Canada Abroad

Some critical thinking is required here. If "developing countries" are excluded from the Kyoto accord, how many years will it be until they are considered "developed"? How much will they be polluting at that point? How many years will we give them to clean up THEIR footprint? How many years will we have left before catastrophic changes at that point? Canada's stance may is not popular, perhaps it is even...."inconvenient?" As we are experiencing in Canada, being green does not happen overnight, mostly because many solutions/technologies requires infrastructure changes and are quite costly. Do you think that the people of the newly "developed" world are going to be willing to go back to poverty in order to reduce their carbon footprint? Do you think they will support a government that does so? If they are not (with help) seeking clean infrastructure - the world is hooped. But don't let me ruin your party. Yay for Australia! Warm fuzzies! Boo Canada, big meanies! Tarnished reputation! Hiss!

Kyoto gives license to China, India and Indonesia to continue polluting unabated even though their economies are developing so fast that in another decade those economies will be larger than most of the worlds developed nations. The only logical way to tackle green house gas emissions is for all countries to sign on to standards. If we hobble our economy now while the Asian Tigers are free to add a 1970s style coal fired generating plant every day, we'll be a third world country before we know it.

Well, "climate change"... Does anyone believe in "climate stasis"? Having grown up in a city that a mere 20,000 years or so ago would have been under several kilometres of ice, I tend to take a nuanced view of climate change.

That having been said, Harper shames us all, by, what, exactly...? He simply doesn't know what he's talking about. Not that the Liberals did any better, although Anderson's idea of a "hydrogen highway" from Vancouver to Whistler would have been a good start.

The opportunities this presents are fantastic, and we should pounce upon them. There may be an economic downside for slothful incumbents, but there is a very bright upside for the innovators.

In a way it's a bit like the middle east: everyone knows what has to be done, but no-one is prepared to take the first step.

Rather than shooting taxi drivers in Afghanistan, embracing and effectively addressing this issue is the way to make Canada a country with influence (if not power).

I suspect the reason it is not done, apart from Harper, is that those heavily invested in filthy businesses - where there's muck, there's brass - have effectively created a fear of transformation. But is time to give these dinosaurs the heave-ho. We cannot only do it, we can profit from it.

Cheers,
dba

They better hurry and sign a treaty, before warming ends....

1) Global temps have seen no SIGNIFICANT increase since 1998. There has been an insignificant DECLINE in the last few years.

2) Southern Hemisphere temps show a significant decline since 1998.

(above according to Hadley Research Unit, East Anglia Uni.)

3) Sea Surface Temps have DECLINED in the last few years.

4) NASA just released data suggesting that arctic circulation is reversing. They also say that this will also reverse recent arctic warming.

5) Fred Singer, in a meta-study of the literature, found a 1500 year cycle in the temps. According to Singer, we are at the end of the warming phase, and approaching the cooling phase.

Canada is a very small contributor to the CO² production as a country 0.6Gt of a total of 29Gt.The publicised increase of CO² production is from the Tars sands in Alberta a necessary evil for the time being until an appropriate replacement for oil is found.I join a copy of an e-mail I sent to François Cardinal of La Presse with a few actual numbers that any sincere canadian should before throwing the stone. See separate post.

Thank you Tony Burman. As a ex-pat living in London, it is frankly embarrassing to talk to anyone here about Canada's commitment to Kyoto. In the UK, all three main political parties are in agreement that climate change is one of the most important issues facing our planet, and that binding emissions targets are necessary.

I am so ashamed of my country. What happened to Canada, the country that invented peacekeeping, and champion of the international campaign to ban land mines?

I was glad to see Paul's comment because it is a perfect example of an argument that comes up a lot among those opposed to Kyoto. Paul said, "Kyoto gives license to China, India and Indonesia to continue polluting unabated..." If China, India and Indonesia are polluting unabatedly, and our carbon footprint is worse per capita than theirs, what does that say about us?

Perhaps we should reduce our carbon footprint to somewhere near the rest of the world, and then discuss the fairness of the Kyoto protocol. This would give us much greater credibility on the issue.

Bill Clinton at a recent talk in Toronto said that countries that embraced Kyoto like Danemark met their targets and created jobs in the meantime. This decreased inequality in the country because it created new jobs that immigrants could take advantage of if I understood him correctly. He said, countries like Canada need to embrace their Kyoto targets and take the initiative to be leaders to prove to countries like China and India it not only can be done but they can benefit a great deal by doing it. The leadership shown by the government on this issue is appalling. I'm embarassed by the current government and will do everything in my power to make sure they are not elected again so at the next climate change conference they are applauding Canada's actions.

All this talk about allowing developing countries to pollute while 'poor us' are forced to reduce our emmissions is a bit rich.

The truth is that 90% of the current man made GHG's were created by the west and current warming is entirly our fault yet studies suggest that the poorest (and thus the least culpaple players) will be hit the hardest, specifically sub saharan africa and middle asia. Playing the victim card seems disingenuous at best.

I also find it interesting that two of the most aggressively anti emmisions control people (Bush and Harper) are also devout Christians. I wonder, what kind of morality has been handed to them when they refuse to help the most vulnerable from this problem, a problem that is entirly of our creation and mostly within our pervue to alter.

Future generations may look on this civiilization like the corrupt, spoiled children of Rome. Living on conspicuous consumption and fiddling while the world burns.

I find Canada's position an inspiration not a disgrace.

Canada will not be stampeded into a treaty which omits major CO2 emitters and which will do next to nothing to affect climate change (even if you believe that any warming is man-made - which I do not).

The UN has been shown recently how it fabricates and manipulates AIDS statistics to create a crisis. It is doing exactly the same with its catastrophizing about climate change.

Its time for some sanity about climate change.

Hooray for Canada!!

I don’t understand how we can responsibly enter into Kyoto without countries such as India and China. The new Rudd government in Australia signed the agreement on a campaign promise, in an effort to win over environmentally concerned Australian. There is of course nothing wrong with being an environmentalist, but one must understand that emissions are a global issue. Here is the problem with Kyoto.

Kyoto does put obligations on countries such as China, India and the USA. By 2015 China, the USA and India will be the world three largest contributors to global emissions, in that order. All that limiting other countries emissions is going to do is cause displacement of fossil fuels from other countries to the three nations mentioned above. All Canada is going to do by enacting Kyoto, is limit domestic emission, increase exports of fossil fuels, allowing none Kyoto member states to burn said fossil fuels, and the global emissions will stay the same. Limiting emissions in various countries is also going to cause the price of fossil fuels to go down, allowing non-members to Kyoto to buy and burn more.

Though Australia is now on board with Kyoto, understand that they are one of China’s number one suppliers of coal. All Kyoto is going to do for Australia is increase fossil fuel exports to China. Australia is not going to cut back on production of fossil fuels because of limits on domestic emissions when they have a world market for them. Cut backs would destroy their economy.

People need to stop thinking about Canada’s reputation abroad and being concerned what the populists think. Canadians recognize that global warming is a huge world issue, but as a responsible economic world power (and we are one) we have to look at the big picture. An agreement without China, the USA and India is nothing but a useless piece of paper.

I do not litter - I see litter every where yet I do not litter. I encourage my children not to litter and they do not despite the abundance of litter they see each and every day. We KNOW it is better for everyone not to litter and we do not litter despite what others do. Occassionally we do a walk about a clean up the litter on the playground near our home. We do this regardless of what others do - we like to think of it as setting a good example, we like to think of it as acting for the betterment of our neoghborhood and there for our city, country and ultimately the planet.

The Government of my country - I live in Canada - refuses to set a good example on climate change - they prefer to point fingers and blame the problem on others unwillingness to recognise the problem of global warming. My federal government hides behind money - my federal government obfuscates the issue, my federal government refuses to create business opportunities out of global warming in an effort to protect their money, my federal government snubs it's nose at the rest of the planet in order to destroy the earth for a dollar.

Did anyone ever notice how big the Federal Deparment of Finance is compared to the Federal Department of the Environment?

The school I'm attending this year is quite international, with students from all over the UK, as well as many students from Europe and the US. What I've found is that most people my age don't really know anything at all about Canada. Moreover, upon the seldom occasion when Canada is mentioned in a lecture or tutorial, or even more rarely in a conversation, it is usually the butt of a joke. One of my professors even jokingly wondered why Canada is part of the G8. We are quite simply not the middle power we still consider ourselves to be.

With each misguided, US-influenced international position the Harper government takes, we are further losing our credibility on the world stage, and our dignity along with it. Of the findings from the Maclean's poll, I would most definitely agree that we are a country that doubts its own worth - sadly I think the world now doubts our worth as well.

In order to gain some self-confidence, and with it regain the respect of the international community, we need to return to the policies and values that made us that shy yet good-hearted little nation that the world knew and loved. As Tony Burman points out, the Harper government's positions on climate change, indigenous people's rights, the death penalty, and the Arab-Israeli conflict are not only completely uncharacteristic of our country, but are also quite frankly embarrassing.

We need to turn things around, and quick.

Rex Murphy had it right with his commentary last Friday night on the CBC.
If Climate Change is an such a world imperative, then everyone has to come to table. If exceptions are made for undeveloped economies compared to developed countries, then exceptions should be made based other economic and geographic facts, e.g the geographic size and location and low density of population of Canada compared to other developed more "compact" countries.

Canada's original committment to KYOTO was entirely unrealistic and indeed IMPOSSIBLE unless one of three paths was followed.

(NONE of the three are/were POLITICALLY ACCEPTABLE IN CANADA, WHERE POLITICIANS SEE NO FURTHER THAN THE NEXT ELECTION!)

(1) Go 100% Atomic Energy and damn the costs and dangers.
(2) By increasing taxes, rationing, imposing rules and requirements, STRANGLE the Canadian Economy until it is at a STONE AGE LEVEL with minimum energy use and no GHG emissions.
(3) The easiest and cheapest route - reduce the population of Canada to 1/500 of what it is today and keep it there by birth control. This route also solves over crowded highways, schools, housing, hospitals, threats to agricultural land, over-use of resources and EPIDEMIC diseases.

Bali will produce nothing useful.
Politicians and others will 'grand stand'.
Photo-Ops and happy memories for the rest!

The same three basic routes are, and will remain, the only ways to reduce Green House Gas Emissions until we learn to economically tap the heat energy of the magma that lies ten miles beneath our feet.

