Canada formally withdraws from Kyoto Protocol (Update)

Dec 12, 2011 by Michel Comte
Canadian Minister of Environment Affairs Peter Kent in Durban on December 10. Canada became the first country to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, saying the pact on cutting carbon emissions was preventing the world from effectively tackling climate change.

Canada became the first country to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, saying the pact on cutting carbon emissions was preventing the world from effectively tackling climate change.

"We are invoking Canada's legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto," Environment Minister Peter Kent said following a marathon UN climate conference in South Africa, at which nations agreed to a new roadmap for worldwide action.

The landmark pact reached in 1997 is the only global treaty that sets down targeted curbs in global emissions.

But those curbs apply only to rich countries, excluding the United States, which has refused to ratify the accord.

"Kyoto is not the path forward for a global solution to climate change," Kent said. "If anything, it's an impediment.

"We believe that a new agreement with legally binding commitments for all major emitters that allows us as a country to continue to generate jobs and economic growth represents the path forward."

Canada agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but its emissions of the gases blamed for damaging Earth's fragile climate system have instead increased sharply.

Delegations from about 170 countries meet in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which fixes legally-binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

Saying the targets agreed to by a previous Liberal administration were unattainable, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government last year unveiled its own measures aimed at curbing emissions, in line with US efforts.

Pulling out of Kyoto now allows Canada to avoid paying penalties of up to CAN$14 billion (US$13.6 billion) for missing its targets.

Kent also cited major impacts on Canada's economy that will be avoided by withdrawing from the treaty.

"Under Kyoto, Canada is facing radical and irresponsible choices if we're to avoid punishing multi-billion-dollar payments," Kent said, noting that Canada produces barely two percent of global emissions.

"To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car, and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory, and building in Canada."

For Kyoto supporters, the anticipated Canadian pullout was expected to be a symbolic blow and badly damage a UN climate process already weakened by divisions.

A polar bear sits next to a hole in the ice in Hudson Bay waiting for a seal meal outside Churchill, Mantioba, Canada. Canada agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but its emissions of the gases blamed for damaging Earth's fragile climate system have instead increased sharply.

Last week at the UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa, Kent had already said that Kyoto was "in the past" for Canada.

"It is an agreement that covers fewer than 30 percent of global emissions, by some estimates 15 percent or less," the Canadian minister said.

The conference on Sunday approved a roadmap towards an accord that for the first time will bring all major greenhouse-gas emitters under a single legal roof.

If approved as scheduled in 2015, the pact will be operational from 2020 and become the prime weapon in the fight against climate change.

But environmentalists have called it porous.

Kent said that in the meantime, Canada would continue to try to reduce its emissions under a domestic plan that calls for a 20 percent cut from 2006 levels by 2020, or as critics point out, a mere three percent from 1990 levels.

The latest data last year showed that Canadian carbon emissions were currently up more than 35 percent from 1990.

Explore further: Bacteria ate some toxins, but worst remain, according to Gulf oil spill researcher

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Back-room negotiations begin on climate intentions

Dec 05, 2011

(AP) -- Back-room negotiations began in earnest Monday on a deal to rescue the only treaty governing greenhouse gas reductions and to launch talks on a broader agreement to include the world's largest polluters: ...

Emerging powers press rich world on CO2 cuts

Aug 28, 2011

Brazil, South Africa, India and China called Friday on industrialized nations to step up their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a key UN climate summit later this year.

Merkel: binding, verifiable climate targets needed

Jul 04, 2011

(AP) -- All nations must commit to binding and verifiable goals to reduce their carbon emissions to reach a new international climate agreement as the Kyoto Protocol expires next year, German Chancellor Angela ...

Recommended for you

Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay

Jul 30, 2014

In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variab ...

Peru's carbon quantified: Economic and conservation boon

Jul 30, 2014

Today scientists unveiled the first high-resolution map of the carbon stocks stored on land throughout the entire country of PerĂº. The new and improved methodology used to make the map marks a sea change ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Davecoolman
Dec 12, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (15) Dec 12, 2011
Perhaps this has something to do with all the potential profit to be made in an ice-free arctic? All the wells which can be drilled, all the real estate which can be sold, all the crops which can be planted in soon to be former permafrost?

