's really a money-making scam. It's someone else's fault.' You left out 'it's good for the plants' but someone else will get that one for ya. .............. It's real. It's happening. It's accelerating. It's tagging events and patterns all over the planet. It's the worst real pollution problem our civilization has ever produced. You and the crew of the SS Butwhatabout have ensured that there is no meaningful response. Way to go - you just gave Nature the bird and yelled - "Go ahead! I dare ya to try that Greenhouse Effect!"
  46. Reg Anderson from Canada writes: Of course China and India need to be on board, but first they have to get them polluting equally first. Thats what all these wars are all about. Selling gas and oil to China and India via pipelines. Control of the distribution of oil and gas in the middle east. Once they have that, and polluting can begin on an equal level, then they will turn their attention to GW. Well.. not really. Its a sad situation when the politicians are slaves to big-business.
  47. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: Not news. No move was expected. Specifically mentioning Canada and the U.S. is just this writer's biased way of creating blame for a false failure.

    >>"false failure" LMAO that is a good one
  48. Hendrick Larose from Canada writes: Steve Church from Canada writes: More CO2 Gas, pretty good pro-pollutionist outline. 'It's inevitable. It's unavoidable. It's necessary. There's no consensus. It's really a money-making scam. It's someone else's fault.' You left out 'it's good for the plants' but someone else will get that one for ya. .............. It's real. It's happening. It's accelerating. It's tagging events and patterns all over the planet. It's the worst real pollution problem our civilization has ever produced. You and the crew of the SS Butwhatabout have ensured that there is no meaningful response. Way to go - you just gave Nature the bird and yelled - "Go ahead! I dare ya to try that Greenhouse Effect!"

    Steve you need to go to China where the problem is. Take that enthusiasm and put it to work where it will make a difference. They need people with your conviction and they are asking for our help. If it really matters you wouldn't sit around waiting for someone else to take action. Would you?
  49. CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes: Poster Hendrik LaRose commented that PM Harper is an amazing leader, persumably in the context of action or inaction in Climate Change.

    Not having a crystal ball on the future, I can't comment if Harper is right or wrong in his leadership. There is one common definition of leadership is not to do what's popular, but to do what one believe would results better for us. With that definition I would say he is a strong leader, but so can be said of others in different political stripes such as Trudeau.
  50. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: BUB ImumI from Canada writes: ..//

    I don't care... oil is $150.00 a barrel and I have to heat my house this winter.

    2 suggestions:

    1. wear a sweater
    2. burn your furniture
  51. martha stewart from Canada writes: jimmie rabbit - Sort of like blaming some player on the Toronto Maple Leafs for not winning the Grey Cup.

    That b@stard!!!
  52. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: Uncle Fester from Canada writes:
    Al Gore fought to have creationism taught in American Schools during the 1990 election campaign. Many think that this is what cost him the election.

    I have always wondered how he rationalized the 400,000 year ice core graph in his powerpoint presentations when he believes that the planet is less than 6000 years old..

    >>its fake like the moon landing, dude
  53. Political Irony is Hilarious from Canada writes: Climate change is complicated, in that it is not a phenomena in and of itself. It is inter-connected with our consumption, our methods of resource extraction, etc.

    A plan that incorporates as much knowledge about the situation as possible is necessary, and when leaders like Bush and Harper denounce sources of knowledge like science, they are allowing the problem to progress.

    It's also difficult to demand China and India to simply join the G8 in carbon output reduction because they are also connected to us. The irony is that our current methods of "reduction" are at best, the export of our problems to these two countries, amongst others.

    To simply deny our involvement is also just as silly. Take a step back and one will realize that what is currently happening in China and India is basically what our developed countries have gone through, except on a larger scale and a smaller time frame.
  54. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: >>Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: That will especially be the case if we back up our action with tariffs on goods coming from nations that do not comply with emissions standards. That is, if we value our future more than we value cheap goods and petrochemicals coming from high pollution jurisdictions.

    And if we do this, and prices begin to rise, what do you say to those people who currently cannot even afford those "cheap goods and petrochemicals coming from high pollution jurisdictions"? If they can't afford to live now what would they do under this plan?

    I suppose Dion could legislate that everyone be wealthy.

    >>i'll vote for that
  55. alex just a canadian from montreal, Canada writes: Scared Yet Courageous from Quispamsis, NB---wow what a novel idea, canada actually leading instead of following.

