International Climate Negotiations Pt. 1 (merged)

[Maddog78]

You know what, I don't really give a damn what they do in the tar sands.
I'm in the natural gas business.
Might even be better for me if they do shut it down.

When they build the pipeline to Kitimat and all that oil is going to China instead, I hope the US doesn't get all pissed when they have to line up due to gas shortages. That could be bad for everybody and maybe very bad for Canada.
Maybe they'll just take what they need?

[dorlomin]

Yeah, I guess you're right, it's better for the US to get their crude from the Middle East, Venezuela and other such friendly, neighbourly and secure suppliers who share the same values. There should be no problem with that.

Oil is a fungable product. Oil producing companies are beholden to their shareholders not the faux patriotism to another country.

Where the oil comes from is of little concern. Neither Saudi no Venezuela can turn off US oil as they both need the oil revenue and the US can buy off the global market. They can only turn their supplies off from the global market as a whole and when that drives the price up Canada will be selling its oil to who ever has the money and as we have seen that may not be US car drivers.

The 'friendly country' argument is for the consumption of the low information voter. It makes no sense in an free market capitalist sense.

[Maddog78]

That's great.
free market capitalist sense, you say. Wonderful, I get what you're saying.
...and this tar sands oil will just magically appear where it's needed without a pipeline from the the northern hinterland of Alberta? I see. The pipeline that has been delayed, you may recall. A pipeline that would have pretty much locked in a guaranteed supply for America.
...and there will be no problem with tankers running the Strait of Hormuz in possible times of strife with Iran?
Yeah, this friendly country thing regarding an immediate neighbour to the north doesn't really mean much I guess.
I can't see it being a mistake for America at all that they will probably not approve the Keystone pipeline. It sure seems to have spurred on many in Canada to get going with the Gateway pipeline to the west. Nearly everyone with any power is pushing for it. There are a few natives fighting it and the environmentalists are lining up with them but I don't think they will be so successful. Harper never got their votes in the past and doesn't care to go for them now.
They'll be pushed aside. Harper is no Obama that's for sure, lol.
However it seems a few Republicans are still really pushing for Keystone so maybe it's not a done deal down south either. Seems maybe they don't trust that the tankers will continue to show up at the ports on time forever either.

[dorlomin]

The pipeline that has been delayed, you may recall. A pipeline that would have pretty much locked in a guaranteed supply for America.

You are wrong.

But that is to be expected.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reversed-seaway-crude-line-to-be-running-april-1-2011-12-07?reflink=MW_news_stmp
The pipeline is already built and soon to be operational.

The Keystone pipeline pipline brings the syncrude to Cushing and the Seaway pipeline will bring oil from Cushing to the coast.

And XL was not to 'lock in' supply to the US but to get it to the coast where it could be traded globally.

[dohboi]

Well put, dor.

The whole purpose is to allow a few already filthy rich people to get even filthy-richer, not to secure oil for our national security.

[Maddog78]

You post "you are wrong" and then link to a story about reversing the direction of a Texas to Oklahoma pipeline named Seaway?
I know all about the reversing of Seaway. The president of Enbridge gave a long interview on BNN the day the decision was made. I watched it all.
You're just messing around, you know what I'm talking about it when I'm talking about pipelines from the tar sands.
Anyway like I said I really don't care where all that ends up.


I'd rather talk about scas' energy alternatives for Canada.


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/poli ... witterfeed

Say you wouldn't be from Ontario would you, scas?

Your Auditor sure ripped a strip out of your gov't for pissing away all those billions on "green" energy!
That McGuinty sounds just about as loony as Vancouver Mayor "Moonbeam" Robertson.
Hope you guys can afford it. Problem is you can't.
Better hope Alberta keeps sending you those cheques or you're screwed. LOL.


Say McGuinty, seems the generous sort? Maybe he could pay those 7 billion carbon credits for Canada and the rest of the world will love Canada again, even though paying that to some anonymous foreign body doesn't really do a damn thing towards, you know, actually reducing anything, lol.

[dohboi]

GoddamnMaddog (sorry, but your handle cries out for palindrome!)

You sneer at "environmentalists"

So what are you? Against the environment?