Really, which countries will tend to gain the most from a warmer planet? Russia, denmark, sweden... canada?? Vendicar must have an opinion on this, wot?
Nanobanano
2.5 / 5 (15) Dec 12, 2011
Well done Canada.


They probably don't have a realistic way to continue meeting the requirements.

I'm not sure how much of their energy is from fossil fuels, but given their latitude, the only alternative would be nuclear.

Fukushima sorta ruined everything.

Blame the nuke plant, when it was bad planning and a top 5 earthquake did the damage.

===

Won't be so happy if the trend of the past 10 years continues for another 10 years.
Nanobanano
2.5 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2011
Really, which countries will tend to gain the most from a warmer planet? Russia, denmark, sweden... canada?? Vendicar must have an opinion on this, wot?


For once, I actually agree with you.

Was going to say something similar regarding Canada.

But what is good for one region isn't going to be good for another.

I can assure you, Canada will NOT appreciate getting Category 3 or 4 hurricanes that will be headed their way. Nor will Spain, England, and France appreciate Category 2 or 3 Hurricanes which will be coming back NE across the Bermuda High.

Yes, Russia will probably be happy to get a few degrees warmer. They definitely like the open shipping lanes.

But the U.S. Gulf and East Coast? We're Screwed, or next generation is anyway.

Katrina was about a 150kj/cm2 TCHP hurricane.

If you heat the Gulf by 2C, that would ADD an additional 84kj/cm2 to TCHP...

Got it? Louisiana and Mississippi we EAT IT like every freaking year. As will Texas and Florida.
gregor1
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 12, 2011
Due to the recent exposure of widespread corruption within the IPCC or is that too embarrassing to mention? http://www.spiked...w/11860/
Or perhaps they read the leaked emails and concluded the whole thing was a huge scam?
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (14) Dec 12, 2011
Gregor:

WTF is your problem anyway? It isn't some international conspiracy.

NASA and our own scientist do most of the research. We are the ones with the best weather satellites and a global network of buoys in both major ocean basins.

This isn't some Red Scare communist plot.

nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

and

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8070

and

neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/12/arctic-report-card-2011.html

If you honestly believe NOAA and NASA are using your tax dollars to falsify climate data for some global conspiracy, you should file a suit with the federal courts. That would qualify as Treason.
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2011
Perhaps this has something to do with all the potential profit to be made in an ice-free arctic? All the wells which can be drilled, all the real estate which can be sold, all the crops which can be planted in soon to be former permafrost?
Of course, Canada is potential exporter of oil, so it refuses the Kyoto, whereas Japanese import nearly all their oil, so that this treaty was signed just in Japan. It just indicates, the actual fight against global warming is secondary, the business interests are more important here. I'm mild supporter of Kyoto not because of global warming, but because it could accelerate switch to the less demanding and irrecoverable energy sources, the cold fusion in particular. When price of oil will raise too much, most of dictatorship regimes will get enough money for construction of nuclear weapons. We cannot wait for depletion of oil anyway, or we would face the global nuclear war for the rest of oil sources.
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2011
Please note, only two thirds of oil production are used for energetic purposes and transportation, the rest is consumed with plastic industry. The implementation of cold fusion will therefore not replace all consumption of oil, we will just get a bit more time for adoption of our industry to the recoverable raw sources.
Nanobanano
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2011
Look at this:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8264

and

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=37215

and

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=49338

and

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=76596&src=iotdssi

The anomaly is the number of EXTRA melting days the location had above climatology.

I should also point out that in this case, it is re-averaged each year, and since these years are all way above average, for example, 2010 is computed vs the "average" of all previous years, which included 2009.

You can't deny this stuff.

You think that's faked? Then take them to court for Fraud or something.