    For those who say we are to small to make a difference then why did we in the past be a leader in every UN peacekeeping mission. We were but a country of 20 million give or take a few back then. Why have we sat at the security council so often, how come we were able to get a landmines treaty passed and signed even if the four largest oppents didn't sign. How were we able to correct the acid rain problems of the 80's when they were coming from the US? Why should I recycle if my neighbour doesn't. So now we have passed another 15-16 years still nothing to show except more travelling back and forth, blame everybody else and give the problem to somebody else in the future. Its a pretty poor excuse when a developed country won't do anything because a developing country no matter what the size isn't doing anything.

    Thank you Scared Yet Courageous from Quispamsis, NB for the anology.
  56. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada Why? ("When we demostrate that we are willing to get our own issues in order, the Chinese and Indians will certainly come to understand that its in their best interests to do so as well.")

    Because we will have demonstrated that we are willing to take responsibility as the initial benefactors of fossil fuel wealth.

    We can therefore negotiate from a position of strength and responsible action rather than from one of empty words and unfulfilled promises.

    It's essentially a grand scale Prisoners' Dilemna. If neither side co-operates, both suffer. If both sides co-operate, both gain. If only one or the other co-operate, the side that does not co-operate wins initially at the expense of the other.

    Problem is, many of us are too focused on the fears about what we "lose" if the Chinese and Indians do not co-operate that we do not stop to consider the long-term gains that come from the co-operation strategy.

  57. P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes:
    The one big curveball, is that as Chinese get richer, the economic discouragement of one-child policy will be overcome and ignored.
    =============>
    On the other hand, when are richer, you will want to have a better health. They may be interested in climate change. Just Canada. people starts talking about it and will be change. When you shop in supermarket, the behaviours had changed.
  58. martha stewart from Canada writes: Steve Church - Pretty good rant to start. But I know you can do better. Let go! Vent! Be the best anti-pro-pollutionist you can be!

    Do it for the penguins.
  59. Beer and Popcorn from Toronto, Canada writes:
    The right approach is to get the big emitters to the table - any other discussion is pointless
  60. jimmie rabbit from toronto, Canada writes: this global warming must all originate in Hell because everyone knows Hell is hot.

    so if the G8 wants to fix global warming why don't they just go to Hell.
  61. CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes: Poster Martha's line "Sort of like blaming some player on the Toronto Maple Leafs for not winning the Grey Cup" is very funny, at the risk of infringing your intellectual property, I would like to borrow that in my future posting :-)
  62. Peter Kells from Bytown, Canada writes: It sounds like the old phrase "I won't clean up my backyard until you clean up yours". That seems to be the current position of the New Government of Canada.

    As a strategy for reaching the goal of reduced emissions, it is a non-starter because China and India will never engage unless there are examples to follow. They are currently too focussed on industrial expansion to be leaders in curbing GHG emissions.

    The real strategy seems to be about buying time in order to wait for some fantasy technology to solve the problem. Instead we should realize that a lot of stupid greedy selfish choices were made over the last 50 years when we became addicted to cheap oil and now the party is over.

    The hangover is surely coming, however the New Government of Canada refuses to deal with it. They prefer to point fingers at other countries.
  63. Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: >>Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Which is exactly why lowering the tax burden on those with lower income levels as Dion has proposed makes sense. Those that cannot afford to consume these products will not have to worry about paying any taxes for carbon, and will be able to earn more income without paying tax. I don't believe it is that straight forward. I see two issues here. First, people who currently have trouble affording things will likely not benefit by income tax cuts because they don't earn much, or even any, money in the first place. For example, retirees, students. What about low income people who currently don't even earn enough money to pay any appreciable amount of tax, or any at all? An income tax cut does not help anyone who already pays very little or no income tax. Second, any reduction in income tax would be offset by higher prices for everything we buy due to higher energy prices as a result of a carbon tax. One could argue that poor and low income people would actually be worse off under Dion's plan as opposed to the way things are right now, whereas the rich are likely to benefit the most. >>Work and income is beneficial for all of us, so tax it less (or don't tax it at all). I agree. But also don't forget that sales taxes like the GST and PST are very regressive taxes that hurt poor and low income people far worse than they hurt the wealthy. >>Pollution and waste is bad for us, so tax it more. Everything in the end just gets passed down to the consumer. Business will do one of two things, pass the increased costs along or simply go bankrupt if they cannot pass on higher costs. The first will result in higher prices for consumers. The second will result in lost jobs.
  64. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Martha - I've been searching blogs for info. on the Bali carbon footprint.

    10,000 people who racked up anywhere from 47,000 tons (UN estimate) to 100,000 tons (media estimate) of carbon.

    Offsets include 79 million trees claimed to be planted in Indonesia to counter the UN staff footprint. Note: notice how the UN always underestimates the bad stuff and overestimates the good stuff.

    These tree planting offsets are notorious for big die-offs, remember Cold Play's 10,000 mango trees in Southern India that never made it, and then there is the CO2 from rotting vegetation.