I cant accept our government's position of unless everyone signs on we wont. Okay, take your red wagon home; or is that blue? You dont have to play. Our government doesnt need to go to Bali or any other climate conference. Save the money. Our delegates dont need to get a tan in the off hours.

Climate change is real like it or not. Even if you dont accept it how about accepting the clean up of our environment; starting with greenhouse gasses. Is that a bad thing?

Maybe in a few years the world will hail the return of Canada to the world stage in the position it has traditionally occupied. Today our credibility is slipping.

Thanks Mr Burman for the reminder. Sometimes we need it to avoid complacency and apathy.

Hey Les, do you think the reports of the IPCC are just a bunch of conspiracy rants? Fred Singer? Isn't he the one who questioned the science linking tobacco to cancer?

As the IPCC says, its now a political issue.

For all the Tories' criticism of the Liberals, what has the Harper government done on this issue, other than re-issue Liberal plans that it had cancelled upon being elected?

Responsible Albertans and Canadians have appeased the gods of the oil business and conservative political circles long enough. A pox on the houses of anyone who advocates the status quo.

Let me see if I have the logic of Jesse and Paul's reasoning right. If I am beating my wife and Jim is beating his wife, then I am morally justified in beating my wife even if I know that the consequences may be harmful to her. This is very strange ethical reasoning indeed, but then again the ethical basis of contemporary free market capitalism seems to be rape, pillage and loot today and damn the long-term consequences, whether environmental or human. I wish today's so-called "conservatives" would refer to themselves as liberals, willing to spend the world's resources freely, given that they have no desire to conserve anything but their own wealth, power and prestige.

(In response to Les J)
Good comment.

A few thoughts though. A lot of naysayers against pollution usually point out warming/cooling cycles etc, however there is research that contradicts this too. It's hard to tell what's misinformation or not with corporations involved in making money off of us. I'm more compelled by the evidence that there is a trend of extreme global warming, as it is pretty staggering. Even if it is a warming cycle it's bigger than it should be.

Let's just ignore global warming for a second and just consider things from a health perspective. This is relevant as well and even people against global warming can appreciate this. Byproducts from our heavily industrialized consumer hungry society are killing us even if the planet isn't warming up. Increasing rates of cancer, ashma, allergies and other afflictions are happening right now and are a side effect of the toxins we are throwing into our environment. Delicate ecosystems are losing integral organisms that help them function properly due to this as well. Synthetic chemicals produce toxic products or products that don't break down naturally and are impossible to dispose of safely.

These are just a few things that you can observe yourself without research. The trends are there, the reality is there. Wether we like it or not we *are* harming the environment. Even if it doesn't lead to a worldwide global catostrophe through global warming it will based on how we affect even the natural cycle of other organisms through our taking of resources and pushing toxic byproducts wherever we can get away with it. Recycling and using cloth grocery bags is fine, but we really need to consume less as a society.

Just for the record: before every well-meaning-but-uninformed ecojunkie gets on their high horse regarding the Australians and Kyoto, keep in mind that the Labour party's stated position is that they will not sign up to a post-Kyoto treaty that does not include China and India.

I wish we could stop bashing the government for its failure to ratify Kyoto - it was never a good treaty to begin with, and unfortunately I have to agree with Harper that it's too late to make up for a decade of Liberal inaction.

That being said, the Conservative record on the environment thus far is absolutely shameful, and unless they change in that regard (unlikely), they will never get my vote.

Maybe it goes to show that federal governments simply lack the cojones to do what must be done when it comes to the environment. Thankfully, leaders at the provincial and state level seem to be taking it seriously, and I guess at the end of the day that is something.

The point of the Kyoto accord is for rich countries to cut emissions first. There are several reasons, mostly dealing with rich countries already burning far, far more carbon than poor countries. In Kyoto round two, which is the topic of the Bali meeting, all countries are to cut emissions. So what happens when Canada and the USA, two of the top three carbon burners, refuse to meet the goals of round 1? We will sabotage future global agreements to cut carbon emissions and climate warming.
I blame citizens fellow citizens of Canada first for our "burn, burn, burn" policy. If most of us told our prime minister to lead the carbon emission cuts, he would do it.

Why is the adulation of the other nations so important to the author? You mean a standing ovation for Canada would have been that important? This reminds me of the old days of the Liberal government, when Canada fell in lock-step with whatever the crowd was doing. Then Chretien or Martin would come home and brag about Canada's "leadership" on global issues; after which they'd promptly forget about whatever scrap of paper they signed and do nothing until the next opportunity for grandstanding came up. Much better to have a PM that is unwilling to sign a meaningless agreement that will do NOTHING for climate change, while still costing us plenty. Our reputation is not worth blowing billions on dubious "green" programs.

Best things to do for the environment is that we should vote for Mr. Dion, then we will have a PM who will sign the Kyoto accord at the U.N.

Forget about the PC. We shell punish this part at the coming election.

A. Tai

I wish more people would remember the phrase "leading by example". The decisions that we take in everyday life can make a large impact, especially the ones we take when we spend our money and cast our ballots. Is it really asking for huge sacrifices that you, e.g., recycle more? take public transportation every once in a while? look into buying more local products? consider switching to cleaner cars or energy sources for your house?

Being enviromentally conscious doesn't imply that we'll turn into 'poor', 'third world' countries. We have to take responsibility for the fact that we are living above the means and resources of this beautiful planet and we have to change our behaviour accordingly.

We have the advantage of living in a country with vast natural resources, and that should make us feel responsible for keeping it that way.

I don't think that us as Canadians are willing to accept a change to our current lifestyle. It will never be popular to increase gas and electricity prices, but frankly, these are the only methods that will prevent Canadians from polluting. Any Government that implements any Green methods will not be popular, even if its exactly what we need.

We are a practical nation, as we only deal with things when it becomes necessity. I think that heavy industry may suffer if the government steps in, but think: we are in a situatation where we can be developing sustainable technology. We have the means, but the need is not there.

I too am a Canadian ex-pat living in the United Kingdom. When I spent last Christmas in Canada, I was shocked at the ignorance about climate change (and Canada's contribution to it) among my friends and relatives. Here in the UK hardly a day goes by without a front running article on climate change. What steps have the Canadian media taken to inform Canadians of this issue?

Who continually tries to ignore pollution?
Who really calls for the "developing" countries to be excluded? If they are developing why do they use antiquated polluting technologies? Two ends of the same string...the economic giants of north america.....whose mfg base now comes from developing countries. And the developing countries who now supply them. Why did our mfg base move there? Here they were being pressured to support our standard of living and continually be under the scrutiny of anti pollution, child labor lobbies. Over there they can get away with murder and not have to answer to anyone. Who wrote the laws and rules that allow the manufacturers to operate/set up shop in "developing" countries.
Golly it was our own ---RICH--- POLITICIANS.
Who benefits from doing business in this manner? ---RICH--- STOCKHOLDERS.
Who loses? WORKING CLASS CONSUMERS
But givin that I see no connection between any of them.

Clearly Canada has blown at the Bali conference yet another chance to reverse the trend of World informed thought by not signing onto the Kyoto Agreement like Australia has just done. The majority of other concern countries of the world are dragging our Canadian kicking and screaming along. Ironically, Canada is one of the first to see itself being melted by Global warming and a to see a shortsighted faction of Canadians acting so irresponsibly is just shameful and is truly ruining our reputation and future environment.

While most of you have made valid comments about climate change, no one still gets the idea. We reduce our carbon imprint to acceptable levels, other countries raise theirs thourgh the roof. We end up with the same changes, mabe worse. Am I missing something here?
Tony, you seem to forget the Liberals were in charge for 9 years and did nothing, except sign on to Kyoto. Dion complains about the government not doing enough. He was Minister of the Environment. What did he do? At least on some small level, the Conservatives are trying. Why not give them a chance and time. Everybody did it for the Liberals. Or was that the problem, it was the Liberal Party and they could do no wrong. And I'm not even a fan of any of the parties at the moment, but I can still look at this objectively. Is anyone else out there doing that?

It is clearly corruption and ignorance that drive the agendas of Bush-Harper. North Americans need to immediately and seriously address the antidemocratic influence of mega-business, the oil industry for example. America would not have invaded Iraq without the hegemony and support of the oil industry (i.e. Haliburton). Harper "grew up" politically in Alberta, and Bush is spawned from Texas - two fine examples of societies that respect democracy like they do coyotes. Harper doesn't care about Canada's reputation, public opinion, democracy, fairness, equality, or a better world for the next generations, he only serves his corporate masters, and must do as much for them as possible in the short time he will be alloted by circumstance.

If you are going to slam Canada's lack of "leadership", you should at least be realistic. Without China, India, etc. on board, the harshest possible reductions in C02 in Canada mean nothing. Get this through your heads. Complain as much as you want about Canada, but don't forget without cooperation from countries that actually can make a difference, our efforts are a pitiful drop in the bucket. Not many people (excluding Les J above) against Kyoto are arguing that Canada should do nothing. Rather they are arguing for comprehensive emmissions targets - because if our country starts to impose really strict limits, guess where all the companies are going to move their investments? Don't think this won't happen. Look at what happens when our dollar goes up. Plants close, people lose jobs. Why? The companies can make more money elsewhere.
Isn't is reasonable to expect that any worldwide agreement should result in worldwide C02 levels going down? And if it is reasonable, then why are you slamming the government for advocating for that?
One thing I have to agree with, though, is that Canada hasn't done a lot at home. Cutting greenhouse gases has not cost me much yet, besides a few clean energy initiatives sponsored with my tax money. We need to see more of that, and more initiatives at the municipality level. I think we would all be ok if the government raised taxes a little and gave us RESULTS. That is the kind of fiscal management I want to see - one that obtains results. We can and should do much more, and to not do so is hypocritical. But demanding that every country be involved is necessary, so lobby the government to start acting now, but not to stop criticising Kyoto. We must give all companies nowhere to run to in order to see a real reduction in emmissions. As long as it is cheaper to relocate than to lower emmissions, that is what will be done.

Hey, Tim: The Hadley Research Unit is an integral part of the IPCC. Go to the site, and get the numbers.

Or, get the numbers from the IPCC. They show the same thing. There has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING in nearly a decade, in spite of continued emissions.

Singer is a prominent meteorologist. He is professor at MIT, a member of the National Academy of Science, and of the National Research Council.