[dorlomin]

I know all about the reversing of Seaway.

...and this tar sands oil will just magically appear where it's needed without a pipeline from the the northern hinterland of Alberta?

Deary me.

A pipeline that would have pretty much locked in a guaranteed supply for America.

Locked in eh. A pipeline that was designed to get the syncrude to the sea would have 'locked in' syncrude for the American market.

Anyway like I said I really don't care where all that ends up.

I thought this was all about energy security for America. Now apparently you dont care about that.

[Maddog78]

Heehee, I see them nasty old Republicans just aren't ready to let that pipeline die.
They don't want China to get "their" oil.
"The American people can't wait" said Boehner.




Linking the pipeline to a tax bill, now that's just good ol' in the dirt politics.

Saw a bit of Obama on 60 minutes last night.
He didn't sound scared but looked it. He looked like a deer in the headlights when Steve Kroft talked about his recent poll numbers.






"Incredibly (Obama) has delayed a decision until after the 2012 election, apparently in fear of offending a part of his political base and even risking the ire of construction unions, who support the pipeline very strongly."

[Sixstrings]

Well, Canada's done it -- they're out of Kyoto..

Canada made good Monday on speculation that surfaced two weeks ago regarding the country's intentions to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.

Speaking at a news conference in Ottawa, Canada's minister for the environment, Peter Kent, said the decision would save the nation some $14 billion in penalties that would accrue for failure to meet emissions targets agreed to by a previous government in the 1997 pact -- the first international accord aimed at reducing global emissions of planet-warming gases.

"As we have said, Kyoto -- for Canada -- is in the past," Kent said

...

But the move to quit the Kyoto Protocol, while not unexpected, was met with jeers from environmental groups, who say that Canada has abandoned a long-standing reputation for environmental stewardship in favor of industry and, among other things, development of a controversial and emissions-intensive oil patch in Alberta known as the tar sands.

"It's a very odd feeling to look north and see a country even more irresponsible about climate change than the U.S.," said the author and climate activist Bill McKibben, who has spearheaded protests against the development of the Alberta oil resource. "For a long time, Canada has been seen as one of those countries that solved more problems than they created. But this makes it official: the lure of wealth in the tar sands has really corrupted the government."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/12/kyoto-protocol-canada-withdrawing_n_1144410.html

Shame on Canada, what hypocrites.

It's the hypocrisy I dislike the most.

The United States doesn't do this, for better or worse, at least we live up to the treaties we sign. I remember Kyoto, I remember Canadians criticizing the US. And now when the rubber meets the road, after 14 years of puffing themselves up as the good guys, they just quit when it gets real -- "Kyoto is in our past," says Canada. How convenient, because up to now Kyoto didn't require anything of them, they got all that free good PR and feelgood greenness without ever actually doing anything.

[Maddog78]

Good job, Harper.

If people seriously thought Canada would cut a cheque for $14 billion to some "carbon trading" agency (whatever the hell that is) they were seriously delusional. Idiot Liberals should have never got into it in the first place. They knew then there was no hope in hell Canada would be able to meet those targets.

Newsflash to the Environmental Activist assholes: Canada is a very cold place for 6 months of the year. It is very big. It is low density. The cities are spread very far apart. We take in a lot of immigrants. Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world. Our population is growing. We are going to use energy. Lots of it.
Or we die, simple as that.

[Maddog78]

I just love watching US politics. It's so hardcore.
Who cares if the country's heading in the toilet, as long as we "win" the political battle.
Obama strikes back. Throws out a threat. Leave it alone Repubs or you may nevah evah get you pipeline for a lung lung time!

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration says a Republican bill to fast-track approval of a Canadian oil pipeline could lead to the project's demise.

In a statement today, the State Department warned that congressional interference with TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline could backfire.

The State Department has authority over the project because it crosses an international border.

The statement said that if Congress imposes an arbitrary deadline for a permit decision, it could prevent the administration from meeting environmental laws that govern the approval process.

In that case, officials say the department would be unable to make a determination to issue a permit.

Republican lawmakers back a bill to require approval of the pipeline within 60 days. They say the Canada-to-Texas pipeline will help create jobs without taxpayer money.

..

