Since the early 1990s Canada's CO2 emissions have risen more than the United States in percentage terms. Canadian economic and population growth caused this. All the while this was happening some Canadian politicians were morally posturing as being superior to the United States because Canada had joined the Kyoto Accord. But the Canadian government was totally unwilling to inflict big costs on Canadian industry or the Canadian public in order to meet their Kyoto obligations.

The tar sands oil production in Alberta generates a lot of CO2 and so the continued increase in tar sands oil is going to drive up Canadian CO2 emissions even higher.

To repeat my own position on Kyoto: The only way to stop and reverse CO2 emissions at the world level is to obsolesce fossil fuels. We can best do that by accelerating the development of non-fossil fuels energy technologies.

" The only way to stop and reverse CO2 emissions at the world level is to obsolesce fossil fuels. We can best do that by accelerating the development of non-fossil fuels energy technologies."

Yes but what if those technologies are not price competetive with oil? I can see no reason that at anytime in the future they should be so. If left unfettered then the market for energy may well ensure the ongoing expansion of fossils fuels until they become so scarce that price favours non harmful technologies (renewable, plugins etc) and by that point we may have damaged our climate.

There are always fossile fuel energy, these are the evils sealed in hell aeons ago. And mankind is unlocking these demons, one by one.

Petroleum, natural gas, coal, and in the future, methane hydrate. Until our atmosphere no longer able to sustain burning..

You can probably thank our prime minister John Howard for this. He was in Canada recently and pretty much did a fair bit in pushing Stephen Harper away from Kyoto and toward this Asia-Pacfic thing. It seems John has found a kindred spirit in Stephen recently. Another right wing conservative leader like George Bush.

I don't support Australia signing the Kyoto protocol. It would just be an excuse for the Federal government to use the Foreign policy power of the constitution to excercise more control over the States. If something a state does emits greenhouse gas emissions the federal government would probably be able to pass a law overuling it. I support other means of reducing our country's greenhouse gases. The states seem to do a hell of a lot more on this than the federal government.

While I would have much preferred Canada to stick to the objective of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, I can understand why they chose to abandon the effort:

(a) Canada is one of very few countries that actually stands to gain from global warming

(b) At current oil prices, the aggressive exploitation of Alberta's vast oil and tar sands reserves is economically and strategically compelling.

(c) The US is Canada's most important trading partner by far. Small nations have no hope of effecting a meaningful reduction in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration as long as Washington, DC, Beijing and others do no more than pay lip service to the issue.

Besides, the emissions trading regime set up by Kyoto has been hampered by inappropriate distributions of these indulgences (I use the word advisedly). It would have been far clearer and more effective to simply tax the consumption of fossil fuels, compensated by cuts in direct taxes.

Current energy policies reflect the orthodox views that environmental protection is a luxury only a vibrant economy can enable and, that economic growth is inexorably tied to increased energy use.

IMHO, the inverse is true: a predictable, healthful environment is the quintessential precondition for long-term economic growth. This is doubly true in the developed world, which is rapidly losing the low-tech portion of its manufacturing base to the emerging economies. A focus on GNP/kWh rather than just GNP promotes high-tech innovation that those emerging economies will eventually come to demand as well. We need to stay ahead in IP generation so our children have something worthwhile to trade.

It's my understanding of the CO2 offset trading process that the buyer of the offsets is not responsible for their validity. The selling country is responsible, but the penalty for failing to make the corresponding reductions is just stricter limits in the next phase of the treaty. If a country wanted to game the system it could join Kyoto I, sell bogus credits, then drop out for Kyoto II.

Btw, Clinton did not have opportunity to sign Kyoto as it was rejected by the Senate. I will freely grant, however, that he could have done more to make the case for it. In addition, I will also freely admit that Gore was a total disappointment in the 2000 election as he remained rather mum on his passion, global warming.

Canada was never serious about Kyoto's objectives. Just a way to get the 'greens' vote but it wasn't enough to get elected. You can't double and trible Tar Sands production and reduce GHG at the same time.

A Bush-Howard-Harper 3-yr alliance may be very good for COLD Canada. An added +5C would be very acceptable to most Canadians. The big losers will be our very good neighbors to the south. Ten to fifteen more major hurricanes and 1000+ more tornadoes every year, major flooding of low lands in many places, major drought expansion and more desert lands, insects invasion and progressive reduction in agriculture production etc etc.

As most of you already mentionned, we will consume more and more fossil fuel as long as it is cheaper than alternative energies. Our pocket-book is still more important than GHG and climate changes. OPEP could give us a helping hand by raising the oil price to $100+/barrel but it may not be enough. We would just get use to a $4/gal.

A progressive-adjustable fossil fuel federal tax of $1/gal to $3/gal would be a much better solution. The money would stay home and could be used to accellerate the production and use of alternative cleaner energies. The BHH alliance will not allow such common sense transition. Be prepared for more GHG and fluctuating higher OIL prices for the next three years.

"(a) Canada is one of very few countries that actually stands to gain from global warming"

?!

That's pretty short-sighted, at best (and I say that as a Canadian).

If most of the rest of the planet is screwed, we are too; we don't like in a bubble..

What I wrote above is the truth about Canadian federal politics.

It’s not fiction from a conspiracy of Albertans.

But that’s what Michael G. Richard is claiming.

I’ll repeat this truth again: Quebec (i.e., the politicians that represent Quebec interests) use Kyoto to get Green votes for parties that support more transfer payments to Quebec. Those parties are the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, and the NDP. Because of Canada’s absurdly obsolete and corrupt party discipline, after Greens vote for one of these parties, those party members vote like robots to support the rest of those parties’ policies for increased transfer payments to Quebec (among others). It’s obvious political calculation to even superficial Canadian political observers, and one of the many many failures of the bad Canadian system.

I only hope that when the Canadian federal system finally breaks (that is when one of the provinces finally tells an uncompromising federal government that it won’t accept federal authority), that the federal government will peacefully and rightfully make adjustments to this reality.

We know there are numerous ways that Quebec won’t accept federal government intervention. And Albertans won’t submit their resources to federal government control, Kyoto or otherwise - No way, no how. The Ontario government (where I’m coming from – not Alberta) is only now starting to protest the “shakedowns” of Ontario taxpayers by the federal government.

i love your site, alot of information and all goood job :)