The degree of abject ignorance in these comments is stunning. Please take some time and review the science. It's all there. You don't even have to go to the library. Check out www.realclimate.org or www.grist.org for starters. At realclimate you can find the science presented at various levels to match any reader's science level. Most of the denial arguments made here have long been thoroughly discredited. If you insist on wallowing in ignorance I guess so be it.

"Do you think that the people of the newly "developed" world are going to be willing to go back to poverty in order to reduce their carbon footprint? Do you think they will support a government that does so? If they are not (with help) seeking clean infrastructure - the world is hooped".

The majority of North Americans seem to equate the "green revolution" with a decaying economy. This is worrying. Yes, it will initially cause some turmoil and a lower bottom line for the higher ups, but time and time again it has been proved that companies can be highly profitable while subscribing to environmentally friendly practices. I shouldnt even have to go into detail about the efforts taken by many European nations (and many companies and individuals here in North America) to be more sustainable that have succeeded and have not caused them to "go back to poverty" or destroyed their economies.

As for developing nations, if you have read the article, it states that the main obstacle for developing nations is the lack of technology sharing from developed nations. They simply do not have the expertise, resources, and capital to implement green technologies and practices. As their economies grow, they will be pressured to fall in line with the rest of the world - which at this point, is not a very good thing.

It truly is amazing how canadian's with no scientific background can completely disregard the UN's climate change report, which was compiled and agreed upon by the vast majority of the worlds best scientists. Its unfortunate that our current government is propagating the myth that global warming is not a big concern and that we should just ignore it, because far too many Canadians seem to be buying it. Oh and lets not forget to thank Harper for making Canada, one of the most well educated countries in the world, look like one of the most ignorant during his trip to Bali. Its good to know that Canada's signature is now worthless and hollow.

this is very true. I am realy glad he brought this up. Canada has to become a better country in cutting down our lifestyle and our sustainable life. We are dissapointed in seeing that our country is not looking as good as it and we have to do something about.

Canada wont be punching above its weight for long as long as Harpers in office. Thanks to him Canada's signature now has little international credibility. The best our government can come up with to approach a problem is to pretend it doesn't exist. Way to make us the laughing stock of the international community. Canadians don't want to be Americans, aligning our policies with theirs will lead down the same path John Howard traveled.

I am DISGUSTED and ASHAMED to even read that there are Canadians that are proud of our Governments comments and stance in regards to Kyoto.
Do we as Canadians really want to follow the example set by the Bush Government, or do we want to stand up and do whats right? Are we the type of Country that says "India and China don't have to do it so why do we"? Do we raise our children the same way, letting them get away with "Johnny down the street doesn't study, so why should I"?
What if in 1914 we decided to follow our neighbor to the South and say its not "our war", and instead of standing with the rest of the World we too sat out until 1917?
We NEED to call an election and get rid of the "wanna be Bush's" we have in Ottawa, and get back to a Government that represents Canada and Canadians!

I would have more faith in our politicians' intentions to address global warming (regardless of their positions on Kyoto) if they were taking real steps to reduce Canada's emissions.
It seems that our government uses the argument that we cannot meet the Kyoto targets to distract us from the fact that they are doing virtually NOTHING to reduce emissions!

Regardless of how you feel about the Kyoto targets, I think everyone agrees that the Earth doesn't work on a pass/fail basis. Shouldn't we be reducing our emissions NOW, regardless of whether we meet the Kyoto targets? We could do so many things which cost virtually nothing or actually make us richer, healthier and more competitive.

How about energy conservation? (from personal experience, we Canadians are extremely wasteful with energy - in ways that do not even affect our lifestyle!). Why are we still selling top-loading washers which are so wasteful? Solar panels, windmills, ... the opportunities are there and they cost very, very little. If our government showed some leadership and helped make these items mainstream, they would become much cheaper.

Thank you, Josh, for being the only person to take into consideration that developing nations are ASKING for our help in adopting and applying green technologies and practices, and we are ignoring them.
Regardless of whether China and India are currently not included in the Kyoto accord, Canada has the resources and budget surplus to stimulate and enact significant change. If we do so, we have a leg to stand on when we start applying significant pressure to India and China to also cut their emissions. We post-colonialist developed nations see fit to govern the world under our humanist values, but we are unwilling to walk our talk? Not on my watch.

How odd. The Australian Prime Minister has stated that China and India need to make cuts, in any future treaty.

So does Harper. But Rudd is deified, and Harper is vilified.

Strange times.

And, Mr. Dresser, the science is NOT settled. Ask climatologists such as Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Ball or Singer.

Or ask just about any solar researcher.....

Just what is the issue with demanding that China and India be held accountable for their contribution to global warming? It seems like some old European, colonial attitude that the west will make the sacrifices to reduce emissions and then we will take India and China by the hand and show them how they can also do this. Why are India and China not expected to sign up today? Are they not able to grasp that global warming will have a devastating impact on their own people? To be frank, Canada will be one of the winners (very few winners) if/when global warming occurs. Why are we expected to make sacrifices if the world biggest polluters don't have to do the same?

I still try to follow Canadian hockey, but the UNDP got it right: All talking about climate change -- in the media, in parliament, on poster boards like this - has overtaken hockey as great national pastime.

The great national embarrassment will be when the United States puts together a comprehensive, sensible program on climate change in about 1/10th of the time Canada has been talking about it.

Then Canadians can go back to Don Cherry...

It is a sad truth that, on all issues, Canada is becoming a "clone" of US policy because Stephen Harper is George Bush's ideological "toy boy", simply parroting everything the Bush administration does and says. It shows how out of synch this government is with Canadians. Is global warming a real concern? It's high time to get away from the ideological politicking and get some science. The future of this planet is at issue.

Simple counter-argument to all this crap about climate immunity in the developing world....

These countries did not design the system and pollute the planet recklessly for the past 200 years. That title goes to the industrial darlings of North America and Europe.

So don't crap on India or China for the mess that we in the west have made. Instead, why not accept our emissions reductions, exceedingly reasonable as they are, and invest in clean technology in the developing world to offset our initial obligations...
After all, this market mechanism of buying green credits is such a meek and moderate start to confronting climate change that Canada should be thrilled. But no, Canada whines and complains that "well they don't play by the same rules!" and does nothing...

This country has become an embarassment on progressive issues. No wait, our government is an embarassment. Most Canadians (outside the tar sands and coal plants) want effective action on climate change. Our Prime Minister simply refuses to represent the Canadian interest on the international stage....

So quit bickering about differentiated responsibilities and confront the political system that betrays you - It is time to call our gov't on its accountability incompetence.

Harper and his Conservatives are doing what no other middle power has the gall to do. Calling a spade a spade! It is easy to sign on to Kyoto when you have nothing to lose. Kyoto was a farce from the beginning. Any level headed person can see that. Everyone is concerned about climate change and until every nation is on the real band wagon making real emissions cuts, nothing is going to change. China should be handed a bag of coal at the Bali conference, no make that a truck load!!

Canada is in a jam with Kyoto because our GHG emissions are 32.9% above our 1990 level, and this must be brought down to zero by 2012 to meet our Kyoto commitments.

To physically reduce our GHG emissions, we would have to virtually cripple our economy by shutting down big polluters like tha Alberta oil sands and Ontario Nanticoke coal-fired power station with no possible domestic replacement other than buying power from the US produced by dirty coal-fired power plants at a tremendously high price.

Another way to mitigate our Kyoto GHG excess, we could buy Billion of dollars of Kyoto Carbon Credits from countries like China, India, Russia .. the underdeveloped economies. The cost of Carbon Credits to cover our 32.9% GHG excess would run in to the tens of Billions dollars.

If China, India, Russia are brought into Kyoto and their GHG production is penalized, there can be no Kyoto Carbon Credits .. and Canada will have to either start shutting down industry, or just declare that Kyoto is too onerous and withdraw from it.

If the past Liberal governments had not ignored Canada's GHG production for 10 years, we would not be in this mess now. Why did the Chretien-Martin-Dion governments knowingly ignore Canada's Kyoto obligations?

I see a great deal of talk about China and India, but let us face it, on a per capita basis their emmisssions are very low.

Can we realistically use this arguement to prevent development? Should not everyone have access to electricity, heating, cooling, all the things we take for granted in the west? You drive a car, why should not a person in China, India, or Botswana also not drive a car, watch TV, enjoy electric lights, and have a refrigerator for their food?

As I see it, it is obvious that emmissions in poor countries must rise as their people are lifted out of abject poverty, and this is a good thing! What we must seek as a species is a future that does not harm our lonely planet, and share equally, whether in Canada or Burundi, our duty of stewardship.

Cheers,
dba

This conference in Bali is important.
Canadians want more international news.
So why is it so hard to find any news on the websites of any major Canadian papers today?

There is an abundant supply of stupidity that litters this debate.....

Don't believe in man-made climate change
Global Cooling
Emissions reductions are impossible
Canada is a very small contributer (so why bother?)
Return the Canadian Economy to the Stone Age
I won't play Kyoto if that poor country doesn't....

Climate Change may become the definitive political issue of our time and yet this is our reasoned and informed consensus?? Call me when the ignorance wears off and I'll sell you a sliver of shade to reflect upon your conspicuous consumption while it all comes apart at the seams....

Of course Canada is a huge consumer of fossil fuels per capita. What these statistics don't say is we have vast expanses of territory to ship our goods. Coast to coast is 8000 kms. How do we get those goods to our people and consumers around the world? Via birch bark canoe!
And did anyone check outside their widow recently? Heating our homes to prevent death from the extreme climate we live in, the country we passionately call "The Great White North", does require heat. Shall we go back to burning wood in our T-Pee's and wear skins from the animals we hunted during the season?
Oh that’s another contentious subject isn’t it? The fur trade! :)
Yes we need to clean up our act, but all this Canada bashing is great for the environmentalists to shine us in their spot light. That statistic of Canada being the second biggest consumer of fossil fuels per capita sure does make headlines. But, they don't mention those other facts conveniently forgotten about living in such an inhospitable environment as Canada is.
NIMBY, Not in My Back Yard, exists loud and clear in Canada. Just check out all the environmentally sensitive people driving their Subaru’s and Volvo’s to work today. One person per car!

Your observation that Canada’s image is changing is important. Many believe that the “New” image of Canada is better. I do not.