[Cog]

Wow its like we have never built a pipeline before. 60 days is plenty to do the permitting on this.

Kick the EPA regs to the curb and lets get on with this.

[Maddog78]

TORONTO — Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change Monday, saying the accord won’t help solve the climate crisis. It dealt a blow to the anti-global warming treaty, which has not been formally renounced by any other country.

Environment Minister Peter Kent said that Canada is invoking its legal right to withdraw and said Kyoto doesn’t represent the way forward for Canada or the world.

Canada, joined by Japan and Russia, said last year it will not accept new Kyoto commitments, but withdrawing from the accord is another setback to the treaty concluded with much fanfare in 1997.

The protocol, initially adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, is aimed at fighting global warming. Canada’s previous Liberal government signed the accord but did little to implement it and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government never embraced it.

“The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world’s largest two emitters, United States and China, and therefore cannot work,” Kent said. “It’s now clear that Kyoto is not the path forward to a global solution to climate change. If anything it’s an impediment.”

Kent’s announcement comes a day after marathon climate talks wrapped up in the South African port city of Durban.

Negotiators from nearly 200 countries agreed on a deal that sets the world on a path to sign a new climate treaty by 2015 to replace the first Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of next year.So it's expiring soon anyway and Canada was still expected to hand over $14 billion? Seriously, what responsible gov't would even contemplate such a move? Do you think they would ever win another election?

Kent said the Durban agreement does represent a path forward. Durban’s accord envisions a new treaty with binding targets for all countries to take effect in 2020.

“It allows us to continue to create jobs and growth in Canada,” Kent said.

Monday’s announcement was not a surprise. Canada faced international criticism at the recent climate talks in South Africa amid reports it would pull out of Kyoto. Kent had said previously that signing the Kyoto Protocol on climate change was one of the previous government’s biggest blunders.

The accord requires countries to give a year’s notice to withdraw. Kent said the move saves Canada $14 billion in penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets.

“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 agriculture sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada,” Kent said.

Gee, that doesn't sound that bad. Maybe we should have done this? The Liberals signed this actually thinking they could meet the targets? Ha, yeah right.

Harper’s Conservative government is reluctant to hurt Canada’s booming oil sands sector, which is the country’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gases and a reason it has reneged on its Kyoto commitments.

Canada has the world’s third-largest oil reserves, more than 170 billion barrels. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to increase to 3.7 million in 2025. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more reserves. But critics say the enormous amount of energy and water needed in the extraction process increases greenhouse gas emissions.

[Cog]

Canada made the smart play and now its time for the USA to make the smart play and get that Keystone pipline built and running. We don't have much time left.

[Sixstrings]

If people seriously thought Canada would cut a cheque for $14 billion to some "carbon trading" agency (whatever the hell that is) they were seriously delusional. Idiot Liberals should have never got into it in the first place.

So Canada's word is worthless? Canada can't be trusted?

Aren't other countries like the UK abiding by the treaty.. if the UK can do it, why not Canada. This is a problem for global solutions to global problems, if Canada can't be trusted to be a serious nation that honors its treaties.

You guys need some more stable government or something, Canada shouldn't be signing treaties it can't live up to or be counted on for.

Newsflash to the Environmental Activist assholes: Canada is a very cold place for 6 months of the year. It is very big. It is low density. The cities are spread very far apart. We take in a lot of immigrants. Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world. Our population is growing. We are going to use energy. Lots of it.
Or we die, simple as that.

So what's all that mean, that Canada is big and cold and growing so you're just going to keep polluting and the Earth be damned? I don't see the justification. Lots of countries are growing, that's the whole problem right there. Worst of all is that tar sands is dirty oil, three times more pollution than any other kind.

[Sixstrings]

So it's expiring soon anyway and Canada was still expected to hand over $14 billion? [/color] Seriously, what responsible gov't would even contemplate such a move? Do you think they would ever win another election?

That sounds like the financial mess, "extend and pretend." What you're saying is that the treaty was going to expire and be renegotiated anyhow in a few years, so why bother honoring the treaty now.

The whole thing is ridiculous. When they renegotiate a new treaty they'll just push the emissions targets out in the future again.. and 15 years from now, surprise surprise, Canada will just back out of it again! And then everyone will do a new treaty and push the targets out another twenty years.

