Thank God, Harper will save us from this disasterous idea that'll destroy what's left of Canadian industry, cripple what's left of our competitiveness and put thousands of Canadians out of work.

The operative and dangerous part of this programme is quoted from the piece: "The total number of permits is determined according to the environmental policy goal established by regulators".

Effectively you have govt regulators arbitrarily determining industrial policy and output pureless based on whim and questionable environmental theories and policies. The left loves this as they see industry as an evil cow to be milked.

Im always amazed by the flat earth bunch..The first to decry any and all environmental policy, the first to kill all legislation around it.
Economists and career politicians make environmental policy....
Sorta like putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse.

I am an environmentalist I do not support trading emissions!

What happens if industry and consumers of that industry decide to "pay" for the continued pollution?

I think that it is a dodge to avoid addressing a particular industry's pollution.

I also think that it fails to address that they are limits to growth; especially physical growth. Unless consumption is curbed the planet is screwed! (2/3 of ecosystems on the planet have beed degraded I believe the recent global Millenium Assessment reported)

Besides, as the "Flat Earth" society members post here, it would affect squeezing every last barrel of oil as the inevitable rise in oil price hastens the squeezing!

Kyoto is not an environmental document, but a political one. The world, not only canada, is better off without it.

Ah! Another key word that brings simple simon out of the shadows - Kyoto.

If environmental agencies are, in fact, able to set a cap on the maximum permitted CO2 emmissions, then an emmission trading system makes a great deal of sense. If we are to limit our CO2 emmissions, using a market system to allocate emmissions makes sense.

Trading emmissions credits means that the least expensive innovations to reduce CO2 will occur first -- which is great for the environment and good economic policy.

Those who innovate and are able to reduce their emmissions can sell their emmissions credits to other industries which find it more difficult to reduce emmissions.

There are players trying to snag carbon sequestration rights in advance of a CO2 emmissions credit market's emergence in Canada. For example, Ecosystems Restorations Associates is active in Maple Ridge and Mission. They are currently trying to craft a deal wherein:
1) ERA plants trees on public lands in Mission, thus, in their words "restoring ecosystems"
2) In exchange, ERA wants the rights to market the carbon sequestration potential of the vegetation on public lands for the next 80 years.

I'm not sure what I think of this, as the value of carbon sequestration has not been set yet. I suspect though, that if a carbon emmissions system emerges, this will not be a good deal for Mission & Maple Ridge, because the CO2 credits could be worth more once the market is established. In any case, it is a gamble.

This also begs the question of whether Canadians should be able to count our vast forested areas as CO2 sequestration areas which offset much of our emmissions. Moreover, if the sequestration potential of public land may be sold, what about the sequestration potential of private lots?

BobbyPeru objects:

Hey numbskull, that's a government's job. What would you suggest? That industry police itself?!

It's our -- the citizens -- prerogative to set whatever limits we want or need. That message needs to be sent.

Steve P:

I, too, am not exactly sure what I think of this trading. Nonetheless, Steve P sums up one advantage rather succinctly.

On this topic, I'm reminded of the commodity trader in the documentary "the Corporation" who states, quite bluntly, that traders/capitalists don't give a sh*t about pollution or labor practices in, for example, Chilean mines. Further, they won't give a fig until it's in their interests to do so and, as he states, it won't be in their interests until there's a dollar amount attached to giving a sh*t.

A market system which trades emissions credits may well reward those who innovate and reduce emissions and punish those who can't or won't.

I wouldn't dismiss this idea too quickly.

This is why the "dismal science" still has relevance. There will always be moral people who wish to do the right thing. And then there are those who don't care. Making sound environmental and social choices within the "uncaring" group's self-interest takes care of this problem, without all the moralizing and propaganda.

A significant portion of humanity is selfish -- this has always been the case. Since I believe this to be human nature, I don't think we'll see this change ... so let's plan accordingly!

I'm happy to listen to views to the contrary, but I think you are absolutely correct, Steve P.

Let us think about a super rich country, that buys emission credits to no end, and yet continues polluting. This becomes a wealth transfer system (socialism). Maybe that's what the designers of this system expected, fair enough. But it obviously does nothing to reduce emissions. Let's do a made in Canada solution that we can really sell to the world, that actually works.

