I think Steven Harper has a secret Green house emission plan that only the deep insiders with their secret handshakes and fancy cloaks are allowed to be in on. Its clear Harper wants no substantive reductions goals and has no intention of “crippling” the economy with the cost of Kyoto. Why is this?
It’s my belief that Harper is looking 10-30 years down the road into the Long Emergency of Peal Oil. It is arguable that we have already hit peak oil and I think Harper knows and accepts this.
So what is the premise of Harpers plan?
1. Each year less oil will be found, pumped, refined and burned than the previous year, less oil being consumed means less GHG
2. The cost of energy will go up, leading to reduction in use, leading to less GHG.
3. Desperate energy consumers around the world will buy Canadian Tar Sands Oil regardless of whether it’s clean or not, so why bother?
4. We will be the entire cost of Kyoto ahead of the game and still have our customers over the barrel
5. Costly hydrocarbon pesticides and fertilizers will become out of reach to the developing world leading to less GHG through a pronounced population die off. Such a die off will also reduce the demand for coal which equals less GHG emissions.
Added advantages
6. The longer we stay inefficient and continue to use more than our share the faster we can starve off all of those foreigners.
7. A look at sea level maps shows Canada will be affected far less than most countries from rising sea levels, so who cares?
8. As the prairies heat and dry out new northern lands will be opened up to farming.
Baird I’m sure see this as the perfect (perfectly evil) market solution to the GHG problem. Ignore it and it will go away on its own impacting rest of the world far more than ourselves. It will not cost the government anything so they can look like a champion saving the common tax payer from rabid, money sucking environmentalists. “After all we only produce 2% of the green house gases and China and India don’t have to comply so why should we?” There are many short sighted boobs who would accept this kind of an argument and many of them sit with Harper, as is obvious with the decision today to shelve the Clean Air Act.
I wonder if Layton sees the folly of working with Harper yet?Recommend this Post
Monday, April 23, 2007
Harper's secret plan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting theory. You may well be onto something here.
I'm curious. Is it not actually true that we produce two percent of the world's GHG? Is it a myth that America, India, China and the developing world don't have to comply with Kyoto?
I guess I bought into the government's Big Lie. Can you point me to some place that can show me how anything our population can do will have any effect? Because as far as I've been able to suss out, you'd have to remove the equivalent of Ontario's population and economy from Canada to come even close to Kyoto obligations--and I'm not exactly sold that even this would do any good.
Don't get me wrong, I'm really not one of those Big-Oil terrorist types that wants to pave the earth. Far from it, in fact. What really scares me, though, is that Kyoto has completely superceded every environmental issue in this country--as if we have solved air pollution, water pollution, loss of soil, and so on and so forth.
While I don't dispute global warming and I'm sure we have a hand in it, I don't know if anyone knows if it can be halted.
Please set me straight. I've been reading way too many conflicting views on this.
it's true only 2%, and yes our little reductions will not change the big picture very much
What is also true is you can't expect anyone else to do something that you are not willing to do!
If a rich country claims they can't do it how can you convice a poor country to?
That said, the free ride India and China are getting is ridiculous. As we are holding or lowering our carbon production they will be making multiples of our cuts.
I do not believe the numbers about how much we must destroy our economy to make these changes. Peak oil will come so we have no choice to use less, if we begin to add efficiencies now it will be much less damaging than being cut off cold turkey. Even if the numbers are true they will be worse later if we don't do it now.
Ban all cars over 200 hp, there is simply no need, My 86 carpi with 125 hp could go 140km all day and pull a 17 foot boat at 110, certainly 200hp would suit 99% of the uses.
Trains, lots of trains; their more efficient and we build them
Also as energy becomes more expensive so will the cost of building the alternatives. Windmills for example, take the energy contained in the steel mast from mining, to smelting to forming and tempering, it's huge. If we don't build them now while energy is available how the hell will we afford it when energy is scarce. As we build them our GHG go down.
I don't think you are wrong, we probably cannot stop it now, we've waited too long. Can we moderate the damage? I think so but not as much as we need to.
Green house gasses will drop from peak oil evetually but saving the remaining oil as long as possible is also an issue. While never mentioned, the kyoto targets will reduce consumption and keep us going a little longer. I don't think they really want us to think about what happens if we run out of oil because it's too scarey.
I think the idea of preparing us for the Peak is just as valid if not more so than the global warming arguements.
"Far from it, in fact. What really scares me, though, is that Kyoto has completely superceded every environmental issue in this country--as if we have solved air pollution, water pollution, loss of soil, and so on and so forth."
Damn right, unfortunately the much of the public are too inatentive to handle more than one issue at a time. The politicians cater to these simpletons because they hate campaigning on facts when fear and inuendo works better.
Thanks for dropping by
Post a Comment