It's NASA and NOAA. If you're a U.S. citizen, they work for you.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (55) Dec 12, 2011
Ultimately, each nation will do what's in it's own immediate best interests. This is one reason why a central (UN) global governing organization will not work to "fix AGW".
Newbeak
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
Maybe Canada wants out because it only is responsible for about 3% of CO2 emissions.The big players are Europe,the U.S. and China.With oil sands development,the country has the potential to produce as much oil as Saudi Arabia.A lot of it's energy is hydro electric,and it exports a lot of that to the energy-hungry Americans.
Callippo
1.2 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2011
Maybe Canada wants out because it only is responsible for about 3% of CO2 emissions.
I really don't think so, because under such a circumstances the Kyoto treaty would be advantageous for Kanada. By this protocol the countries are penalized just accordingly to their contributions to greenhouse gases production (which is problematic approach by itself). The most controversial portion of Kyoto treaty is just the carbon trading - it enables the rich countries to spread carbon technologies into poorer ones and nothing forces them to decrease their own limits of carbon production. But without this feature no development country would sign the Kyoto at all.
Nanobanano
2 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2011
With oil sands development,the country has the potential to produce as much oil as Saudi Arabia.A lot of it's energy is hydro electric,and it exports a lot of that to the energy-hungry Americans.


Yeah, well, what do you think the PPM CO2 is going to be after all that oil, and the trillion barrels in the U.S. reserves and shale oils are burned, along with Coal for the next several decades?

We aiming for parts per thousand or something? 1% CO2 maybe?

Where does it stop?

You realize NASA calculates about 9% of the Earth's existing 33C greenhouse effect comes from CO2 alone. That would be 3C.

Plan on doubling or tripling up CO2 over the next century, maybe? Aiming for plus 6C above natural temperatures maybe?

80% increase in average daily planetary convection sound good? You'll have a world record rainfall even like every day, compared to modern records...
canuckit
2.1 / 5 (12) Dec 12, 2011
The Conservative party of Canada detains a majority at the parliament. They won the elections because of the vote of the western half of the country where oil is extracted from the sands. The previous Liberal party opposition was in favor of a carbon tax. Until the conservatives are defeated Canadians have to bear with a US-Republican-type retrograde government.
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2011
Even without potential greenhouse effect there are good objective reasons for replacement of fossil fuels with another sources of energy. So even if you're completely unsure or even confused with the whole undergoing discussion about AGW, then these motivations should be sufficient for ratification of Kyoto protocol by any country (without emission trading, though). But for many countries (including Kanada, Poland or Russia) the export of fossil fuels or energy represents the huge portion of their gross domestical product by now. Such countries will boycott both Kyoto protocol, both cold fusion research by all means possible. It's just another example of situation, where the laissez-faire approach to economy doesn't work.
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 12, 2011
The problem is not with the extracting of oil from the sand pits. The REAL problem is the USAGE of that oil. The same goes for the usage of coal and gas. That is what it's all about. The Canadians will sell their oil to Japan. As Callippo said, Japan has to import nearly all their oil, and now that they can't use the nuclear power plants, how are they going to stay warm in winter? With OIL, of course. Oil is a bit cleaner burning than coal. Gas is even more cleaner. But Japan has few natural fuel resources, so oil it is. The rest of the world might not like it, but people in Japan have to survive too . . .so it doesn't really matter WHO sells the oil to them. Maybe to the Canadians, business is business. They've got the oil, Japan needs it - done deal.
The Japanese ride bicycles a lot, so that helps. And if Americans and Canadians could also ride bicycles more, then at least SOME of the CO2 emissions will be lessened even without joining Kyoto.
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 12, 2011
LOL. . .pedal power is the answer. Most Americans and Canadians aren't used to riding bicycles around town, so they will USE gasoline in their cars until all of the oil supplies in the world have run out. And then what? Callippo's pushing of Cold Fusion is only a pipe dream for now. . .or maybe always. Maybe some advertising would help people get off their tush and get some excercise on a bicycle. How many here would give up their gas guzzlers for better health? Enquiring mind(s) want to know.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2011
When I was in Washington, DC last year near Georgetown University, the terrain is a bit hilly. There was an enterprising young man who was riding a bicycle. Attached to the bicycle was a "carriage" built for 2 people that had a protective roof on it. He picked up a lot of passengers with that thing and the only power he used was his legs. I was very impressed.
Callippo
1.9 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2011
Americans and Canadians could also ride bicycles more
In these countries the people have to travel at higher distances than at small dense Japan. The climatic conditions of Canada aren't very positive to bicycling too.
Callippo's pushing of Cold Fusion is only a pipe dream for now
Not more, than the artificial limitation of greenhouse gases production with some protocols. http://www.emeral...3001.png
Newbeak
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2011
They won the elections because of the vote of the western half of the country where oil is extracted from the sands.