IAMC objects:

I love the Tyee; if you read long enough, somebody like IAMC come out of the woodwork and equates the market mechanism with socialism. What's the deal IAMC, if you don't like it, it must be socialist?! You crack me up!

Wealth transfer?

Guess what, that's exactly what the market does: it facilitates the transfer of one person's wealth for that of another. And in your mind that's socialism, eh? ROTFL!

Let's get this straight: The emperor has no made-in-Canada solution.

Harper is saying that his government is not willing to a darn thing about climate change now, but his government may eventually implement a plan which, however, he can't tell us what it is right now. (IAMC seems to know, but he ain't telling).

What rubbish. Can you spell "tar sands"?

The carbon capture idea looks to have some potential.

Getting oil out of the oil sands requires more energy then producing conventional oil. Mostly this is through burning of natural gas and hence emitting more greenhouse gases.

As per the following long article there's the possibility of doing carbon capture to reduce the emissions produced by pumping the waste carbon dioxide gas via a pipeline to depleted oil fields to help extract more oil.

http://www.albertaventure.com/abventure_4623.html

I can imagine resistance to this idea from communities along the way as any leak could be dangerous. But at least Carbon Dioxide is not flammable compared to your standard oil/gas pipeline.

Rotlin, the article you cite also says this:

He cites new uncertainty resulting from the election of a federal minority government, led by the Conservatives who have said they want to replace Kyoto commitments with a made-in-Canada policy. "It's going to take time for the new federal Conservative administration to learn more about this (carbon capture) opportunity and to develop the policies they want around climate change," Kaufman says. "It may take some time."[\QUOTE]

Grub: 1 Neo-Cons: 0 (ROTFL!)

Trading emission credits can work, from what I have read it was effective in the US to reduce Sulfur Dioxide emissions quite painlessly and that was the initial framework for Kyoto. It will reduce emissions as reducing the total amount of credits available will drive up the cost and make higher emitting companies and even industries less competitive. It does require proper management but what system doesn't.

That being said, Harper represents all of the interests most opposed to Kyoto, and has no vested interest in pursuing legitimate policy in this area. I expect 'cheap environmental placation' as the made in Canada solution.

I am still waiting to see intelligent dialogue from the right on this subject. Surely the Tyee readers from the right can find someone more informed than I AM Clueless to speak on their behalf.

I also regularly see posts deriding the "Flat Earth" supporters. What is it that the left finds so objectionable about this book or concept in general?

I think emissions trading for individuals has begun in the UK.

There is a tax on new cars based on the grams of CO2 per kilometer that the cars creates. Higher CO2 per kilomter requires a higher tax percent.

Once the consumer is charged directly for poluting, only then can behaviour change in a sufficient magnitude to produce results.

But at the same time, if I ride a bicycle, shouldn't I get cash from all you car drivers for poluting my fuel ? (oxygen).

If you're polite, you will hand over a toonie to the next cyclist you see.

Emissions trading is probably a good idea. The only thing that concerns me is that it could evolve into a kind of futures market that smacks a bit of the sort of energy futures trading which was at the core of Enron's business model.

Whatever happens, the market will have to be well-regulated and supervised - I understand Ken Lay and folks like him are looking for another job.

Be wary.

jwstewart:

But at the same time, if I ride a bicycle, shouldn't I get cash from all you car drivers for poluting my fuel ? (oxygen).

Too right!

I'm still working on a way to get you bike riders your $2 , but as an interim step, we might think of reducing transit fares (getting money into the pockets of those who don't drive).

As an aside, if we ever wanted evidence of the efficacy of cheap/free transit, we need only look at the "free" transit passes given to all UBC and SFU students: ridership went up significantly. Clearly, as economic beings, thousands of UBC students parked their cars when it was in their best interests to do so (free transit).

G West:

True enough. However, I remain convinced that people/corporations respond well enough to monetary incentives to work on creative solutions (not only creative accounting ) to environmental solutions.

It would be nice if we could appeal to morality, but corporations are, at best, amoral. Appealing to greed -- there's money and a competitive advantage in it if you reduce emissions -- speaks to the conceptual framework these people are used to working with.

grub
I'm with you. Wasn't there an old saying during the cold war, something along these lines: 'Trust, but verify'?

