iaink

Quite, this is not the place for that particular argument, but werent you the one that brought it up.?
And thats exactly the point. Heads are buried in the sand. Compare North America to Europe in terms of taxation on vehicles and fuel to encourage more conservative choices. Compare North America to Europe in terms of availability of (often subsidised) public transport options. Compare North America to Europe even in terms of a commitment to the already agreed emission targets of Koyoto etc.

North American politicians have pandered to the car and oil lobby, simple as that. Is the tax level on fuel in the UK popular? I dont think so. Has it worked to make most cars 1.6 litre or less? Yes it has. Is it necessary to do something unpopular like that here to get people out of their 5.7 litre Hemi powered gas guzzlers? I think it probably is. Will it ever happen.... Well, that's the problem isnt it.


You are dead right, the oil sands projects are a symptom of the bigger disease, which is our addiction to oil. But lets not pretend that the oil sands project isnt some part of why Canadas per capita emmisions are so high too, its an energy hog for sure. I think the government sees this as a resource to be exploited for the economic good, and of course any efforts to reduce dependence on oil and actually look at the carbon footprint of various energy sources is going to be bad for that overall aim, so never mind the long term consequences or actually applying some government stumuli to changing peoples purchasing choices.

Novocastrian

No.

Alan2005

Isn't it something stupid like somewhere between 1.5 and 5 for tar sands.

http://www.theoildrum.com is a good website for this stuff.

Novocastrian

Most (industry) estimates are between 1.5 and 3. If you start taking the energy cost of infrastructure investment and collateral environmental (watershed, health) degradation into account it drops below one (although admittedly it's hard to put a dollar amount on those).

Novocastrian

This article is from last year, but perhaps interesting to those making the demand side argument ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7225451.stm

The author is not a bleeding heart enviropinky.

Lord Vader

Assuming your 6-1 ratio between China and Canada is correct (we will ignore India's population for the time being) that means that 33M x 6=198m 1300m divide 198M=6.56 times more C02 emmisions form china assuming that your 6-1 ratio is correct and that China is not actually increasing it's industrialization.
My point is that no matter what the per capita ratio's are, the total is what counts. The earth doesn't give a shit about per capita and morals and who does it more than who. The lump sum total is all that matters. Per capita is politics. Folks like George are OK with calling out a country like Canada. It might give him and others a moral erection, that is about it. What is George going to do about the billions in Asia going through an industrial revolution as we speak? What about the overall total.
I am not saying that Canada is rosy or that it can't do better, but at the end of the day I don't beleive that anything Canada does is going to have a dramatic affect on the overall process, there are simply not enough of us to alter the equation.

jericho

What car do you drive, if you dont mind me asking. What measures have you implemented to cut down on your CO2 footprint?

The reason I ask is that you lose the argument unless you're already using low emission cars, invest in renewal energy, and making real attempts to reduce your own emissions. I suspect, like most people, the sum total of your efforts (like mine) is that you recycle your trash, but that's about it.

The options are out there already. Solar energy is already pretty big in the med, where you'll see panels on peoples houses. You can buy hybrid engine cars, have them converted, drive less, use more public transport etc etc. But people chose not to use the options open to them. It's always someone elses fault....

iaink

So the logical extrapolation of that is that if you come from a populous nation then , tough, you should emit less CO2...


Actually PER CAPITA is the key, because as you say, its politics. Politicians are the ones who have to come up with a workable plan that everyone will agree with, and the sticking point in all this is how to do this while keeping a relatively level economic playing field.

Canada is the major problem in this not because of it per capita emmisions, bad though they are . Canada is the bad guy because its Canadas political stance that is in danger of scuppering any deal, and that I find a sad reflection on this nation.

If one rich nation says "screw you, will will keep emitting far more per person then you" then any global agreement is extremely unlikely, and thats not a million miles from Canadas current position.

Novocastrian

I drive less than 14000 km a year in a mid-sized saloon. The OH drives about the same (a bit less) in a Toyota Yaris.

In the last couple of weeks alone I've upgraded our heating to a 95% efficient furnace and signed up for a smart meter.

Although, actually, I do mind you asking because the question is simply your way of avoiding the fact that Canada's position on climate change is untenable and embarrassing.

iaink

No he doesnt, One point in the article is that opinion polls show that most people are only happy(ish) to make changes to their own lifestlye as long as everyone else has to make changes too.

For that to happen politicians have to make certain activities mandatory for everyone, whether they think it will be popular or not.

I would like to think most people are doing more than just recyling, I hope they are considering fuel efficiency when choosing new vehicles. I hope they are ensuring they use newer more efficient technologies where possible, buying energy star rated appliances, upgrading insulation levels etc. Thats what I do anyway... but until the government steps up and takes action to address larger industrial size consumption/ emission issues that will not be addressed by the market until there is an economic reason to address them, then I am afraid its all just pissing in the wind.

Oink

I've taken to riding a unicycle as it only uses half as much energy as a bike.

Oakvillian

Absolutely not. It's ALL about per capita consumption. How can industrialised, first-world nations expect emerging economies to stop development at a level reached in the industrial world something like 150 years ago? What right does a Canadian, sitting in his electrically-lit, natural-gas heated home with two cars in the garage, have to suggest to a Chinese or Indian citizen that he cannot aspire to the same standard of living.

Unless Western Europe, the US and Canada drastically cut the per-capita emissions, there is absolutely zero chance of any pressure we put on developing economies being taken seriously. To this extent, I agree wholeheartedly with Monbiot, Novocastrian and others. It is absolute hypocrisy to be developing oil sands with marginal EROEI (great calculation - an interesting few minutes on Google...) and consuming for all we're worth while expecting others to fall into line with reducing emissions.

Sure, the absolute impact that Canada can make by changing its consumption habit will be smaller than that of China, but unless we do, there is no position from which we can argue to persuade China to change.

I'm certainly no less - but hopefully not much more - hypocritical than most. I sometimes drive a large car (but usually a small non-hybrid as my commute is along suburban highways), I don't exclusively use low-energy lightbulbs, I don't cut the grass with a push mower, but I recycle and reuse what I can.

dbd33

<peeks in>

<considers lifestyle>

<shuffles out quietly>

Jingsamichty

I totally agree with that article. Legislate on the demand-side, not the supply-side.

Ironically, it was Bill Clinton who stopped the US auto industry from having to improve fuel efficiency by 5% a year.

Novocastrian

What's wrong with both?

Why ironically?