More at BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16151310
UPI says:
The cost of meeting Canada’s obligations under Kyoto would be $13.6 billion, Kent said.
“That’s $1,600 from every Canadian family — that’s the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent liberal government,” the Conservative minister said.
At the Toronto Sun:
Over the weekend, the 195 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change finished a record-breaking, marathon session two days behind schedule in Durban, and charted a course toward a new regime to be finalized by 2015 in an effort to stave off dangerous human interference with the atmosphere.
The framework agreement salvaged the Kyoto Protocol, but it became clear that it would not include Canada’s participation.
Before he returned to Canada, Kent told reporters that the government was justified in its action.
“We want to avoid another Kyoto-like pact at all costs,” said Kent at the summit in South Africa. “Kyoto was not effective and was not good for Canada. The previous government should not have ratified it.”
Sincere congratulations to Canada a breath of fresh air and good common sense, Thankyou.
Can anyone please tell me what is the purpose of the U.N. other than spending copious sums
of other peoples money?
william wallace says:
December 12, 2011 at 9:01 pm
aslbertalad / the cost of getting such oil from sand in the case of canada
is so expensive / it just ain’t worth the effort. What makes it practical is if
the oil prices from normal suppliers goes above $300 a barrel / if such to
happen then it would be practical in terms of cost for canada / they would
be able compete with present main oil supliers as / Middle East as Russia.
Nonsense. The cost of extracting oil from Canada’s sands is quite profitable at current world prices and has been for some time. Current costs of recovery are under $75/barrel which to my understanding is at the high end of the project specific break even point. New extraction technologies have much lower break even points.
You can’t seriously believe that $300/barrel is the price of crude necessary to sustain practical oil sands development. If that were the case, there would be no oil sands industry of any kind operating in the Province of Alberta, or anywhere else for that matter.
I know that Canadians and Americans are great friends, but I don’t think Americans like Canadians well enough to pay nearly triple the price for a barrel of crude.
http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/nrgyrprt/lsnd/pprtntsndchllngs20152006/qapprtntsndchllngs20152006-eng.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands
I’m having computer problems and see that I am behind more than 200 earlier posters…..
As a Canadian I am glad that our country has dropped out of the Kyoto Accord. But…..it concerns me that Peter Kent still talks about the need to cut emissions, “greenhouse gases”, etc. It seems to me that he still accepts the hypothesis that adding more CO2 to our air will inevitably raise the temperature. We should always, always, always, keep in mind that there is no scientifically valid proof that adding CO2 raises temperature. Everything else is merely constructing an ever-larger edifice on a foundation of quicksand. The MSM have obviously accepted the CO2-temperature connection and proceeded from there,
IanM
AND _IN_ALBERTA / Your few words say a lot / in main your the
typical canadian american // betwix your ears but a vacuum where
there should be a brain /it’s the result of centuries of brainwashing.
It not your fault your being but the victim of religious political fraud.
@William Howard wallace
This is a science oriented blog, not a political blog, so kindly stop with your insane far left babble about World War II and the USA. You have proved you know NOTHING about the circumstances and judgments that led the USA into WWII or to share in the judgment of ALL of the allies (also the UK and USSR) that only an “unconditional surrender” by the Axis Powers could have a hope of producing a world which did not lapse back into German and Japanese aggressive militarism which had dominated the 1930s. You understanding exactly NOTHING (less than nothing) about the information and decisions available to Allied leaders in 1943-45.
But this is not a topic for this blog and you are not knowledgeable enough to have an intelligent discussion about the USA or WWII or indeed any international relations topic.
william wallace says:
December 12, 2011 at 9:01 pm
You’re clueless, w. Every time the US government prints more money, it dilutes the value of all the rest that’s out there–hence, everybody holding US money is robbed by their own government.
But I see you’ve now resorted to ALL CAPS, which is a strong indication you’ve lost the debate on this thread (not that you had much of a position except deceptive prose and delusion like you’re living in some parallel universe or something).