Good article in Today's NP knocking the scheme:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=4d0d323d-5809-456e-bbc9-c5bb092e391b

neocon, this from the FP article:

NEWSFLASH! There's more than a few "bads" being traded in any market right now. The author of the article debases his argument with such flimsy rhetoric.

neocon, further from that FP article:

How are pollution standards set now? Bureaucratic edict? How else would you propose to do so?

I could propose a simple basis: we start on the basis that you are permitted zero pollution without penalty. The penalty imposed, at a minimum, then becomes whatever the cost of cleaning the pollution up is.

So now we're getting close to a credit system. If you are allowed zero CO2 emissions, then you can achieve this by doing something (anything!) that will redress the imbalance you've caused. Perhaps by planting enough trees to soak up your CO2 emissions. Plant more than the required number of trees, and you get a credit that you can sell to others.

What's so hard about bureaucrats setting standards if the standard is simple: ZERO. Anything above zero becomes a cost of production.

neocon, finally, your FP article author shows himself to be a total twit!

He's talking about the drop in the price of Euro emission credits.

How is that good news? How is it good news that consumers don't have to pay for their polluting habits?! How is it good news that Hummers are now more affordable? Am I missing something?

grub:

yeah, you are missing something. Specifically, you're missing the point of the article.

The author, Peter Foster, simply argues that the system is ripe for abuse, as evidenced in Europe.

neocon:

Yadayadayada... the bureaucrats have screwed things up yada.... OK, I get the point. I get the point that occasionally public policy gets tied up by its own bureaucratic red tape. And I don't like it any more than neocons do.

However, excessive red tape does not necessarily mean that the policy is flawed; it may just suffer from poor implementation.

So, neocon, what's your solution to CO2 emissions?

I can not support anything that involves the trading of “green credits” it is a huge scam in the making, regardless of best intentions, monies will be diverted into peoples pockets and not into planting trees or making life better. Many of the third world countries will sell off their green credits to larger developed nations, I am sure Myanmar will appreciate a new revenue source for it’s military. How will they audit countries emissions effectively when in many places such information is considered state secrets. Monies that could be uses to resolve problems will disappear into swiss bank accounts

Colin
Along the lines of Enron and Global Crossing eh, just to name two?
If you don't mind my asking, what is your approach to this little problem?

Canadian Press

TORONTO -- Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore says Canada's new Conservative government was elected on issues that have nothing to do with global warming and now it is pretending to have a mandate to abandon the country's historical commitment to the environment.

"Each of us, as citizens, either in the U.S. or Canada, have a responsibility to hold our leaders accountable, keep their feet to the fire, yes, or to the solar cooker or whatever," he said Friday during a visit to Toronto to promote his new film, An Inconvenient Truth.

The documentary, in which Gore serves as narrator, warns that mankind has about 10 years to act on the impact of greenhouse gases or else the planet faces an environmental catastrophe. It opens in theatres June 2.

Although he has insisted it is not a political film, that the issue is above politics, the man who narrowly lost the U.S. presidential election to George W. Bush in 2000 seemed to slide into a political stance while discussing it.

"The skeptics and deniers, many of them supported by the carbon lobby, are always quick to throw out statistics, many of them later proven to be just flatly wrong, and claim that there's no way that we can stop the climate crisis without bankrupting the economy," he said in an interview at a midtown hotel.

"It's a moral issue, it's an ethical issue, it's a spiritual issue," he said. "We have to change."

The federal budget this week dismantled the preceding Liberal administration's $4-billion commitment to the Kyoto treaty, proffering instead what it called a $2-billion "made-in-Canada" plan that included, among other things, a tax credit for public transit pass-holders.

When read the "made-in-Canada" quotes from Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, Gore rolled his eyes and made a flag-waving gesture with his hand.

"And they were elected because of issues that had nothing to do with global warming and the climate crisis, and now they're pretending to have a mandate to abandon Canada's historic commitment to playing a leadership role in cleaning up the world's environment."

Rona,duh what's an enviornment,Ambrose has no business representing Canada in Germany this week at the Climate Change conference .
This Government(?) has abandoned all pretexr of ecen caring about the enviornment .
It is no accident that Ambrose comes from a Province with one of the worst records for creating pollution, Alberta .
Ralph Klein gave over two hundred and fifty billion dollars in royalties to the oil companies by lowering the amount the Gov would collect .