I grew up to believe that Canada would be an inspiration to the world, that Canada would lead the world to a better future. We were champions of human rights and were developing effective ways to ensure that social and environmental concerns got proper consideration. We were ensuring that financial self interest wouldn’t be the “Be all and end all” of every issue.

Canada’s growth to become a leader by showing consideration for others has been delayed by the current, hopefully short lived, popularity of callous selfishness and indifference.

It appears many Canadians believe that unregulated free-market activity will lead to the greatest good, even though the pursuit of financial interests has almost always lead to the creation of social or environmental problems that the free market has no financial interest in correcting.

I believe the free market is the best way to address financial considerations, but it does not address things, like social and environmental considerations, that do not have a financial value.

That was the brilliance of Kyoto. It put a cost on pollution. Over-polluting nations could choose not to act, hoping their monetary gains would exceed the Kyoto penalty, but they were not allowed to keep their penalty. Allowing them to keep it would be like letting a speeder pay a fine to themselves.

The problem with the next step is that the selfish will probably try to keep the financial gains they made by refusing to act. And they’re not likely to accept a financial consequence if they choose not to do their fair share. This will result in the selfish continuing to fail to do their fair share.

I hope that Canada will soon return to showing clear leadership in having consideration for others and raising social and environmental concerns to the same level as financial interests.

Meanwhile, while we sit around, split hairs, point fingers, and lament the foolishness of others, I'll bet we all drove our cars to work, and will warm up tonight with whatever polluting means we have to keep from freezing.

Apart from that easy observation, I agree with Jesse. EVERYBODY has to clean up their act or we're doomed, sooner rather than later.

I personally am disgusted AND embarrassed by Harper and his lapdog Baird. If Canada had some plan to propose at Bali, maybe I could have some support for them but their position is ridiculous. Remember, developing countries are called that for a reason, they are "developing" so why should we in "developed" countries hang this axe over their heads. It's stupid to expect leadership on global warming from India and China when we are going to pick up our ball and go home unless they agree to cooperate.

Most of the advances in combatting global warming to this point have come from "developed" countries so why expect that to change. For example, we recently changed all the light bulbs in our house to the energy bulbs and saved 500 kilowatt hours of electricity in the first month. We did so at ~$2.75 per bulb(~50 Bulbs). Do we really expect that people in India or China(other than the middle class{still small}and the wealthy)to be able to afford these bulbs. Not at this point but as demand for them rises the price will drop(as it already has) and more will change their bulbs. The technological advances will also continue to come from the West. Get over it.

To conclude without the West's leadership we will never solve this global problem and to walk away from the table, as I expect Canada will, is merely passing the buck.

For the enlightenment of William from Toronto and others who share his view.

The Kyoto reduction targets are based on 1990 emission levels of each developed nation.

This is a reasonable basis since it accounts for the different climate and expanse of the various developed nations. It is also generous to the oil gobblers because it accepts their level of oil consumption compared to others, at least the levels they were at in 1990.

I don’t just blame the Liberals for Canada’s lack of action to date. What needs to be considered is why they didn’t act.

I think they were followers of public opinion. The public opinion in Canada at the time was against Kyoto, thanks primarily to the success of the marketing campaigns by those who did not want to change their ways. The Liberals may have wanted to make changes but, with one province in particular, the one I live in, refusing to have anything to do with developing a national consensus, there were limits on what they could do and still gain popularity.

Today is a very similar story. The current government is also a follower of public opinion. However, our new government has proven by its past actions, having been a major part of the marketing campaign to scuttle Kyoto, it is trying to do as little as possible while gaining popularity.

I blame Canada’s lack of action on all the people who were part of the public opinion against acting. Canada’s current problem is that we allowed new industrial development without considering its environmental consequences. Had we been committed to Kyoto the cost of increased CO2 emissions would have been a factor in those decisions and we wouldn’t be in the tight spot we are today. Whatever economic gain we have made by increasing CO2 emissions is ill-gotten gains and, frankly, the world community has every right to penalize us if we continue to selfishly gain while ignoring the consequences of our actions on others.

I only blame the Liberals for being too scared to act. I blame the Conservatives for being a major part of the reason the Liberals were afraid.

I primarily blame those who are willing to believe what is convenient for them and frees them of the responsibility for considering how their actions affect others.

Every aspect of our prosperity we owe to science, and yet we dilute the warnings of scientists to satisfy our desires; desires that are based upon myths and which ignore the realities of an economy dependent on growth for growth's sake and accumulation. The level of ignorance displayed by many of us regarding the limits of nature to provide, and to absorb, is staggering..... and for a prosperous country such as Canada to have adopted the position that it has yet demonstrate no willingness to do nearly what it could is unconscionable and negates the lives and sacrifices of generations that made us what we are. You do what's right because it's right..... it's that simple; and arguments about competitiveness are grossly misguided if we ignore this.

As much as we are angry at our leaders I believe that we as the country itself have a much bigger responsibility to both call our leaders into action and do "the stuff" even before they do. Communities, cities, even provinces are able to act for themselves. Grassroots changes are often more affective than top-down directives. I would hope that through this sad display of leadership a stronger Canada would emerge. A Canada that was not content to through their children to the grave without putting up a fight and standing for them!

Prime Minister Harper has always said that Kyoto targets are unreachable. He has never hidden his stance on Kyoto, before his election, or after it. Are Canadians ready to ride their bikes to work, only be allowed to own one vehicle, or be restricted to what kind of vehicle they can own? We can hardly get Canadians to change their light bulbs to energy-saving ones!
And yes, ALL developing/developed countries should be part of the new agreement. Why should Asia and India - two of the largest countries with a highly industrialized economy - be left out of the pact, and leave the rest of us to do all the clean-up?
We supported Isreal vs. Hezbollah because Hezbollah is a TERRORIST organization, with the self-proclaimed ideology of "wiping Isreal off the map." Should we support one terrorist organization when we're at war with another one - the Taliban and al Quaeda? If we did so, most intelligent Canadians would be in an uproar. Preventing another genocide of Isrealis should be upping our international prestige, not damaging it.
Re Canada's "failure" to vote FOR the UN's Declaration of Indigenous People. Shall we vote for it when we have countless treaty cases before our courts? As we fight our way through historical treaties, to vote for this Declaration would be hypocritical. Not everything the UN comes up with is advantageous to all countries concerned.
As for Canada being booed and presented with the "Fossil" Award again, it's easy to toss coal when other countries haven't achieved the Kyoto targets either.
Our Conservative government is certainly NOT a toady to the US. If we were, PM Harper wouldn't be so concerned with maintaining our Arctic sovereignty against the US. As Canadians, we're too quick to worry about what "others" think of us, and aren't as concerned as we should be about our own foreign and domestic interests.
We're a sovereign country and don't have to agree with everyone else in the world.

"If you are going to slam Canada's lack of "leadership", you should at least be realistic. Without China, India, etc. on board, the harshest possible reductions in C02 in Canada mean nothing. Get this through your heads. "

Fair enough. However, it's not like the current government is showing too many efforts here (and not like the liberals did either). Are you just going to keep polluting because someone else does it? It this the ideology of Canada?

May I respectfully suggest that the CBC (All media, actually) be more accurate in reporting about the climate change issue? We keep hearing that "Canada" is lagging behind the rest of the world on climate change alleviation, is sabotaging international efforts, is an anchor impeding progress, etc.
It is my understanding that poll after poll indicats that CANADIANS are very much onside with the need to take concrete action on this most important issue. It is not CANADA that is acting like a wet blanket; it is our MINORITY Conservative government. The Cons' decision to take their direction from the oil industry and the White House does NOT reflect the views of this country's citizens, and I think the news media should clearly make that point in climate change stories. Canada's GOVERNMENT is doing all the negative things that Canada is accused of doing, but it is crystal clear they are operating against the wishes of the large majority of their own citizens.
Pehaps more accurate portrayals of the situation in news reports would be both more reflective of the facts, and maybe even a goad to the Tories to re-think their ever-more-isolated position (I can only hope.)
As a Canadian who wants to see strong action in this area, I am fed up with being lumped in (by the media) with a group of ostriches who refuse to see the reality and just defend ever-increasing destruction of our planet so a few rich peole can get richer.

A lot of the current debate seems to be fuelled by fear - fear that we'll all be awash in rising sea levels or severe storms, fear that we'll have to give up our toys, while others will get to keep theirs. But what about plain practical thinking and opportunity? Fossil fuels are a finite resource. We're going to need to rethink our energy needs and supply regardless of global temperature trends and rates. What about the improvements in human and ecological health that may come from rethinking the energy equation? What about the economic diversity and benefits that may come from tackling these questions sooner rather than later?

The more we have the more we seem to fear we will lose it. But developed nations, for practical purposes, freed from some of the survival imperatives of food and shelter, actually have the luxury of looking at the big picture and using our considerable capacities and resources to create solutions to meet the inevitable needs of the future.

As I understand from depth psychology, we carry the imprint of formative experiences (at the age of 3 and younger)and project that early world view onto our experiences throughout our lives. These early imprints that we won't get our needs met overshadow the reality of our successful survival into adulthood. It's not bad, it's just the nature of ego formation. The fears of the toddler can be seen in a lot of political and public debate. But it doesn't mean we can't use our consciousness to mature and take responsibility and leadership in creating a healthy supportive environment for all. Let's start looking at our situation with some creative imagination and enthusiasm, instead of sitting in the sandbox, hoarding our toys, angry and fearful that we might have to share. If publicly committing to global betterment through the Kyoto Protocol will help motivate us to mature, let's get on with it.

"They better hurry and sign a treaty, before warming ends...."

Unfortunately, temperature fluctuations from year to year or decade to decade have very little to do with climate. Climate is a statistic, essentially a long-term average of weather.

Climate change refers to a shift in this average.

At any given time, weather is determined by a complex collection of factors: the composition of the atmosphere, the strength and direction of ocean currents, orbital geometry of the earth relative to the sun, etc. Greenhouse gas concentration is only one factor. Sometimes the effect of high greenhouse gas concentrations is combined with other factors to give us extremely warm years; sometimes other factors (such as changes in the strength of winds in the upper atmosphere or interactions between the ocean and atmosphere) can be stronger than the greenhouse effect and give us unusually cold years; at other times the situation is somewhere in between.

