Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Canada pulls out of Kyoto Protocol

Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:15 PM EST
world-news, business, science, climate-change, canada, cn, kyoto-protocol
Rob Gillies, Associated Press
Advertise | AdChoices

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.

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.

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.

Kent said Canada produces "barely 2 percent" of global emissions and said the previous Liberal government signed onto Kyoto in 1997 without any intention of meeting its targets.

He said the Kyoto Protocol originally covered countries generating less than 30 percent of global emissions and now it covers just 13 percent. He said Canada is committed to addressing climate change in a way that's fair. Canada insists any agreement has to cover all nations.

He said he would not be surprised if other countries follow Canada in pulling out of Kyoto.

Kent's announcement drew immediate criticism from environmental groups. Mike Hudema of Greenpeace Canada said in a statement that it is further signal that the Harper government is more concerned about protecting polluters than people.

Hannah McKinnon of the Climate Action Network Canada said formally withdrawing from Kyoto after the Durban, South Africa conference is a slap in the face of the international community.

"It's a total abdication of our responsibilities," McKinnon said.

Opposition New Democrat lawmaker Megan Leslie disputed the dollar figures involved and said there are no penalties under Kyoto. Leslie said pulling out saves the Conservatives from having to report that Canada is falling short of its Kyoto targets.

"It's like we're the kid in school who knows they're gonna fail the class, so we have to drop it before that actually happens," Leslie said.

Scientists say that if levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, eventually the world's climate will reach a tipping point, with irreversible melting of some ice sheets and a several-foot(meter) rise in sea levels.

They cannot pinpoint exactly when that would happen, but the two-decade-long climate negotiations have been focused on preventing global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) above current levels by the end of this century.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Rob Gillies's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Canada , Japan , Toronto
  • Public Discussion (12)
BLOGER-486140

Hard to keep green when there is big money to be mad digging up Alberta and feeding it to Americans.

  • 5 votes
Reply#1 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:49 PM EST
Pat P11111

I guess they figure short term oil sands profit is more important than a livable planet

  • 3 votes
Reply#2 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:58 PM EST
Larch Boggett

Just move north...you'll be fine:)

    #2.1 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:17 AM EST
    Jonathan-1917156

    pat,

    Are you familiar with how texans feel about oil?

    Same thing with Albertans.

      #2.2 - Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:35 AM EST
      Reply
      cjcold

      I guess conservatives will be conservatives no matter the country.

      • 3 votes
      Reply#3 - Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:25 PM EST
      Stumpjumper

      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.

      Wonder how accurate this statement is.

        Reply#4 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:58 AM EST
        WatchTheOtherHand

        Its extremely accurate. The whole cutting emissions thing was always a foolish idea. No one is going to willing convert themselves to living in the stone age to meet those kinds of arbitrary limitations. The ONLY countries on track to come anywhere close to meeting their targets are those that turned heavily to nuclear power.

        • 1 vote
        #4.1 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:24 PM EST
        cjcold

        Total oil company BS! The economy and environmental health will improve with lower emissions.

        • 1 vote
        #4.2 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:22 PM EST
        Jonathan-1917156

        Stumpjumper,

        Actually it is probably not too far off. The problem is that the targets were meant to be cumulative, and Canada has actually increased its CO2 emissions since Kyoto was signed. So to meet the targets, you would have to, in one year, remove those increase emissions, AND remove the emissions that where not removed over the years since the treaty was ratified.

        Watch,

        hmmm Denmark has exceeded their targets, and their overall wealth has increased since Kyoto has been signed. While it isn't easy, it is possible, but it does require some form of national industrial policy, something that neither Canada nor the US are willing to do.

        • 1 vote
        #4.3 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:33 PM EST
        Reply
        Pacific Northwest Blogger

        Pollution as a traded commodity - think about it for a second.
        Carbon trade is a horrible idea which created yet another "commodities" market while doing little to actually stop pollution.

        The incentives are all wrong and puts the burden is on state, not the industry that pollutes.
        Better to have a timeline with increasing penalties to industry the longer it takes them to do effective carbon capture.

        • 3 votes
        Reply#5 - Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:43 PM EST
        Jonathan-1917156

        pollution as a traded commodity actually does that. If you don't think so, then you don't know how it works.