This is why we need a public scrutiny panel
Ralph Klein gave over two hundred and fifty billion dollars in royalties to the oil companies by lowering the amount the Gov would collect. He sold his soul for what $$$$+?
Now BC's Gordo. Oh by the way where is he? chicken -h-t because he Gave away publicly owned Resoures which I would call an act of treason!

Here is a site about TIM HARPER WASHINGTON BUREAU
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1147211412538&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/NewsB

Couldn't agrre more BC Dude .
What I would like to see is the UN enact legislation covering the Kyoto protocol and enforce the letter of the law .
Any country refusing to do so would lose their permanent seat at the UN .
I know that the UN is almost irrelevant but it would sure we a wake up call for Harpo and his gang of freebooter buccaneers .
Ambrose is the worst choice ever for enviornment minister as she is totally clueless with concerns to the reality of the situation.
Her office is too busy scaring authors and chasing them down .
Kyoto is international law.As far as I know .
There must be consequences to countries that ignore it .
A six meter rise in the oceans tides will wipe out the lower mainland .

Sadly, bicycle ridership also plummeted with the introduction of the subsidized bus passes ...

Taken from the NDP Webiste this morning.
NDP MPs say Conservative budget abandons the environment
Related Links
Nathan Cullen in Question Period, 2006-05-12 »
NDP says budget won’t stop declining average Canadian incomes »
NDP MP Yvon Godin to table legislation to modify Employment Insurance »
An Open Invitation to Progressives in Quebec »
NDP: “Conservatives fail to listen to farmers in the budget and beyond” »
Federal budget ignores Canadians’ top priority »
Wed 3 May 2006 | Printer friendly

OTTAWA – Members of the federal NDP’s Environment Caucus say yesterday’s Conservative budget that gives billions in tax cuts to oil and gas companies with no plan to combat pollution or climate change will prove devastating for the environment.

“On the environment, this budget is more than a missed opportunity, it is a fundamentally irresponsible squandering of a huge surplus,” said NDP Environment Critic Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley).

“They had the option to help Canadians lower home heating costs, and instead they put that money directly into the piles of profits that oil and gas companies are reaping,” Cullen continued. “They had the chance to invest in clean energy for the future, and instead they funneled the surplus into more subsidies for dirty energy. This is the Conservative environmental vision: a bold formula for the abandonment of our environment.”

“Canadians overwhelmingly want leadership from the federal government on the environment,” noted NDP Energy Critic Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic). “Instead we have a government that has become so focused on their few priorities that they can’t see past their own nose, and a budget that buys votes today while selling out our future.”

The MPs noted that federal funds to combat climate change were earmarked for a program that is still “being developed,” reaffirming that the environment is not among the Conservatives’ priorities.

“The Conservative climate change plan isn’t Made in Canada. It’s Made in the Oil Patch,” added Bevington.

“The Conservative caucus kept calling for ‘more’ yesterday,” said Denise Savoie (Victoria), co-Chair of the NDP Environment Caucus, “and Canadians are left to suffer – more pollution, more smog, more dirty water, more effects of climate change.”

“This budget isn’t just about long-term environmental damage – the devastating impacts will be felt in the immediate future on Canadians’ health. Corporate tax cuts don’t help our kids and seniors suffering from asthma. They don’t make our water cleaner. They don’t move us forward to a sustainable, green economy.”

Cullen concluded, “The only difference between this budget and a Liberal budget is that the Conservatives aren’t hiding the fact they just don’t care about the environment.”

This budget is incredibly sad for all Canadians.
I hope there is a special circle in hell for all those that imperil our health by ignoring the enviornemnt .

G west
Enron is an excellent example of why this won’t work. Considering what they were able to do in areas with fairly tight regulatory controls, just imagine how much money will be lost to corruption that could be spent dealing directly with the issue.

Better that countries set their own limits based on a average graph, if they don’t reach those goals they pay into a Global ecological fund to restore areas selected by a vote (Caspian sea springs to mind) goals can be adjusted every 5 year.

All companies impacting the enviornment should be forced to pay 1% of adjusted gross into an enviornmental fund until targets are met .
This would not be voluntary but mandatory .
Also oil companies should be forced to pay for all the fresh water they pump down wells etc .
I am sick ,tired and fed up with these greed mongers .
Of course that means we have to get a PM who actually has a set of balls and is willing to use 'em .