I find it a bit frightening that some people with little or no understanding of weather or climate (NOT the same thing) so casually dismiss the work and opinions of scientists. Science is always changing, asking more questions, searching for answers, questioning ideas and results. A little respect for this process and an appreciation of the amount of work and level of understanding behind most scientific research would help people develop informed opinions.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russel

Mike Stewart, just read through the comments above and you'll see who the people are that voted for this minority government and will continue to vote for it because their ideology blinds them to recognizing what's in front of their face. The fact that this "minority" government can get away with implementing the extent of the Republican programme that they have, should indicate to you how much of a democracy we really have here (very little).

As for the majority of Canadians being "onside with the need to take concrete action," I don't seriously believe that. There are so many things that could be done without waiting for government, but I don't see that majority doing them. It's business as usual until they are directed from on high as to what to do.

We will only learn the hard way. (Intelligent species? Ya, right! Like Agent Smith said in "The Matrix," we behave more like a virus.) I wish you luck in surviving the "correction."

The argument that “we shouldn’t be doing anything about carbon targets because China is not” does not hold water. China also suppresses free speech and has deplorable human rights records. I’m sure this makes things much easier for any government in power, but you don’t see us justifying similar restrictions in Canada. Why do we now want to follow their example, instead of doing the right thing.

It is also interesting to me, the propensity with which many seem to be opposed to the science of climate change or human kind’s role in that change. The lions share of scientific thought by the experts on the subject say it’s real… by what expertise do so many people not believe it’s real? This doesn’t seem like it should be a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Nobody is suggesting that the experts are 100% right and have all the answers, but when so many experts agree, who are we to tell them they’re wrong? If local experts told you that there was a 90% chance your car was going to be broken into unless you did something about it, would you? They might be wrong, but 90% is a high level of certainty.

And one final thought… of those that believe that mainstream science is falsifying results and promoting fear-mongering, and that global warming is not real, what do you suppose the motivation for this could be? I can’t think of an ulterior motive that would create such a massive and consistent uproar.

The solution for Canada is to elect a majority Liberal gov't under Stephane Dion. We're very, very fortunate that the Libs managed to elect a leader who's on top of the climate change issue and makes it a priority, to include--when he becomes PM-- making Canada a world leader in green technology which we can sell to the developing countries.

Our other option as voters is to continue down the spineless road to colonial status as the US's supplier of whatever it wants, whether we need it ourselves or not.

Firstly as a proud Conservative I must say how proud I am of Harper after his toiling in the political wilderness so long. I know he won't rock the boat and abandon his conservative credentials by going along with some tree hugger scheme.

We (and Harper/Baird) spent so many years out of power watching those Liberals do nothing about the environment and stealing soft PC ("progressive" Conservative)treehugger votes.

We watched and learned. Harper will doing nothing and keep blaming the Liberals for doing nothing first. OK --we're still a bit jealous. Now it's LIB's turn to be jealous--cause we got doing nothing down baby--watch and learn you pansy Dion.

PS all the NON-PC comments above are tongue and cheek for those who don't understand sarcasm.

I appreciate the candour in Mr. Burman's article, but I think there's a certain amount of hypocrisy here. CBC has played a MASSIVE role in the environmental issue--as its milquetoast political programming encourages Canadians to keep voting for people such as John Baird and Stephen Harper and the pro-corporate agenda. CBC's fuss and fuming over environmental problems never gets down to REAL solutions that include sustainability, less consumerism (ie. corporate business) and a powered-down economy. Instead, we hear endless discussion about carbon-swaps, carbon sequestration, and sky geo-engineering nonsense, and so on.

With no genuine discourse from the real "left" allowed on the airwaves to any significant note,not even from our "public broadcaster," it's no wonder Canadians in great numbers happily voted for Mr. Harper and his government.Until we have a media that actually offers a WIDE and diverse range of political opinion across the spectrum (not just middle right to far right masking as "fair and balanced") the Canadian sheeple will continue to vote AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS every time.

One must clearly understand that Scandinavian countries, for example, have a truly democratic media. Their citizens are thus much more well informed and aren't fooled into voting for politicians who have a bigger vested interest in corporate business and the lucrative appointments might come their way, post-career--than they do in the common good.

It's sad, but Canadian's shame and frustration over what is happening in Bali will continue until the media starts being openly critical of corporations that rule this country by stealth power, buying off the major political parties with massive election donations and back room deals-- lock, stock, and barrel.

James E. Hansen, Adjunct Prof in the Dept of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, is a low-key guy. He's the NASA scientist the Bush Administration has been trying unsuccessfully to muzzle because of his criticism of the US record on climate change. He has stated that the West is the major polluter, that even with the poor environmental state of Asian cities, their overall contribution to global warming is relatively small. Calculated on a per capita basis, the footprint of industrial nations is far larger than the Asian transgressors.

It is also argued that another part of the problem of accusing countries like China of being the main ecological culprits is that we in the West have been profitably selling them old (i.e. polluting) technology.

The ball is still in our court.

Agreed that the media thrives on alarmist claims on Global Warming and it may not be as big a looming catastrophe as its made out to be. The fact is that looming or not, it is a problem. The fact also is that developed nations started this trend a long long time before the developing nations followed suit. It seems typical political strategy to me for nations to dillydally on key issues that require change (naturally change that may negatively impact economy and wealth and irritate political stakeholders); this pass-the-buck tendency is not surprising; but it is most certainly not acceptable. So what if India and China are not jumping on the Kyoto bandwagon? If the developed nations sign on and apply joint pressure on these nations - considering as so much production for the first world nations comes out of the third world - I am certain that the Chinas and Indias of the world will follow suit. Politics is depressingly shortsighted. And as much as we lambaste the third world for its defensive stance, the fact is that for all its high and mighty-ness, the first world started this problem, and dragging its heels is only going to lead us all down the drain one way or the other.

How is it that a country with repeated surpluses cannot make minor investments in treaties it ratified? I cannot believe my Canada is the one who crosses their arms and says "well, it's not going to work! Everyone, this is all a terrible idea!"

If it were me, I wouldn't have invited us to Bali.

How inspiring. We Canadians refuse to sign on to international agreements which have grounding in sound science and policy, as supported by the gross majority of countries on this planet and climatologists. But we are not so shallow as to stop at that, no.

We, or our government, at the very least, feels it necessary to take it one step further and talk down to developing countries, whose per capita GHG emissions are insignificant compared to our own. If it were up to Stephen Harper, two nations with over a billion people each would simply give up their aspirations of developing their economies and improving quality of life for their largely impoverished populations. Canadians, meanwhile, should wait for them to take this action before we... turn down our air conditioners? Take the subway to work?

If countries across the world had per-capita GHG emissions equal to those of China and India, we would not be in the mess we are in. Time to put the blame where it really belongs: at our front door, and at the doors of the entire first world.

To AB:

I agree with almost all of what you said, except your mollifying contention that "Global warming...may not be as big a looming catastrophe as its made out to be."

Tell that to the residents of BC who look out on thousands of miles of dried out, dead forests--thanks to the pine beetle.

Tell that to the 2 million residents city of Atlanta who will be clean out of water February 2008. Tell that to the parched citizens of Perth and Brisbane and those who live in the vast, rural areas in Australia. Tell that to the rural population of greater China, and to the farmers in the US Midwest. Tell that to North Carolina, and Florida, and New Mexico. Tell that to Greece and within a decade or thre, tell that to Southern Alberta, the residents in the upper Himalyas where they depend on the glaciers for drinking water, or to the wealthy residents of the Okanogan in BC who, if water had not been criminally diverted for them from the upper lakes, would have seen their docks rising year by year. And soon enough, my friend, tell that to the residents drawing water from the depleting LAKE SUPERIOR where there's been a dramatic, exponential drop in the water level... (And those are only the droughts...)

Only those who contend that the problem isn't "huge" clearly don't read enough.

One of my best friends is a PhD candidate in atmospheric science at McGill. From what I've learned from her and her innumerable sources is that it's far worse than we imagine.
If the entire world would stop emitting CO2 tomorrow, it's still too late, the damage has been done. The point is how much more damage are we going to make and how severe will the repercussions be?
All this banter about emission reduction destroying economies and who is most to blame is just nit picking.
Imagine all the wealth and jobs that would be created in researching, developing and transferring our "dirty" factories, manufactured goods, infrastructures and means of transportation to carbon free "clean" ones.
But no, we're too busy killing each other fighting over oil in the first place. Such a shame and so ironic.

Hilarious!!! The CBC gives the Lieberals a free ride for having done nothing in the 13 years they were in power, yet now blames the Conservatives for their lack of action.

ABSOLUTELY DISGRACEFUL, CBC!!

you know...leaving our children with a financial debt is going to be bad enough,
leaving them with a planet in total ruins is
something that keeps me up at night.
shame on all of you who think this beautiful
planet is here for you to make a profit.
grow some balls Harper, do the right thing!!
the government is supposed to be the voice of the people. well the people have spoken, we want seriouse change now!!!!!!

What saddens me in reading the comments to this article are the geographical and political biases shown within them, which completely ignore the science and dire consequences to all living things on this planet if we do nothing.

Many of these comments seem fuelled by personal greed, or political posturing. Many comments from Albertans reject global warming as a reality, and support Canada's position in Bali. The oil industry currently provides most of the income keeping Alberta from being a have-not province, so I suppose this isn't surprising.

We can no longer play these games. Reducing our carbon footprint won't plunge Canada into economic ruin, but can lessen the suffering of millions of people throughout the world. Canada is in one of the best positions to create solutions to these problems if only we develop the will to do so. Entrepreneurs will develop new lucrative green industries to provide technologies that can help the planet.

Those who make demands of China and India to fit the requirements asked of the so-called "first world" are being unfair, and self-spiteful. Even as a kid, my mother wouldn't let me get away with "but the kid next door doesn't have to clean his room!". The developing world didn't create the problems we are now facing, although much of the developing world suffers with the environmental mess we helped to create. India and China, now going through a growth process which we went through nearly a century ago, have more awareness of their environmental footprint than we did back then. If Canada becomes a role model with the technologies we create, developing countries will fall into line, but we cannot expect them to do so if we are unwilling to set an example after we exploited the environmental for years.

So, to those who, like spoiled children, demand to be treated like the next door neighbour's kid, I'll just quote my mother. "They don't live here, and I expect you to do what’s right."