Bottom line.. if climate change is real, then playing games and falsely signing treaties just to feel good without ever intending to do anything isn't going to help.

(also.. what it comes down to is that if not even Canada gives a damn, then there's no hope for the real bad apples around the planet.. what kind of example are you setting here.. not a good one, that's for sure)

[Cog]

We aren't trying to set examples, we are trying to make some money.

Now get out of the way and let the oil and money flow.

[Maddog78]

You guys need some more stable government or something, Canada shouldn't be signing treaties it can't live up to or be counted on for.

Yeah, like maybe a Dictatorship? It seems to be working well for the USA's other big trading partners.

[Maddog78]

Oh, it's on now. What kind of fallout will there be when Obama veto's? ...or maybe he won't?
Maybe that ol' pipeline will sail right on through now?

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-co ... 08634.html

WASHINGTON - Sensing a political opening, House Republicans on Tuesday approved a plan that links speedy approval of an oil pipeline from Canada to a measure renewing a payroll tax cut.

The vote sets up a showdown with President Barack Obama, who has threatened to veto the bill. The White House says the bill "plays politics" with what should be its main goal: cutting taxes for the middle class.

Republicans said the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas would help the president achieve his top priority — creating jobs — without costing a dime of taxpayer money. Obama's opposition shows he does not mean what he says when he calls jobs his top priority, GOP lawmakers said.

"The American people want jobs," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "This is as close to a shovel-ready project as you're ever going to see. This is exactly the description of the kind of jobs plans that the president says he wants to enact."

The House approved the bill, 234-193, Tuesday night. Ten Democrats joined 224 Republicans in backing the bill.

The measure would require approval of the $7 billion project within two months unless Obama declares it is not in the national interest.

The Obama administration said last month it was postponing a decision on the pipeline until after next year's election. Officials said the delay is needed to study routes that avoid environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska.

The 1,700-mile pipeline would carry oil from western Canada to refineries in Texas, passing through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.

The project's developer, Calgary-based TransCanada, says the pipeline could create as many as 20,000 jobs, including 13,000 during construction and 7,000 manufacturing jobs.

Opponents call those figures wildly inflated and say the project could create as few as 2,500 construction job and fewer than 1,000 permanent jobs. The State Department, in an analysis released this summer, said the pipeline would create up to 6,000 jobs during construction, including Keystone employees, contractors and construction and environmental inspection staff.

The State Department has authority over the project because it crosses an international border.

The administration warned on Monday that congressional interference in the approval process would likely lead to a rejection of the pipeline.

Republicans said such threats ignored reality.

"Canada is going to develop this no matter what, and that oil is either going to come — a million barrels a day — to the United States, or it's going to go to a place like China. We want it here," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Democrats said the pipeline provision did not belong in the bill. Among other provisions, the bill would extend benefits for the long-term unemployed.

"To hold the American people that are suffering hostage is just plain wrong," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., acknowledged that some in her party support the pipeline but said the pipeline provision should be separated from the payroll tax cut and unemployment extension.

"They are using the pipeline as a smokescreen and an excuse," Pelosi said of House Republicans.

Obama's veto threat seemed to increase conservative support for the overall measure, with Republicans hoping to use Obama's opposition to portray him as favouring environmentalists over jobs.

Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., called the Keystone XL project crucial to getting thousands of people back to work.

"This is an important jobs and energy security bill which just makes plain sense," said Terry. "The American people want us to stop buying Venezuelan oil. The Keystone pipeline is a key component to making that happen."

Environmental groups, who celebrated the administration's announcement of a delay in the Keystone project last month, accused Republicans of forcing a premature judgment on the pipeline in order to curry favour with the oil industry.

"Leaders of both parties say Americans need this tax cut," said Scott Slesinger, legislative director of the Natural Resources Defence Council. "What we don't need is more pollution, more health problems and more environmental problems. And that's exactly what House Republican leaders just gave us," WaaaWaaaWaaaa he added, referring to the pipeline provision and amendments related to the environment.

Slesinger and other critics called the House vote a waste of time, given Obama's veto threat and a statement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that the Keystone provision will not pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.