Is anyone else seeing this thread with all the lettering shoved into the left margin overtop of the graphics? The rest of the threads seem fine.

It's fixed now .

Based on an average graph? I don't know what you mean. Do you mean based on average global emissions? Average annual emissions? Average emissions per capita? Average emissions per jurisdiction?

With emissions credits that may be bid up and purchased on an open market, we wouldn't have to split hairs this way. The emissions which earn the most cash would be able to buy credits, and eliminating or reducing low-revenue activities would have a far lesser economic impact. The price of each emission credit could be used in a cost-benefit analysis to help companies decide whether to change to cleaner technologies, buy more credits, or both.

The question is whether economies reliant upon burning coal (China, for e.g.) would endorse the emissions credit scheme. It is one thing for the "rich" and "poor" to endorse this, since they both win -- it is another thing for developing industrial powers.

Why would the "rich" win? The emissions trading scheme establishes a price for alternate technologies, which could be developed by rich economies' R&D. This technology could be sold to the world for a tidy profit. Greens win, business wins.

Colin
If Steve here hadn't asked, I was going to query your suggestion too. For my own part, I don't see why a credits scheme of some kind isn't a valid way to get a lot of companies (and countries) to buy in to reducing carbon emissions. I understand both BP and Shell have already improved their bottom line by adopting green policies that aren't based on credits. Why wouldn't credits - administered by a multinational body (that wouldn’t profit from the trade) - be a way to take advantage of that huge pool of investment capital that's sloshing around the world every day?

Capitalists are always saying greed is such a good thing - let's actually put it to some good use. It wasn't the concept of Enron trading energy futures that was at fault, it was the fact a bunch of crooks were in charge, imo.

G West, go boy, it's nice to see you grasp the capitalist solution.

IAMC
Don't be holding your breath now. It doesn't happen very often.

Steve P:

That's an interesting statement about cycling dropping when the U-Pass was implemented. Do you have any hard figures for that or a source I could look at?

thanks in advance.

Stump:

My statement about cycling rates decreasing from the U-Pass was based on hard data, but, taking a quick peek through my archives, I'm having problem finding the study to cite properly. (sorry!)

I'm going from memory. A couple of years ago I helped UBC adjust their demand forecast for parking after the impact of the U-Pass program. (We could reduce the # of new stalls because demand was not increasing as quickly due to the U Pass) After significant increases in cycling in the late 90s, the transportation modal split changed and the proportion of cycling decreased significantly the year after the subsidized bus passes were introduced.

You could ask the folks at UBC Trek: http://www.trek.ubc.ca/, who have an excellent in-house planner (Carole).

Harper's plan does not add up

Opinion, May 15.

Not only does Stephen Harper's Kyoto plan not add up, but the Environment Minister Rona Ambrose greatly exaggerates the cost of meeting our commitment.

Canada's current carbon dioxide (CO2) emission is 35 per cent above the 1990 level, primarily due to increase of emission from the production of oil from the Alberta tar sands.

To close the gap between today's emission and the Kyoto target, Canada has to reduce its emission or buy carbon credits for 244 megatons of CO2 per year. The current price for carbon credits is $35 a ton. Canada could meet its Kyoto commitment by purchasing $8.4 billion (U.S.) of credits.

Considering the tar sands are the major source of CO2 emission, I calculated the carbon tax that would be required from it to purchase the required carbon taxes. At 1 million barrels per day, Canada produces 365 million barrels of tar sand oil per year, with a market value of more than $70 a barrel and a production cost under $40 a barrel. A $23 per barrel tax would be sufficient to purchase CO2 credits to meet our Kyoto target and keep tar sand production profitable.

The above is just an example showing how easily Canada could meet its target. I am not suggesting the oil sand production should foot the entire cost of our commitment, but it is clear that a reasonable carbon tax on major CO2 producers, reinvested in technology to reduce greenhouse gases, would allow us to meet our Kyoto commitment while creating significant business opportunities for Canadian industries.

We are, after all, well positioned to benefit from CO2 capture technology that would increase our conventional oil production by injecting CO2 in older conventional oil reservoirs.