People here want to see facts and logic; if you’re devoid of both, I suggest quit making a fool of yourself (although delving into your delusional mind is enlightening–I believe winning a confrontation with clueless people like you would be easy and it is–you’ve already demonstrated it).
And your mention of the “Palestinian People” in your last post is the clincher–utter and abject tool, sir.
PS> I worked with a Palestinian here in the US for a year, and even though he was an engineer by training, he was the most self-righteous, bigoted, racist human being I’ve ever known. His hatred of Israel was something to behold, and I was glad to leave that association–it completely poisoned his logic and reasoning. Maybe that’s your problem?
JAN / I presume your accounting comes from the canadian govt
the calculations findings enforced / supported by the USA Govt.
(NOTE: sorry for continuing to feed this threadjacking dingleberry)
Examples please.
Ummm, still waiting. See the bold part again: “through military force is take from other nations as they pleasing”. Don’t weasel out now boy. What did the USA and/or Canada take through military force, and from whom?
Email your local Canadian Embassy, say well done, I have. Thank you Canada.
@William Howard wallace
You seem to have warped ‘psychological’ and ‘ideological’ motivations to believe nonsense. For instance, your world would be too shaken by successful production from “oil sands” (which is already happening on a large scale), so you make up ludicrous alleged facts such as the supposed $300/barrel production cost. Oil sand production is proving economically successful at well under $100/bbl and current estimates for costs going forward are in the range of $30-70/bbl (depending upon source) but nowhere near your $300/bbl.
You need to stop, learn to read carefully, learn to sift serious information and avoid reckless ideological sources, etc.
G Karst and Don Simpso
Thanks for the heads up on the CBC polls. Ii have cast my vote in both. The NOs are still leading the “have we done enough”, but a slightly smaller margin; however, the Yes are leading the “were we right to dump Kyoto” poll by a several points. Go figure – and if ;you haven t voted, please do!
Friends:
Please stop feeding the William Wallace (ww) troll. This thread is not about any of the things ww drivels on about but he/she/they/it seems near to subverting the thread onto the drivel,
The post from Skiphil at December 13, 2011 at 6:36 am said all that was needed in response to ww’s drivel.
Richard
Ian L. McQueen:
At December 13, 2011 at 6:31 am you say;
“As a Canadian I am glad that our country has dropped out of the Kyoto Accord. But…..it concerns me that Peter Kent still talks about the need to cut emissions, “greenhouse gases”, etc. It seems to me that he still accepts the hypothesis that adding more CO2 to our air will inevitably raise the temperature.”
etc.
Actions speak louder than words, especially those from politicians.
Every politician (including Peter Kent) needs to make the right noises to satisfy (ar appease) all parts of his/her electorate. Keep watching Kent’s actions and indications of actions because in the end only the actions matter.
All the best
Richard
Wow! Just when I thought Stephen didn’t read my letters.
Way to go Cancda!
Canada, a country rich with energy resources, coal, oil, gas, shale gas, tar sands, wood that seems to have had a moment of reality over Kyoto. So why is it still trying to litter it’s beautiful countryside with noisy, sleep destroying, wildlife murdering useless wind turbines? Another moment of sanity is clearly needed
to: kentp@parl.gc.ca (minister)
cc: pm@Peter Mullans.gc.ca (prime minister)
I applaud the government’s decision to withdraw from Kyoto. Canada’s continued participation provided ill-advised political support for a failed approach.
The treaty has proven ineffective at reducing total CO2 production. It simply moved CO2 production from “rich” nations to “poor”, and in the process contributed to the current financial crisis.
On the larger question – the role of CO2 in climate – and whether the net effect will be positive or negative for Canada. The future of Canada, given our extreme northern climate is in energy production to support our economy.
The Argo ocean buoy system shows that ocean temperatures are not changing. This argues strongly that land temperatures are changing as a result of land use changes due to population increases, urbanization and industrialized farming.