No,the vote rich provinces of Ontario and Quebec put them in power-that is where most of the population lives.Also,the Liberal party was decimated because Canadians found the leader not at all connected with the average citizen.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2011
LOL. . .pedal power is the answer. Most Americans and Canadians aren't used to riding bicycles around town, so they will USE gasoline in their cars until all of the oil supplies in the world have run out.

Well,speaking for myself,I would cycle more,but I absolutely HATE wearing a helmet-the sweat builds up in no time,and runs into my eyes.At the same time,I realize helmets protect against brain injury.I have been walking a lot more than I used to do,and will walk 2-3 miles round trip if I need just a few groceries.
Newbeak
3 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2011
The climatic conditions of Canada aren't very positive to bicycling too.

Yes,true,winter is brutal in many areas of Canada,but I see a lot of people cycling year round with studded tires,which grip the ice quite well.
Newbeak
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
The problem is not with the extracting of oil from the sand pits. The REAL problem is the USAGE of that oil.

Yes,Canada is like the Colombians who feed the insatiable American appetite for drugs.If Canada said no,the Yanks might decide to "bring democracy" to them,just to get their energy fix.
ricarguy
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2011
I actually enjoy riding a bike, but I remember reading a study from England on here that biking and the extra food you need is actually worse carbon-wise for the environment...

Let's face it. The economics favor what is cheap, and people don't want to give up their standard of living. Renewables work for some limited proportion of our needs, but even reduced to double the cost of most fossil fuels, how many really want to bite into that? Most of the "civilized world" is already broke and only patching over their financial deficits, buying time by digging a deeper hole. The real crash is coming like a proverbial thief in the night. EU and even the American socialism is failing before our eyes, yet most deny their sight.
Newbeak
4.8 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2011
The implementation of cold fusion will therefore not replace all consumption of oil, we will just get a bit more time for adoption of our industry to the recoverable raw sources.

Sorry,but cold fusion is bullshit,IMHO.No lab could replicate the work of Fleischmann.Besides,there is no theoretical connection with established physics,which doesn't bode well for the idea. A Canadian start-up may be on to a solution to hot fusion generation: http://www.genera...dex.html Amazon founder Jeff Bezos seems to think it has potential,and has invested money in it.

Newbeak
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
I actually enjoy riding a bike, but I remember reading a study from England on here that biking and the extra food you need is actually worse carbon-wise for the environment...

Lol,that made my day! Good lord,man,there is NO comparison between cycling and driving an ICE vehicle as far as CO2 emissions are concerned!By the way,I run,and I DON'T eat more food as a result.
Callippo
1.3 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2011
No lab could replicate the work of Fleischmann
You apparently missed the fact, the megawatt cold fusion unit developed with Andrea Rossi IS NOT based on the work of Fleischman.
there is no theoretical connection with established physics,which doesn't bode well for the idea.
The people, who even don't know, what the cold fusion is about cannot judge it reliably. I can understand the contemporary physics perfectly and I can see this connection very clearly. I explained it here many times. The hot fusion solution developed with Canadian cannot compete economically with solution of nickel fusion not at least a bit.
Newbeak
3 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2011
No lab could replicate the work of Fleischmann
You apparently missed the fact, the megawatt unit developed with Andrea Rossi is NOT based on the work of Fleischman.

No,it is a different process,but it still claims to be a kind of cold fusion.Fleischman at least was a trained chemist.Rossi is a fraud,and a very successful one at that.See what Popular Science had to say about it:http://www.popsci...kthrough
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2011
there is NO comparison between cycling and driving an ICE vehicle as far as CO2 emissions are concerned!
Of course it is, if the production of 1 kg of additional food required for bicycle riding requires one liter of gasoline, which you can burn in your car in much more comfortable way.
Newbeak
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2011
there is NO comparison between cycling and driving an ICE vehicle as far as CO2 emissions are concerned!
Of course it is, if the production of 1 kg of additional food required for bicycle riding requires one liter of gasoline, which you can burn in your car in much more comfortable way.