Gilles Fecteau, Toronto

I'm no engineer so perhaps someone can help me out here? We're going to pump the CO2 into the ground and we have no concerns about how we're going to keep it there? This will be a pressurized gas, bound by the laws of physics and likely to seep out every little crack in these subterranean oil deposits? There's no danger of a massive release in the event of an earthquake or tectonic shift? What about equipment malfunctions or terrorist attack? Wouldn't a sudden jump in CO2 levels be a real problem for the affecteda area?

People call cycling advocates dreamers with unrealistic solutions, but compared to the increasingly bizarre solutions proffered by the oil-addicted, suggesting a concerted effort to create a viable self-propelled transportation infrastructure comes off looking positively Vulcan in terms of reason and logic.

Thanks Steve P for the background info.

Stump. I was more concerned with the costs analysis then the bizarre suggstions ccontained in the article .
Just that more lies are coming out of Harpo and the Bunny(Rona Ambrose) than even I imagined .

Gilles, don't even think about robbing Auberta if you value your family jewels. Alberta is NOT the major source of CO2 emission.
Hey, did you see that volcano spewing in Indonesia. That volcano is releasing more crap into the atmosphere than anything mankind has ever done in total.
Who is Indonesia going to buy carbon credits from. Oop's I forgot, they are not in Kyoto.

IAMC
So what is Canada's major source of CO2 emissions then smart guy?

Alberta tar sands is the short answer .

No kidding, IAMC is not just clueless but speechless

Oh,yea here ya' go smarty pants Clueless.

Jakarta (VNA) - The Indonesian Parliament ratified a bill approving Kyoto Protocol at its plenary session on Monday.

This is part of the country's efforts to reduce greenhouse effect gases as well as attract investment and financial aid from developed countries.

Speaking after the session, Indonesian Secretary of State for the Environment Nabiel Makarim said that Indonesia will benefit from its joining Kyoto Protocol because it will have an opportunity of gaining access to eco-friendly advanced technology from developed countries as well as investing in reducing greenhouse gases through the building of power plants using clean energy and forest replanting projects.

The bill will come into force as soon as President Megawati Sukarnoputri signs it into law.

Indonesia has become the 124th country to ratify this international treaty.--Enditem

Hear that Clueless the 124th nation to ratify the Kyoto accords .
Work with that .

Ontario is the largest polluter by far, they dwarf Alberta big time.
If you go after Alberta, they will cut your ball's off.
The rest of Canada can make real money too.
I guess it's like the old story, I forget the insects, but it's a tale about one party working for years saving and working and finding success, when the other party smoked dope and laughed at the Albertan as they worked their ass off.
Water finds it's own level. Are you drowning yet ?

Oil - without oil Alberta is Saskatchewan but without a brain.

G West, you are so wrong about comparing Alberta's wealth to that of Saskatchewan.
Sask. had every opportunity to be equally as successful as Alta.. In fact they are catching up now. The Govt. of Sask. is in full suckup mode.
They will be as wealthy as Alberta soon. The NDP Govt. is on board, finally.
Even progressive politics need money.
You have no idea how much the power has shifted to the west, and their brain is larger than yours.

Gwest
You can not convince me that the buying and selling of “green credits” is going to help the situation, why do you think a country like Indonesia has signed on? It’s a wayt o make money and will not impact the environment.

An average graph could use a basic formula to determine what the average gas release is for each country and how much they can realistically reduce it, similar to the way that Kyoto makes these determinations. The difference here is that the monies are spent playing accounting games, but on funding real projects that are to big for smaller states to take on.

Stump
I don’t know if it is completely feasible to pump the CO2 underground, but they already do similar with water to push gas and oil up. In nature large pockets of gas are trapped at the bottom of the sea, occasional released during seismic events (one of the possible explanations for the Bermuda triangle events) there was also a proposal to pump CO2 into the deep ocean to be contained by pressure and temperatures, but I haven’t heard anything on that front for awhile.

IAMC
Baloney!. Saskatchewan is still paying off the bills the crooked Devine Government racked up while it was in power.
Besides you obviously know nothing about the relative histories of the two provinces since 1947 either.
You have no brain.
If Alberta has to start paying for the CO2 it's pumping into the atmosphere it'll be a different story there too.

Thanks for the background Colin. Although your mention of the Bermuda Triangle isn't terribly reassuring!