        What happens is that you set a total CO2 output for year 1, and every year after that, the total threshold is reduced, gradually. The effect is to reduce the total output gradually, but also allow for those situations where it is not prudent to reduce its 'pollution' to buy up the right to continue to pollute. Each year, that facility would have to buy more and more 'credits' in order to be able to keep its pollution going, hence it works as a penalty. At some point, the cost to continue to pollute will exceed the cost of retrofitting (that threshold will vary depending on each facility).

        Properly done (as with the Acid Rain example which worked well to reduce acid rain which was destroying forests in both Canada and the US), no money need end up in government hands, and it allows for the gradual transformation of the enterprises that pollute rather than demanding immediate change over, which is often a criticism of hard legislation, that it treats a plant that say is over by 10% of the threshold the same as a plant that is 100% over the threshold, and also doesn't give an advantage to plants that are say 50% under the threshold compared to a plant that is 90% under the threshold.

        An offset system does that as well. It allows a company to build or retrofit a facility to drastically under pollute (the 'threshold) and sell the unused pollution credits to another company.

        You are correct though, if that 'threshold' doesn't gradually drop, then it is largely pointless.

        By the way, this is actually a REPUBLICAN concept (under Bush I) and it worked, as I said, extremely well for acid rain causing pollution (high sulphur content in coal and diesel fuel, though it was the coal that was the bigger problem). Now acid rain is a problem that is a fraction of its size 20 years ago, as well as new technologies in clean diesel engines.

          #5.1 - Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:21 AM EST
          Reply
          ymksdDeleted
          Stephen J. Bauer

          Actually the problem is that Man does not fully understand the problem, despite what you are are being feed via the IPCC consensus. While the current weather mechanism of negative and positive feedback can explain the influence high concentration of CO2 and greenhouse gases play in global weather behavior, it is just that - a contributor of the weather phenomenon. For real climatic change, the driving force needs to explain both the cause for global warming and global cooling. As the undisputed analysis of ice core data from anywhere on Earth demonstrates, global cooling toward the next Ice Age (per the natural glacial-interglacial cycle) appers to occur like clockwork despite the fact that the CO2 concentrations were at their highest values.

          It is interesting that the IPCC consensus recommendation was to prevent the increase of temperature from rising greater than 2.0°C (for the global land and sea temperature) from today's benchmark. Just 4 years ago, based on the AGW model, the expectation is for the global-mean temperature during the period of 2071 to 2100 to increase by 3.0°C to 4.0°C (as compared to that of 1971 to 2000). Since the current data in not in their favor, this year they scaled back their doomsday prediction for the global-mean temperature during the period of 2071 to 2100 to increase by 1.5°C to 2.0°C (as compared to that of 1971 to 2000). In order to keep the fear in place, they also provided a fatal prognosis for the Earth at this new 2.0°C prediction.

          Based on past evidence, no matter what we do, global warming will continue until it peaks and then it will begin it gradual decline toward the next Ice Age. During all the major climate changes in the past, the concentration of CO2 had little influence on the overall global climate condition. Per this previously recorded ice core data, it takes 80,000 to 90,000 years to dip into a global Ice Age climatic condition - but only 10,000 to 20,000 to spike up to a global warming climatic condition. And just like clockwork, each time the Earth's global land-sea temperature was able to maintain a +12.0° Centigrade difference (or more) from the last global Ice Age, the Earth's global climate condition slowly decreased back to the next Ice Age, despite that fact that the CO2 concentrations are at the highest recorded level for that 100,000 years. Curtailing CO2 and greenhouse gas levels is a good idea, but it will not prevent the naturally re-occurring cycle of global warming of which we are now experiencing. And this, obviously, is the first time humans are experiencing this cycle of climatic change. The IPCC denial of these glacial-interglacial cycles as a major factor in climatic change is unconscionable at best.

          Therefore the unanswered question remains, "Per the AGW model, what is the expect trigger that has caused and will cause CO2 concentrations to recede when CO2 concentrations are at their highest (i.e., from any number of recorded of ice cores around the Earth) ?" For whatever the answer, this answer would be the real driving force of climatic change.

            Reply#7 - Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:50 AM EST
            Leave a Comment:
            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
            Newsvine Privacy Statement
            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
            FUN STUFF:
            • Leaderboard |
            • E-Mail Alerts |
            • Top of the Vine |
            • Newsvine Live |
            • Newsvine Archives |
            • The Greenhouse
            COMPANY STUFF:
            • Code of Honor |
            • Company Info |
            • Contact Us |
            • Jobs |
            • User Agreement |
            • Privacy Policy |
            • About our ads
            LEGAL STUFF:
            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com