I am not a climatologist, but I am a senior scientist in a related field (geochemistry). In the Arctic, one can easily see the effects of recent rapid warming, in many types of natural archives (ice, sediments, permafrost, etc) and using many different methods. The ignorance displayed by some on this page about the state of climate science is appalling. Do you believe there is a linik between smoking and cancer? Well, the science on climate change is as unequivocal as that. As for Fred Singer, he is a well-known shill funded by part of the oil industry, and his so-called analyses have never been published in a peer-reviewed forum, because he must know it is scientifically indefensible. If there was something valid in them, they would be published. The fact is that the world has been warming over about the last 50 years at an unprecedented RATE - that is the key point. The recent rate is unnatural.

As a Canadian, I am ashamed of Harper's and Baird's actions. It is simply climate-change denial a la Bush's neo-conservatives, dressed up as "moderation" and "common sense". How can the West ask China and India to reduce gas emissions to the same degree as us on a national basis, when we produce 6 X as much per person as they do? Harper et al are dangerous, not least because they subtly appeal to our extreme self-interest and greed. But, I guess if we allow them to have their way, our descendants will pay the price. It will be another example of natural selection of the fittest (eliminating this non-adaptive species).

Thankfully, there is a lot of debate about this issue, showing, at least, that people are concerned...engagement is number one.

Number two is education. The best science shows GHG emissions, along with other pollution, waste, environmental degradation and the like, are destroying or severely degrading every ecosystem on the planet, which we need to clean our air, water, and soil. The best economics show that innovation and opportunities in the new green industries and technologies would make our economy more robust, more competitive, and better prepared to meet the needs of people and the environment. If we don't shift our priorities, we'll be left behind the leaders, and be burdened with huge taxes to pay for the environmental cleanup, increased healthcare costs, and decreased quality of life.

Number three is action. Harper doesn't like that Kyoto is only for 'developed' countries...fine. But somebody has to show leadership. We can do alot in our own country and others to help reduce GHGs and improve the economy. Number one is to stop perverse subsidies (paying oil companies billions of dollars a year to be more rich, while only paying millions of dollars a year to clean up the environment doesn't make sense). Number two is to start tax incentives for conservation, efficiency, and innovation (there's lots of great ideas out there, but no money or support). Number three is to work with 'developing' countries like to China, India and elsewhere to help them make the leap over dirty technology and energy and toward clean ones (rather than making them build more coal plants to power the factories that fill our consumptive desires, lets encourage them to use renewable sources).

All of these things together would improve our quality of life, our economy, and the future world that our children will have to grow up in. These would also help improve Canada's image and make us a world, green leader. It would also help Harper stay in office...if that's what he wants.

For all who are putting their faith in technology to spare us from ecological collapse, think again! As long as we have the market fundamentalist priests preaching continuous growth, we're toast. Google "Jevons Paradox" to see how this works.

Greenhouse gas emissions are but one in a series of problems we are facing. We could reverse the GHG buildup in 20 years and still do ourselves in by the destruction of habitat, pollution of air & water, and the exhaustion of seafood stocks and soil fertility.

The primary problem is overconsumption. It gets worse as the world's population increases. Neverthless, we in the northern rich countries are disproportionately responsible for this. Therefore, the burden of responsibility is on us to come up with a solution. Technology without a change in lifestyle is not going to do it!

Peter from Ottawa makes a good point:

"How can the West ask China and India to reduce gas emissions to the same degree as us on a national basis, when we produce 6 X as much per person as they do?"

How indeed. What gives us the moral authority to declare that China and India need to pursue a greener economic policy when WE the people and our government won't act first? Why should they have to bear the economic hardship of using less while we have enjoyed an unfettered, resource grabbing, emission spouting lifestyle for over a century? Our per-capital carbon footprint is shockingly high, and as such we have no right to tell any other nation how to direct their policy. Instead of looking outward and complaining about the policy of other nations, we need to think long and hard about our own inaction. We need to commit to real economic change. Not contingent on the actions of other countries, but on our own.

Oh Dear. working my down through the comments was really more depressing than the article itself. Someone called Les even quoted the infamous Fred Singer as a source. Freddy is and always has been a mouth for hire, firts by the tobacco industry which obviously then qualified him to be an expert voice on climate change for the oil industry.
The bottom line is Canada has a choice to make. We can either join the international community supported by the massive weight of the IPCC and the scientific community or we can continue to run the tar sands. We cannot do both. Harper knows this and has made his choice. Does the world community agree with him? Resoundingly -No. Even in the US only the white house agrees. about 1/3 of the states and 700 cities have signed on to Kyoto in proxy for their federal government. Many states and environmental groups are working on bans for oil sands oil.
Do Canadians agree with Harper. This we will see.

In the meantime we are the Pariah of the world, willing to play russian roulette with our children.

Harper and Baird's approach is unethical and disingenuous. They don't give a flying fig about climate change or any other environmental issue (Ontarians know Baird and his cronies very well from the Harris/Eves dark years), they are just making up excuses not to act.

WE put most of the garbage into the atmosphere, WE should be the first ones to clean up. The others will follow.

i find "jesse from edmonton's" comments to be an almost perfect example of the right's aversion to taking real action on the issue of climate change. by asking questions about the future intentions of developing countries he does what all anti-ecopolicy blowhards do. he changes the question because he has no answer to the real issues at the core of the debate.

Australia received a standing ovation?
For what? Australians were found to be the world's worst polluters per capita, producing five times as much CO2 from generating power as China. Beating the USA which produce 8 tonnes of GHG per person (That's 16 times more than that produced by India.)

TOP 10 EMITTERS
National power sector emissions (in tonnes of CO2):
US - 2,530 million
China - 2,430 million
Russia - 600 million
India - 529 million
Japan - 363 million
Germany - 323 million
Australia - 205 million
South Africa - 201 million
UK - 192 million
South Korea - 168 million
(Source: Carma/CGD)

CO2 EMISSIONS PER CAPITA
Australia - 10.0 tonnes
US - 8.2 tonnes
UK - 3.2 tonnes
China - 1.8 tonnes
India - 0.5 tonnes
(Source: Carma/CGD)

These facts may help readers have a fuller veiw of this story....

CO2 reductions need to be a result of oil production reductions, in order to be effective.

OPEC and other fossil fuel cartels can re-arrange their quota systems with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions to sustainable levels.

I am all for stopping catastrophic climate change. Harper should wake up or leave!

One of my observations of this issue is that it takes a lot of effort to be responsible for one's "footprint" on our planet. An analogy that has always made sense to me is how long could I live in a garage with the door closed and the car running. Governments are elected by those who vote for them, we can disagree with how they behave once elected. I also have observed a sea change in the "issue of the day. Climate change is the hot topic for the media, and unfortunately the media seem to be governed by the "soundbite" One of the posts above recommended reading, I couldn't agree more. Some things to consider might be books about the state of our food supply, the way we move manufacturing offshore to cut costs. And the condition of the worlds energy use and needs

I live close to the main CN line across Canada and the nature of rail traffic tells a profound story if you look between the lines. 75 to 100 car trains of sea cans on container flats, China Shipping ,Nippon Lines etc. We live on a small planet and think that the resources are endless. The economy is so often touted as the most important thing not to harm. The funny thing is I cannot eat money or use it to cloth myself or shelter me from the elements, for those I need food that is healthy and grown close by and not half way around the world. Why not build large greenhouses next to the power plants. Use a little of the waste heated water that needs cooling to warm the greenhouses, and spare a bit of the energy to light those same greenhouses. Oh yes I forgot that is less economical than shipping lettuces from California to Canada! Clothing myself with Canadian made cloths is getting tougher as well, Much better to buy them for peanuts at Walmart or one of the other Box stores. The way I see it the cost of goods from half way around the world is going to increase as the crisis gets deeper.

Yes we need to learn more about our environment and our behavoir and do a little less finger pointing.

Canada had six ice fields 100 years ago; we have one. Glaciers are receding the world over. South America has but one growing glacier. Forests are in a state of rapid decline. Pine beetles in BC, cocoa growers in the Amazon and starving people in Africa are destroying the world’s natural processor of CO2.

Global warming a myth? Consider what David Schindler, professor of ecology at the University of Alberta says: “The extraction of the oil (from tar sands) requires heat, thus burning vast amounts of natural gas - effectively one barrel of gas to extract two of crude - and some estimate that Fort McMurray and the Athabasca oil sands will soon be Canada's biggest contributor to global warming; nearly as much as the whole of Denmark. This in an area that has seen two degrees of warming in the past 40 years.”

The vast tar sands hold oil reserves six times the size of Saudi Arabia's. For years there were only two outfits mining now there are seven. Current technology means companies can reach about 10% of deposits, but even that makes the oil sands the second largest proven oil reserve in the world.

“The oil sands excavations are changing the surface of the planet. The black mines can be seen from space. In 10 years, estimates Schindler, they are "going to look like one huge open pit" the size of Florida.”

The boreal forest is cleared and the peat bog removed to get the oil. Acid rain is already killing trees and damaging foliage. The oil companies say they are replanting, but the muskeg (1,000-year-old peat bog and wooded fen, which traps snow melt and prevents flash floods) is irreplaceable. It is home to endangered woodland caribou

Two barrels of water are required to extract one barrel of oil; every day as much water is taken from the Athabasca river as would serve a city of a million people. A Calgary water department manager says the city will be without water in the not=to-distant future.

It costs a lot to warm up the globe, eh?

If the point of the exercise is to reduce emissions, let's get started, rather than stalling with such a transparent tactic.

We can find cleaner technologies and apply them, boost our economy by doing so, and be an example to developing countries. The Harper government is intellectually bankrupt and knows it is incapable of carrying through an emissions reduction plan. It is an international embarrassment.

Maybe had we listen we would have figured out earlier, that Harper is just another promissing politian, with no concern once elected for what the people really want.
Come on to appoint another Alberta M.P. as an enviromental minister; you have to be kidding.
Well its no laughing matter we are in trouble and the rest of the world knows. Harper obviously did not take any classes in enviroment,after all he was just a commerce and business guy who always changed his coat when it suited his way. Lets get rid of this guy before we become responsible for more destruction of our world. Its happening has we speak and all we have to show is a bulldog trying to suck up the other side of Bush

Jesse,

It would seem that the issue is not up for debate. Perhaps Canada or other "developed" countries should be the ones to go into poverty to save the planet that we are primarily responsible for recking in the first place. This issue extends beyond money. If we want humanity to survive more than another century, we HAVE to do whatever it takes to reduce our carbon footprint and pollution. There is no logical argument against since it seems that in order for any of us to survive, something has to be done and sooner than later.