I will say it again: You don't eat any more than a sedentary person if you exercise.To be truthful,when I started running,I thought I WOULD eat more,but that was NOT the case in my experience.
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2011
See what Popular Science had to say about
It has no meaning to discuss it, until no one of mainstream physics bothers to replicate the Piantelli/Focardi experiments.
Newbeak
5 / 5 (2) Dec 12, 2011
See what Popular Science had to say about
It has no meaning to discuss it, until no one of mainstream physics bothers to replicate the Piantelli/Focardi experiments.

The problem was and is that mainstream science tried and failed to reproduce the cold fusion work of Fleischman.
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2011
You don't eat any more than a sedentary person if you exercise.To be truthful,I thought I WOULD eat more with running
It's nonsense, many people travel to work many kilometers every day. The bicycle is viable solution for 10% of them.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2011
The problem was and is that mainstream science tried and failed to reproduce the cold fusion work of Fleischman
How is it relevant to the replication of work of Piantelli/Focardi? Do you believe, you could substitute the replication of nickel fusion with experiments with palladium? Only if you really DON'T WANT to replicate it.
Shelgeyr
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 12, 2011
@Nanobanano said to Gregor:
...It isn't some international conspiracy.


So I just up and butt in to say "Yes, Nano, it actually is. Really and truly."

You see, just calling it a "conspiracy" doesn't make it strictly the domain of conspiracy nuts. There are actual conspiracies, you know... they do exist, which is why we have laws against many types of them. Hopefully they're few and far between, and yes, most alleged conspiracies seem to be the product of fever dreams.

But not AGW. This conspiracy - and conspiracy it is - is well documented by the perpetrators themselves. Heh heh heh.

And fortunately for the rest of the planet, and for all of future history, they got caught with their electronic pants down and their hands in the moldy cookie jar of deceit.

Hurray for Canada! Good goin', eh?
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 13, 2011
widespread corruption . . . leaked emails . . . a huge scam?

http://www.spiked...w/11860/



The UN's IPCC, Al Gore, and Climategate scandal have seriously damaged the credibility of world leaders and scientists who refused to condemn manipulated temperature data.

See: "Deep Roots of the Global Climate Scandal (1971-2011)"
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

Today society is hurting. World leaders are "sitting on a powder keg."

Can scientists and politicians become trusted servants of society?

Is there a way to reduce arrogance [enhance humility; decrease pride] of politicians and scientists so they serve society?

See:

http://judithcurr...t-149143

http://noconsensu...nt-62303

http://judithcurr...t-149436

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2011
You don't eat any more than a sedentary person if you exercise.To be truthful,I thought I WOULD eat more with running
Callippo says:
It's nonsense, many people travel to work many kilometers every day. The bicycle is viable solution for 10% of them.

And many people who travel many kilometers to work do have the option to travel by mass transit or with several people in 1 car. But MANY people who work within walking distance from home much prefer to DRIVE their cars to work, even on a sunny day. Even on a snowy day with low temps., 2 to 5 people in a car driving at a long distance still makes more sense and still fuel efficient than 1 person driving all alone. I don't really know how much safer it would be for a packed car on a snowy day, but that extra ballast should help the tires to grip a bit better on an icy road.
I've had many friends who had moved closer to their job so that they wouldn't have to commute for an hour or so, and bought bicycles to ride to work.

Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2011
Even in the rain, one can ride a bike to work and wear a rain poncho. This whole thing for alleviating the CO2 problem depends on the will of people to actually DO something to minimize pollution of the Earth instead of continuing on their merry way, driving their cars to the corner drug store instead of walking or biking and getting fit. Humans are mostly lazy, that's one of the biggest problems.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2011
ricarguy said:
I actually enjoy riding a bike, but I remember reading a study from England on here that biking and the extra food you need is actually worse carbon-wise for the environment...

