2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderGive me a break. shall i quote your myriad number of negative comments to other posters (myself included) in the dozens of other threads you've posted in?? Don't go claiming the high road this one time buddy.
Your analysis is flawed and your attitude is that of an arrogant loudmouth unless you consider this statement as a valid part of reasoned debate:
uzless: Care to spew anymore crap for me to correct?
I have not claimed that the Canadian approach is a good one; I have only asserted that there, unlike here, actual emis MT
http://www.macleoddixon.com/documents/Canadas_Regulatory_Framework_for_Air_Emissions.pdf
Here's the final link you're getting on intesity emissions. They are a joke. If you choose to not believe it, then fine. Live with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The coverage of the new Canadian GHG emissions regulations (technically, it's not a policy) generally opens with a sentence like this:
The plan, entitled Turning the Corner, calls on Canada to reduce its current amount of greenhouse gas emissions by 150 million tonnes by 2020 and will require most industries in Canada to reduce greenhouse gases by 18 per cent by 2010. (CBC-News)
It is wrong.
The plan - read it here - calls for an 18% reduction in emissions intensity by 2010. That, once again (and again, apologies to regular readers, I harp on this point only because it is important), is not the total emissions but the emissions per unit of GDP, or in this case, production by the company.
The plan is, right down to the numbers, eerily similar to the American policy I lampooned, as a warning to Canadians, in the Toronto Star almost a year ago. I'd like to claim some brilliance in debunking the US and, at the time potential, Canadian plans. The truth is, as I wrote then "A couple minutes with a calculator, or a morning of Economics 101, will reveal a hole in the intensity plan so big you can drive a Hummer through it".
A target of 18% reduction in emissions intensity by 2010? Reads like the "ambitious national goal" set by the Bush Administration in 2002. Canadian companies are being given less time, but that's merely catch-up for the lack of policy until now.
After 2010, the new plan calls for a 2% per year improvement in emissions intensity. If your production, measured in terms of dollars, tracks with the economy (at roughly 3% per year), guess what? The actual emissions could increase by roughly 1% per year.
Yes, the emissions would be lower in comparison to a business-as-usual growth scenario, but they would still be rising over all. That's one reason the environmental organizations and the opposition parties are attacking this policy with a fervour. Or why they should be. If industries are not required to reduce their actual emissions, the odds of reaching any long-term reduction goal, even the inadequate goal announced yesterday (20% below 2006 levels by 2020), are extremely low.
http://simondonner.blogspot.com/2007/04/emissions-intensity-read-fine-print.html
EDIT: There's no shame in admitting you are wrong.
To sum up, Canada's conservative party took the emission intensity idea from the US republicans, and emission intensity is not a "socialist" idea. it is a joke of an idea. Even Bill Clinton would have never agreed to this.