Many people believe that the government and scientists are using scare tactics and they believe this is a bad way to make people change. I disagree. Since nobody is willing to do it the easy way, what choice do they have?

And in response to your comment about the western world expecting the third world and developing countries to go back to poverty; again, what choice do they have. Perhaps you did not see the comment in the article that if we are to all continue living the way we do in Canada and the USA (yup...thats all 6.3 billion), we would need 9 planets. Sorry to say it but since we only have one, someone has to give up something. Think about it... time for us to get our heads out of the clouds and the past and look towards a bright new future. I know I will willingly give up some, if not most of my luxuries if it means leaving a clean and safe planet after I die.

Thanks for the information. I already knew about that but I'm sure it will be helpful to others.

I'm puzzled by your comments.

Are you saying that because the previous Australian government did nothing, and the Australian people gave it the heave-ho at the most recent democratic chance they got, and the new government has agreed to pay the penalties under Kyoto for the nation's failure to act, and Australia will probably make significant reductions now that they face a real cost for not acting, that Australians are not worthy of recognition?

From the comments here, it seems like traditional misinformation has us spinning in circles about what to do as if we've just heard that smoking is bad for us. Regulation for pollution is like regulation for poison: any given company can only poison everyone else only so quickly. And countries too do the same things. What the hell is the logic in allowing someone to poison you as long as it isn't quick? The end result is the same!

I agree with Martin Golder of Victoria. At this time we need to follow the example of California and Quebec, in their ratification of Kyoto targets without waiting for their respective national governments to do something.

I'd be wary of lists like the one quoted by "theKUBE" which deals only with one sector of emissions, in this case the "National Power Sector" of a given country, of which Canada doesn't appear as bad a polluter as we really are. Every general list of top polluting countries seems to have different information, but the trend is that Canada usually between 10th and 7th place for total CO2 pollution (should I say "most carbon poisoning?") and as as bad as 4th per capita in overall CO2 emissions.

A little known fact is that this year's Miss Earth (a beauty pageant where contestants are supposed to have environmental advocacy as well as ideal bust-waist-hip measurements) is a Canadian...and she spoke in the pageant and in press about how she wanted to promote Canada's "good" environmental reputation (she also cites ozone depletion as a major concern for her in her environmental platform) She is currently in Bali, cleaning up beaches in short shorts and giving soundbytes about taking care of mother nature. Perhaps the Canadian delegation should try to utilize her naivete and inexperience in environmental issues to help their cause right now...she, like many of us, doesn't seem to be fully aware of the difference between talk and action.

It is interesting and relieving in many ways to note that a major Canadian media mongul is now taking a responsible position with regards to our environment. Not so some 15+ years ago when the CBC offices in Halifax were provided with conclusive evidence concerning the incremental devastation taking place daily to our environment as a result of the manufacture, sale and use of a product leaching non-threshold neurotoxins and carcinogens. Better late than never?

Leadership on the global warming issue has to come from somewhere. But in Canada where will this leadership come from?

Harper's dealing with this issue and our commitment to Kyoto has been a step backward. The liberals paid lip service to the issue but did nothing constructive. So it's left to the N.D.P. and the Greens.

If David Suzuki were Prime Minister we might have a good chance of saving the planet for our children and grandchildren.

The leadership of Stephen Harper is a big part of Canada's problem. Let's remember he leads a minority government; so he doesn't have the support of the majority of Canadian voters. He does not allow his ministers or caucus to express their opinions or form policy. It's definitely a one-man show!

This has not and should not be the case in a parliamentary democracy. In a parliamentary democracy the ministers should formulate policy (or at least be part of a consensus)and they,not the prime minister, should be responsible for their departments.

Think of the word parliament,from the French verb parler, to talk. What we should be having is the discussion and talking about issues, by the members of parliament, not the autocratic rule of one man. We are not American; therefore we should not have a first minister who behaves as a president. There is a subtle difference. The Prime Minister should be the first among equal ministers, whereas a president can rule even when he does not have a majority in the house of Representatives and the Senate. As I see it , this is precisely what Stephen Harper is doing. His avoidance and bypassing of the press is yet another aspect of his autocratic rule . We need to get back to parliamentary rule in Canada and to reduce the effects of global climate change!

Maybe it's time we all started voting for the Green Party.

Even if “developing countries are excluded from the Kyoto accord” that should not stop Canadian's from doing the right thing.

Before you worry if your neighbors are doing "the right thing" you should make sure you are doing it first.

As a citizen of the USA, one of the biggest contributors of air, water and ground pollution I know that we especially, and all other industrial countries, have got to get on the ball and find ways to decease our dependency on oil. Car manufactures have made a few attempts at creating cars that run on other things beside oil, but they have barely scratched the surface of something that should have begun many years ago.

What does this have to do with global warming and oil sands in Canada? Well, it has everything to do with these issues. Let's face it, the more oil we continue to use, the more global warming there will be and the more pollution there will be. And let's also face the fact that the more we use, the more it is going to cost. Let there be a 50% less demand for oil and watch the prices fall. OPEC will be begging us to buy their oil for pennies instead of dollars.

What will it take to wake of the governments of oil guzzling countries? Does the price of gasoline have to reach $5-6 a gallon? Does the ocean have to rise 50 feet? I for one certainly hope not, since I live in Florida and I am surrounded by coastline !!!!

We as citizens of our respective countries have got to stand up and tell our governments to take measures to lessen our need for oil and then WE have to be willing to make the efforts to consume less oil. It will mean changes to the way we have been used to living.

But, consequences of doing nothing are very grim to say the least.

One thing that Steve, Baird and the nay-sayers neglect to include in their arguments of finger pointing to countries with cheap labour and low subsidized energy costs (namely "developing nations")that make OUR stuff!If you buy things on a bottom line basis then you are part of the problem, not the solution. China is investing massively in renewables while we drag our feet and continue to subsidize the oil & gas company which is largely heading south of the border. The simple facts:
-Canada has 0.4 per cent of the world's population yet produces two per cent of GHG emissions.
-It's one of the world's biggest per capita emitters, along with the U.S. and Australia.
-Canada and the U.S. emitted about 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per capita in 2004. Canada's is rising consistently and most of it is coming from the oil patch (size of Florida), extracting copious amounts of water and depleting carbon absorbing forests while poisoning the communities in the area. Enough is enough!

In comparison, China emitted 3.8 tonnes and India 1.2 tonnes per capita. This is simply irresponsible for a minority government.

One important factor in saving the world's atmosphere is in the preservation of forests. I think that the more advanced countries of the world should contribute large sums of money to Brazil and other places where trees are being cut down and the money given to the people who are cutting the trees so that they can survive without forest destruction. This in addition to pollution control.

it is most urgent that we stop logging. there's only 20% of the world's rain forest left! It's heart breaking to see nature and animal destroyed in such speed.

Urbanization is endangering the whole world. People should really live in high rise instead of building humongous house housing only a few people. This is evil to the wild life, plants as well as animals

Yes, I'm European and I believe that climate change is real. If you don't think so fine but do you really want to test your hypothesis? Unfortunately we can only try this once. I find this approach a little too risky considering that so many factors point to us as the problematic factor responsible!

Furthermore I would like to address authors that mention Canada would fall back into the stone age when reducing CO2 emissions. Reducing 30 % of CO2 emissions per capita, Canada would emit as much as Germany, Japan or the UK emits today per capita!!!!
I don't think these countries are stone age countries, do you?

My apologies. My previous post was meant to be addressed to theKUBE.

OK, I'll bite.

Some thoughts, in random order:

1) A poster above claims to be enviro-friendly by replacing 50 lights with CFL's. 50! You want to be enviro-friendly? Get a smaller house.

1a) Analogies about room-cleaning and wife-beating are red herrings. As others have mentioned, the problem is that if we sign an agreement that isn't binding on all (significant greenhouse gas producing) nations, it'll be a big waste of time, because the problems will move to the least restrictive country, as a matter of economy. You can argue for nice theoretical solutions all you want, but it's more useful to actually find the least bad practical solution.

2) The real problem is that the damage that results from this sort of thing happens in a much longer time-frame than our current political system allows us to reasonably plan for. Note the bashing above of various parties, this after we've all pretty much agreed upon a democracy, and a system that nearly guarantees one of 2 parties in power for the foreseeable future.

Probably the best hope we have is free-market forces, unfortunately. We'll have to wait until fossil fuel gets too expensive before alternatives are considered, and we'll have to live with the costs of our greenhouse gas production (food shortages from global warming effects like drought, increased medical costs from the effects of particulate). I think I'll vote Green, and buy a large supply of heating oil sometime soon.

3) The only feasible alternative to fossil-fuel burning for our required energy consumption is nuclear. Let's build some new plants.

If you want to read some interesting, although not directly related stuff, about energy, Google "uss clueless manhattan"

Then search that dudes site for "Kyoto", and you'll find an interesting viewpoint, and what you're really up against.

There is not full agreement amongst climate change scientists. But, the MAJORITY of climate scientists believe that climate change is happening and humans are the cause of it. Ten years of climate change data (Les) is too small of a data set to say that warming is not happening – even cooling periods are irrelevant within a 10 year data subset. What is important is the big picture. Look at global data for the last 1.5 centuries. CO2 levels have increased dramatically and warming has followed these increases. I highly doubt there will ever be total agreement on climate change science. No science is exact and the necessary doubters will push the science to higher levels. The evidence, with the best science we are capable of, points to human induced global warming. No, we don’t know what all the feedbacks of increasingly higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere will be, but why not err on the side of caution??? Why not believe the evidence of 9/10 climate scientists and act accordingly? Fitting analogies from David Suzuki: “Each year, without complaint or question, we pay for insurance against theft, fire and accidents that are far less than 90 per cent certain. Each year, Canadians spend more than $15 billion for defence against threats far less than 90 per cent likely to happen”. Kyoto is not the answer, but it is a step in the right direction.

It is pretty obvious that the a few hundred countries are going to get together and agree that 30 to 40 countries should reduce emissions without regard to the impact on those counties called upon to reduce. Canada one of the smallest emitters with a climate requiring high levels of energy consumption will be called upon to reduce. Other highly industrialized countries, South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico will be exempt there is no need for Canada to feel guilty because we have followed policies that result in higher emissions. However, we need to use every reasonable effort to persuade all countries to be responsible about energy consumption and the resultant emissions.