The Climategate emails argue strongly that the IPCC is a largely political process, driven largely by pollution fears and economic interests, that “cherry picks” science to support its agenda. This process has politicized Climate Science, leading to a corruption of the Scientific Method.
I urge the government of Canada to withdraw from the IPCC and apply the Scientific Method to Climate Science. Under the Scientific Method, science that cannot accurately predict is failed science. It is not a sound basis for government planning.
I have a stopped watch that accurately tells the time 700 times a year. That is what the IPCC does – measures how many times my stopped watch is correct, as justification for saying my watch is accurate.
The Scientific Method does not work this way. The measure of any scientific theory is how many times it is wrong. The Scientific Method says that like a stopped watch, if a theory can be shown to be wrong just one time, then the theory is likely wrong, no matter how many times it is shown to be right.
Thank you
I agree with Richard. William Wallace seems to be spoofing a 17th century personality of the same name.
And I will take this oportunity to add my voice (that the left wants to take away from me) and say congratulations Stephen Harper on leading the world.
Proud to be a Canadian today. I have cheerfully sent a letter to PM Harper and Minister Kent supporting their decision to withdraw from Kyoto.
BLADE // To start the list the lands that canadians as americans
now live gained through theft appalling actions of injustice torture
the mass slaughter of man as woman & child. None Shown Mercy.
At7:16 AM on 13 December, Richard S Courtney had appealed:
I’ve been dealing with whatever in hell this william wallace whackjob might be by way of ridicule and scorn. I mean, he’s gotta be a joker or a ‘bot, right? Well, maybe not.
I’d very much like to learn what other readers here conceive this doofus to be trying to say. It seems to be nothing but the sort of “word salad” I’ve encountered in cases of major thought disorder and dementia, but doesn’t quite fit the pattern I’d expect to see were such gibbering to be uttered in a clinical setting.
To the extent that this critter can be said to have a point to make, just what the hell might it be?
Don Simpson says:
December 12, 2011 at 6:58 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/12/question-of-the-day-498.html
I added my vote. I, too, send emails to Harper on the non-science (nonsense?) of CAGW and other reddish topics.
[snip]
REPLY: Source of this? or is this your comment masquerading as a statement? If the latter it stays snipped. – Anthony
Sacrilege!
From Wiki:
The Pooh bear was all Canuck. 🙂 GK
Al Gored says:
December 12, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Clive says:
December 12, 2011 at 8:15 pm
“Send a copy to Elizabeth “The Beaver” May as well. Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca.”
Clive. While the teeth and fat head are similar, I strongly disagree with your labeling of May as a beaver. Beavers are industrious, intelligent and quite remarkable rodents as well as an admired symbol of Canada.
May is obviously a woodchuck.
In Defense of Clive,
Every time I see here nagging, whining face with protruding teeth I always think she looks like a beaver (She finally broke down and got her splayed teeth straightened once she was on the taxpayer government dental plan ). But I’ll try real hard to think of a woodchuck from now on. Could a woodchuck do a Beaver? May that’s where Elizabeth.May got here green roots from, just thinkin!
http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/woodchuck.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver
Spen says:
December 13, 2011 at 1:26 am
It has just been announced that the last UK aluminium smelter is to close because of unstainable energy cost increases. These include costs arising from the UK Climate Change Act (the most expensive piece of UK legislation ever passed), subsidies to renewable energy producers and EU and UK carbon taxes.
Net results – loss of jobs, increase in trade imbalance as all aluminium will now be imported, loss of tax receipts. Although the UK carbon footprint will be reduced, the carbon dioxide will simply be produced elsewhere..
Well done Canada for avoiding this economic madness.
PS Can you give the UK a special deal on aluminium.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Probably. The expansion/modernization of Rio Tinto – Alcan’s plant in Kitimat is a 2.5 billion dollar project: http://www.kitimatworksmodernization.com/