    79 million trees planted in Indonesia? Right.

    And of course the science is final that this effort including the energy of planting and cultivating offsets jet engine emissions pumped straight into the atmosphere at 35,000 feet.

  65. CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes: Poster P. Cheng, thanks for your comment.

    You may be interested in this article "China warns of population growth"

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6631471.stm
  66. Hound Dog from Canada, Canada writes: Don’t worry about climate change

    Oil prices will collapse this fall and everybody will forget about the price of energy and more so, climate change. It will be Happy Days again and I doubt will care about climate change or Dion.

    More so the Conservative government will trigger an election and win a solid majority

    But when oil prices rise to over $250/barrel sometime late 2009/early 2010, then Canadians and most people worldwide will be worried deeply about the global economy, their jobs, maybe even their lives.

    And doubt neither Dion or his replacement or Harper will be of any help.

    Instead these guys will be running for the hills
  67. Joseph Bloggins from Canada writes: Steve Church from Canada says "More CO2 Gas, pretty good pro-pollutionist"

    The radical left has always tried to portray CO2 as pollution. Of course, the position is absurd. Even Steve's ludicrous use of the phrase "pro-pollutionist" reveals Steve to be a radical nutbar.

    Nice try Steve. Oh and by the way.....CO2 reduction via the UN is most definitely a scam...along the same lines as the "oil for food" scam....same players. Anyway, Steve is pretty much hopeless, but for the rest of you, do some research on your own. Whatever you do, do not take anything the UN or the IPCC says at face value. The same goes for the so-called main stream media. There are thousands of places you can search for real science as opposed to the political drivel that comes out of the UN.

    http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.php
  68. Dr. Strangelove from Edmonton, Canada writes: If you want unanimity, put forward a motion that all of the G8 summit leaders and hangers-on get a 30% plus salary increase (following the lead of Alberta's politicians) and watch how quickly and quietly that gets passed!

    These turkeys are just spewing hot air and doing nothing except continually deferring decisions until their pensions kick in. Disgusting!

    .
  69. Steve Church from Canada writes: Uncle Fester:- 1990 is another freaking red herring in the discussion. The 1990 date isn't even a universal baseline - it's the context for setting the real deal, the actual targets. Use a different base date, you get a different reduction percentage. Your points are nothing more than an extension of the haggling over fair share that's derailed the process. Congrats on anothe 'butwaddabout' post.
  70. Kevin Desmoulin from Canada writes: We are truly going backwards next thing will be mandatory carbon emissions.
  71. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: Peter Wojnar from Hamilton, Canada writes: Everything in the end just gets passed down to the consumer. Business will do one of two things, pass the increased costs along or simply go bankrupt if they cannot pass on higher costs. The first will result in higher prices for consumers. The second will result in lost jobs.

    Sure...the consumer pays. But what is a "consumer"? (I hate that word!) One who consumes what other people produce!

    In order to have an efficient economy, "consuming" and "producing" have to be equivalent (with some excess production saved for the future). Problem is, for too long our economy has consumed far more than it produces. On an individual level, when you consume more money than you produce, you end up with nothing but debt.

    Therefore we need more incentive for people to produce, and less incentive to consume. Purely from an economic standpoint, without even considering the environmental factors.
  72. Kurtis Smith from Canada writes: Like Alfred said in Batman, "Some people aren't looking for anything logical, they can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

    Burn baby burn!
  73. P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes: Thanks for the info. I read that before. I think that it is a good change as people have their choice. I know some chinese that they don't want have kids too.
    The theory from the article may not be true at the end. As normal, "When you don't have it, you want it. When you have it, you don't want it anymore."
  74. J Law from Canada writes: I have noticed that leaders from other countries do not mind being seen with Harper and he is always right up there amongst them. Chretian and Martin, on the other hand, were usually treated as underlings by the leaders of other nations and shuffled to the back.

    The leaders of other countries may not always agree with Harper, but they know they cannot push him around so respect him and in turn show a new respect for Canada.

    The last and probably only other Prime Minister of Canada to achieve that was Lester B. Pearson.
  75. CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes: Kevin Desmoulin from Canada writes: We are truly going backwards next thing will be mandatory carbon emissions

    -----------------------

    Nah, next thing will be carbon tax ....

    on all carbon based living organisms.

    The Silicon based Martians will be delighted :-)
  76. martha stewart from Canada writes: Art Vandelai - Thanks. But I don't think your reasoning works in the real world. That's the whole problem with this rationale which is constantly being used as the reason why we should proceed and ignore China and India.

    For example, some Euros have been 'leading' for some time now. Have you seen any following by China and India. No. Just the opposite.