Frankly, the idea sounds stupid to me. It's like looking at car accident deaths and deciding the answer is to make cars bigger aka SUVs. The only long term solution is conservation, renewable energy, and a gradual shift to self-propulsion and mass transit wherever possible. I wish we'd all stop trying to fool ourselves into thinking there's a technological fix to our over-consumptive lifestyle.

Stump
I wouldn’t sneer at all technology fixes. It’s pretty clear the Internal combustion is in it’s sunset days, the latest hybrids coming out this year have more power, better economy and cost less. In ten years a significant portion of automobiles in the first world will be hybrids, hard to say with China and other places. My office is currently reviewing at least a dozen wind power projects here in BC alone, not to mention probably 30-50 run of the river power projects.

Even the new proposed coal fired power projects are far more efficient than the ones from 20-30 years ago with far less emissions.

I personally think the key is to use a variety of methods to reduce fuel consumption and power needs. I also believe that all of the governments have been remiss on making renewable energy affordable, and encouraging the building of active and passive renewable energy housing. (got to help build 3 passive solar houses years ago, actually quite simple to do with new housing)

You can address the emissions from cars and you'll still be stuck with a host of other problems that their use engenders, such as suburban sprawl and food security. It's time to rethink their use and stop moving 200 pounds of meat with a one ton container every time you need a quart of milk. A great solution for rural residents a hundred years ago, a pain in the butt in urban areas from now till eternity.

Well it makes a change from shovelling the enormous amount of horse manure off the streets, not mention the feed that had to be brought in. the car has given the average person a freedom of mobility that just didn’t exist prior to it mass production, it has changed society, trying to get rid of them will be difficult if not next to impossible. Plus you can be sure that people with money and power will retain their access to private transport and we will be back to a transportation system similar to the 18th century.

There's no need to get rid of them (all) but there has to be a better accounting of the full cost to all of us for this individual choice. One can only wonder how backwaters like Paris, London, and so forth ever made it into the twenty-first century without our North American fixation on cars as the only answer to 'personal mobility'... if you call being in traffic jams for a couple hours a day being mobile.

And manure while problematic, can be recycled into gardens. Car emissions... not so much. :-)

And gasoline has to be trucked into cities as well Colin, so that's not much of an argument re: feed for horses.

Also, I'm in no way suggesting horse and carriage is a solution, esp. in urban areas where mass transit and self-propulsion can meet most of the travel needs of a great many people.

Funny
I was just wondering that if you took away the cars from most urban dwellers, if that wouldn’t increase the rural/urban divide? Without personal transport how many urbanites are going to be able to get out into the country? Comparing Europe to Canada is not accurate; Europe is small enough and populated enough to support a fairly large transportation system, that is not the case for most of Canada.

They could rent a car.

Further, when you look at Europe and Canada they are not THAT dissimilar in size and most of Canada's population is concentrated along the border. We need bullet trains connecting to regional rail, connecting to local buses. We need people to think about reality instead of buying the "zoom, zoom" nonsense car manufacturers keep flogging. We need political leadership, not political power addicts.

Maps can be deceiving, We swapped campers with a British couple. When they came here, they had planned a day trip to Calgary!!! I remember the German Soldiers in Shilo standing at the edge of the base, looking at the prairie, they were stunned, they have never seen so much open space. Canadians are accustomed to traveling much longer distances in one day than your average European.

Sorry Colin but hoary anecdotes don't constitute a rebuttal. There's nothing but a lack of political backbone preventing us from designing transportation systems that work for us instead of vice versa.

I don't know the system works pretty good, 15 minutes from the North shore to downtown?

Compared to most of the world our system is doing fine, I had a package mailed to me from Edmonton in 2 days, can drive to PG in 8-10 hrs. I have the choice to drive, bike, bus or seabus to work. The current public transit system is generally safe and reliable. Most areas have mutiltple access routes. Yes you can always improve on it, but it is no where near as bad as people make it out to be.

I think the argument would be that there are some serious sustainability issues with the way we've designed our system to rely mostly on cars.

Colin yea, that is why the neo-cons scrapped the EnerGuide program .It was cost efficient and working too well for them .

You can buy the Terrapass, a voluntary ‘pass’ to offset vehicle (personal or business) greenhouse gas emissions. For more info go to:

http://www.terrapass.com/index.html.