There is no need for "extra" food when riding a bike. Just 3 square meals a day and enough water for hydration is sufficient. Even the food that you eat doesn't require very much energy for the planting and harvesting and bringing to market or a packer. The tractors for farm work are not used that often on any given farm except for planting and harvesting and occasional weeding. Thus, consumption of fuel is limited throughout the year. Farmers and ranchers practice frugality because they are self-employed and incomes are subject to the whims of the commodities market. So they try harder to save their fuel and use of electricity.
They're very knowledgeable about climate change, weather patterns and they don't pollute knowingly. Unlike so many non-farmers who just don't really care.
Eric_B
5 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2011
"A polar bear sits next to a hole in the ice in Hudson Bay waiting for a seal meal"

Will someone please get these bears off the dole! It can get a job rather than waiting for a handout.
Blakut
3 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2011
China doesn't pay, and that's an important thing. It doesn't pay a dime for all the pollution it causes, yet it expects all the superpowers to chip in. Of course they'll get out eventually, cause the treaty benefits almost-super-power developing countries, like China, Indiat etc. while keeping developed countries down.
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2011
It is a tough call. We only produce 2% of the world CO2 emissions but we only have .01 % of the planets population, we are the worst carbon polluters per capita on earth. Granted it was mentioned above that our neighbours to the south are the beneficiaries of most of our energy exports (35% of all we produce goes south), we would still be in the top 10 per capita without the US as a customer. IMO, 2020 is too late anyways, CO2 PPM will be over 400 by then without major contributions from positive feedbacks. With no restrictions until then, China and india will continue to increase their CO2 input with the rest of the world adopting the "I will when they do" attitude towards cutting back.
Gustav
5 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2011
User nanobanano wrote "They probably don't have a realistic way to continue meeting the requirements. I'm not sure how much of their energy is from fossil fuels, but given their latitude, the only alternative would be nuclear."

Not so, Quebec derives 97% of its electricity from hydro, which is 100% renewable, the remainder from nuclear. The reason Canada withdrew is simple: the country cannot function without oil and gas. Electricity is fine for trains, but not for cars. Try driving a Prius or a Volt in the middle of a Canadian winter... The very idea of Kyoto and the "process" that unfolded afterwards that artificial and arbitrary restrictions should be imposed on countries with total disregard of their specifics, economy and geographic situation is nonsense. A highly productive country like Canada that is located in far north where winters are severe will obviously use more fossil fuels, per capita and in absolute terms than Ivory Coast. And why shouldn't it?
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2011
Canada's environmental minister is called a "piece of shit" by an opposition MP after Canada withdraws from Kyoto http://www.ctv.ca...-111214/

Canadian Oil Sands to spend $1.46 billion at Syncrude oil project in 2012

http://www.huffin...352.html
Newbeak
not rated yet Dec 15, 2011
Canada's environmental minister is called a "piece of shit" by an opposition MP after Canada withdraws from Kyoto

Yes,but he apologized immediately after saying it,lol!
Pirouette
1 / 5 (6) Dec 15, 2011
Not so surprising. . . .look at who his mother is: Margaret Sinclair Trudeau. When she split from husband, Pierre Trudeau, Margaret went literally wild and displayed behavior unbecoming as the wife of a Canadian Prime Minister. Her son, Justin Trudeau, yelling his expletive at the present Environment Minister Peter Kent used the reason for his abrupt tirade as in defence of Megan Leslie. Very poor excuse while opposing the Conservatives.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2011
Another thing is: why would he use such language in the presence of a "lady". He knew already she was there and she was possibly quite mortified, especially if he did it in her honor. . .in her defense. That makes him just a boorish punk. . . . .and in the House of Commons yet.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2011
I mean, I'm not an angel either, but a young man in his position should have more polish. . more finesse. I don't think the Lords in the House of Lords in London would have tolerated it, or even in the British House of Common.
Canada is too close to the U.S. where such behavior is a source 9f comedy for late night TV. They have learned well from us.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2011
I mean, I'm not an angel either, but a young man in his position should have more polish. . more finesse. I don't think the Lords in the House of Lords in London would have tolerated it, or even in the British House of Common.
Canada is too close to the U.S. where such behavior is a source of comedy for late night TV. They have learned well from us.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2011
ooops. .how did that happen. . .lol sorry
gregor1
1 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2011
Gregor:

If you honestly believe NOAA and NASA are using your tax dollars to falsify climate data for some global conspiracy, you should file a suit with the federal courts. That would qualify as Treason.

@nannobanano
I don't know if this is true or not and I'm not a US citizen. No doubt we'll find out in due course. I believe if there's even a hint of truth here NOAA has a problem
http://www.c3head...ata.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2011
The US govt has admitted they don't have the data they need, hence the CLARREO project.
The same goes for the UK. Their program is called TRUTHS.