We need to realize that Canada has had a dramatic increase in emissions since the signing of Kyoto. We have also had a dramatic increase in our population and the two are bound together and it is nonsense to maintain that they are no unless you favour complete adoption of nuclear energy a technology that most of us do not want in our community let alone in our house. Green fuels are a ridiculous idea, based on “if we release the carbon today that would be release in 50 years when that tree rots we are ahead because we are not releasing carbon that was stored a few million years ago”. Any realist will quickly notice that a statement that starts with “if we release the carbon today” is fundamentally flawed. How about solar power? If we catch more of the energy that come from the sun and use it we will make sure that the greenhouse effect doesn’t retain that solar energy and somehow we will have less energy in our environment. Now that makes sense if you earn your living from making solar panels.

Face it humans use energy and the colder the place they live the more energy they consume and Canada is a cold place. We reduce energy consumption (emissions) by having less people here and more people in warm climates.

Mr. Harper,
"Advances are made by answering questions.
Discoveries are made by questioning answers".
Bernard Haisch
What is your excuse...money ...votes...your Corporate buddies.... yours and others AGENDA????
Our economy is at it,s best right now. votes well that seems to be taking a back burner, OR your corporate buddies are dictating to you, OR is the world agenda the real thing?
All planets are heating up in our Universe Their mantle's are being influenced by the new frequencies from the SUN as it will line up with the Galactic Centre at 2012.Flooding in coastal areas and possible tilt of our Earth's axis will make things worse. So say the truth prepare for flooding storage of food water etc.etc heck the St Lawerence, Georgian Bay can flood most of Eastern Canada in an hour with an axis tilt.So say it PM we are not scared Preparation is the key.
Geoff.Riley

Canada must commit to reducing our contribution to global climate change immediately. Please get this message to our political leaders before it is too late to let the rest of the world know we are committed and will take immediate remedial action.

Is it so difficult to address the issues of climate change? I do not think. It is only a question of political will and economic calculation. European governments understood it, not because there are more sensitive but they lack the opulent resources of Canada.

Pragmatism is not to save what we can, but to prepare our self to change, before urgency pushes us to do it. Investing today on researches and development of new technologies not only cost less than to wait and see, but it is an economic and technical opportunities. Raw resources have no values without the control over technological patents.

The difficulty for Canadian successive governments to take a serious look at environmental issues is not new. However more we wait, costly it becomes. Perhaps the solution will come from the southern side of the border with the next presidential election. Vive l’indépendance .

Happily many Canadians are working hard to give a more modern image of this part of the world.

Climate change remains one of the largest and most complex issues facing mankind today. We cannot ignore tha fact that the 'ecology' debate needs to include environmental, economic as well as the social considerations. This being said, there is little doubt (except in some political quarters) that climate change is not only here but bordering on a crisis. The Canadian government is a pitiful example in terms of any real leadership. Our overwhleming tendency is to bow to the US pressure to demonstrate our friendship by following rather than leading.

The main theme I take from this issue is that politicians do not pay any attention to the voters beyond voting day. Of course we are equally guilty. The majority of us wake up once every 4 years for about 15 minutes, long enough to cast our ballot. (And even then this is a decreasing percentage of the public) We then spend the next number of years complaining about what our elected leaders are doing /or not doing.

We must form an opinion. Any opinion based on our best efforts to inform ourselves. And then make your municipal, provincial and federal leaders aware that you are watching their efforts to represent their constituency. They don't care because there are no immediate repercussions for going off in misguided directions.

My rant applies to Climate Change, destruction of our oceans and global fish stocks, take your pick. Then go kick some polictical shins and keep kicking until they respond. Talking to each other (the already converted)will not make a difference.

I appreciate and respect all the opinions presented and I thank each of you for contributing to this forum.

My own personal belief is that climate change is real and that we are having a serious and negative impact on our planet. I also believe that, as a voter and a consumer, I have the power to help change our future.

From a political standpoint I don’t believe switching from Liberals to Conservatives back to Liberals again is the answer. Having to switch back and forth constantly is a good indication that neither party is doing a good job. In the next election I will give serious consideration to supporting the Green Party not because I want them to be a minority or majority government but because I hope that they will become a more powerful influence on parliament hill and help steer our government in the right direction with respect to our planet. If by some off chance they did become a minority or majority government some day then I will afford them the same opportunity to prove themselves as I have in the past with the Liberals and Conservatives.

From a consumer standpoint my family and I have taken small steps to reduce our footprint on the environment. We have replaced all the light bulbs in our home with energy efficient bulbs. We have also started a weekly recycling program and we buy organic food whenever possible. These are very small steps but at least we can say we are doing something to help.

Regards,

For any nation, there is only one appropriate strategy for addressing climate change:

Take effective and appropriate action.

This appears to be the last thing our government wants to do, and they have now committed themselves and the rest of Canada to a strategy of sabotage. Rather than hanging our heads, we should be making every effort to compel our government to do the right thing. We should only hang our heads if the government gets its way.

It matters little what other countries are going to think of us. What matters far more is what our children are going to think of us, and what we are going to think of ourselves.

Climate change is not a geopolitical game. It is a global environmental threat, and it is in the best interests of present and future generations *everywhere* to take action immediately, substantively and effectively.

It is inexcusable not to pull one's own weight, just because others are not pulling theirs. It is no less excusable to demand that weaker nations pull more than fair their share.

This is un-Canadian.

First of all, a big thumbs down to the current Harper government. Their stance on environmental issues have been disappointing, to say the least. I've never voted for them, nor will they get my vote in the next election.
I find the argument regarding Canada's blocking the draft for developing countries interesting. I agree that all countries should do their part -- even better, every person should pitch in as well. If we want to make a difference in the amount of pollution in China, maybe we should stop buying the cheap crap that they produce. It seems clear that politians of any party don't care about the people. So if we want our voices to be heard, then we need to start voting with our dollars. Buy local. Buy organic and support your local, small "green" businesses.

We are one large player in climate change, lets take a stand Canada and stop global warming.

It is truly disappointing to hear of the posturing of our Prime Minister. Leadership requires someone who will lead. I do not consider the health of our planet a subject of negotiation. If we have to wait for the science to prove absolutely the fact that we contribute to global warming, we will absolutely be too late.

Currently 80% of electricity in China is generated from coal. In order to meet the insatiable demand, approximately 550 new coal-fired plants are being planned; one new plant every ten days or less.

India? 70% of electricity is generated from coal. Increased demand, in-efficiencies and zero alternatives are creating a future that will comprise 200 new coal-fired power plants.

USA? The world’s largest polluter may build 70 new coal-fired power plants.

How does this all equate and where are we now? Simply this:

1) No official treaty exists to curb green-house gas emissions.

2) By 2012, the USA, China and India will emit up to five times (2.7 Bn tons) as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as the Kyoto Protocol planned to reduce (0.48 Bn tons). This does not include the 350 coal-fired plants planned in all other countries combined.

3) Bali comes up with a frame-work and hope for 2008 and beyond. What will it be? 20% cuts? 40%? What can the world achieve? Don't harp on Harper for suggesting 20% from 2006 levels. This estimate may actually be an achievable target. No matter how far off it is deemed to be from the various targets or ranges suggested, it could be a good start.

Considering that the world will build about 1170 coal-fired power plants within the next decade and scientists currently estimate that 500 new plants will push CO2 concentrations to a dangerous climate change level (400 ppm), any future climate change agreement MUST include the coal burning majorities of China, India and the USA. Regardless of the future advances in any alternative energy supply, the world must first act to minimise our reliance on coal and use new technology to reduce the emissions of future coal-fired plants for the next decade, 2010 to 2020.

What can we do? I believe that all we can do is work towards establishing a binding agreement that is achievable in the future.

Hopefully that is what happened in Bali in 2007.

As long as we have Stevie Bush leading our country, nothing environmentally will improve.

In my previous post about electoral change I forgot to mention that having a system to ensure a clear majority support for each MP is an improvement on our current system but what is really needed is a system to ensure the proportion of MP’s in the house more accurately reflects the true interests of the population.

Our current system has, time and again, permitted leadership of our nation to be controlled with less than majority support.

Is it so difficult to perform something that could reasonable take 15 years when you have only 4? Yes.

Is Harper to blame for the fact that we are not meeting our Kyoto goals? No.
Harper has been in power for a year now, the neglect took place under Chretien, who I'm sure got quite a chuckle over watching Harper get handed a bag of coal.

Is the Kyoto accord going to do anything if China doesn't have to bother? No.
If there are countries that don't have to worry about their emissions, then guess where the overly inefficient equipment is going to be sold to defray the cost of upgrading to more environmentally sound equipment? China and Indonesia of course.

Is Australia going to sign Kyoto 3 if China doesn't? No.

Will Harper's new levy have any impact on emissions in Canada? The auto industry seems to think so. Toyota is excited that it's fuel efficient cars will have a 5 to 10% rebate payed for by the government, and Detroit is nervous that most of their most popular cars and particularly SUV's are going to have an extra 5 to 10% tax placed on top of them. Harper has set the bar very high, if your car doesn't qualify for a green rebate, you can't possibly call it fuel efficient without being laughed at.

So go ahead, blame Harper for something he couldn't control, for having to step carefully in a minority government. Oh, and while you're at it, only use per capita measures, and ignore pollution per square KM. After all, the amount of the planet you occupy doesn't matter for the global environment, just how much every person uses, and by all means champion the cause of Dion for PM, he didn't do anything to meet our Kyoto obligations as Minister of the Environment, so of course he will do something as PM. (that was sarcasm in case you missed it)

I think that we should worry about our own involvment and do what WE can to reduce. While everyone is fighting about what China and India are doing (or not doing for that matter), we are wasting valuable time. Time that could be spent contributing to the reduction of emissions.
WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT WE ARE DOING. If we said that we are going to do something, shouldn't we live up to our WORD and DO IT!?

The problem with this issue, is that much of our economy here in Alberta is based around the oil sands and other non enviromental industry. So in order for us to cut back all these emmisions and really do something that will make a difference, it would really slow down the economy, I do agree that we said we would do something so yes we need to, but we also need to protect our economy, it really is a tough call to make.