    Do you really think they will be more inspired by Canadian 'leadership'?

    No. They won't.

    Those people want cars and stuff. They've had a taste of it now and there's no turning back. China is now the world's largest CO2 emitter and growing full tilt. 20,000 new cars per day. Did you read about the massive trucker's strike in India a few days back due to an attempt to cut fuel subsidies? That's the real world.

    You suggest that "We can therefore negotiate from a position of strength... "

    No we can't. Follow the money. Your "Prisoners' Dilemna" comment explains it:"the side that does not co-operate wins initially at the expense of the other."

    What position of strength? We will be the beggars not the masters, and the Chinese are already very tired of our moralizing lectures.

  77. Dr. Strangelove from Edmonton, Canada writes: "P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: ... As normal, "When you don't have it, you want it. When you have it, you don't want it anymore." I submit that s@x is excluded from that quote ... ;-) .
  78. Dr. Strangelove from Edmonton, Canada writes: "P cheng from ottawa, Canada writes: ... As normal, "When you don't have it, you want it. When you have it, you don't want it anymore." I submit that s@x is excluded from that quote ... ;-) .
  79. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes:"... lowering the tax burden on those with lower income levels as Dion has proposed makes sense."

    All that represents is typical Liberal tax-and-spend socialism. Take money from those who have it and give it to the 'poor' for no better reason than that they don't.
  80. CM Chen from Toronto, Canada writes: Good points, Martha. If China does not heed human rights suggestion from the West, why would they follow EU on GHG emission. Wouldn't they simply be given a "green" light to grab a bigger share of the EU market.
  81. Shadow of the Bear from Canada writes: "Waiting for Godot"--while snoozing.
  82. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes:"It's essentially a grand scale Prisoners' Dilemna. If neither side co-operates, both suffer. If both sides co-operate, both gain."

    Actually if everybody imposes arbitrary carbon starvation on their economies, everyone loses.
  83. Upper Canadian born and raised in Western Canada from St Albert, Canada writes: Thank God! As a member of the middle class, I was shocked and outraged to hear a man on CBC Radio One today actually advocating my middle class demise. (ie: higher prices of food due to carbon tax, etc)

    Hmm.. class war - say it ain't so in Canada......?
  84. Conservatives Lie from Canada writes: Harper has sold Canada and Canadians out. Canada is one of the hardest hit nations in the world in terms of pollution and climate change given our Northern location. And yet Harper continues to sell us out to his rich oil buddies and American colleagues. It's time to dump this loser.

    Harper and Bush are one and the same. Their logic is stunningly simplistic and childish: because India and China are not immediately on board, we aren't going to anything. So you're taking your ball and going home, eh boys?

    It's called leadership, Harper. Someone has to go first. And if we do, not only do we get the reputation and reap the environmental benefits, but we can rake in tons of money as we cash in on environmental products and technology that we can manufacture and develop here in Canada with thousands of green collar jobs.
  85. martha stewart from Canada writes: CM Chen - Please do. That's a compliment.

    Ed Long - 79 million trees in Indonesia just to cover the UN staff!!!

    That does begin to put the hypocrisys into perspective.

    My guess is that was probably 79 million date palms planted on the plantation of some croney, after they had cut down the natural forest. Does Mo Strong own land there?
  86. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: And in the midst of all this carbon angst, global average temperatures have not risen for seven years now, and have actually started to fall in the face of ever-increasing GHG concentrations:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    And what is the Sun doing? The last cycle (#23, at least 11.7 years) was the longest we've had since Queen Victoria was on the throne (#14), and longer cycles are associated with cooling temperatures... just as we're now seeing.

    In contrast, cycle 22 was among the shortest, at 9.7 years, in the midst of the 1970-2000 warming period.
  87. Uncle Fester from Canada writes:
    Steve Church from Canada writes: Uncle Fester:- 1990 is another freaking red herring in the discussion. The 1990 date isn't even a universal baseline - it's the context for setting the real deal, the actual targets. Use a different base date, you get a different reduction percentage. Your points are nothing more than an extension of the haggling over fair share that's derailed the process. Congrats on anothe 'butwaddabout' post. ...............

    Canada has the lowest emissions per square km of the G8.
  88. Steve Church from Canada writes: Joe Bloggins: Your political acumen is about the same as your science knowledge - small. Your claim that the UN and IPCC is the source of the problem shows how little research you've done. Save your Idso links for someone that doesn't do any research - he and his hillbilly relatives think the warming is on and it's good.
  89. Steve Church from Canada writes: 'Carbon starvation' ... Glynn Mohr, you are one whacked oil-industry import. Did you boss give you a bonus for that spin?