Miscellaneous, etc.

There’s been a lot of talk going on about the Kyoto Protocol, which is the huge agreement that was signed by about thirty-eight countries a few years ago, thirty-seven of whom have found one excuse or another to wriggle out of it. At the time that Kyoto was being discussed, it felt very much like the old Earth Day conferences that used to be held in places like Brazil, so that the people of the civilized world could see their elected officials leaping into action about the rain forests, and nobody would have to watch Captain Planet and the Planeteers any more.

This week, the Canadian Federal Parliament ratified our own nation’s plan to conform with our commitments to the Kyoto Protocols, setting off a firestorm of controversy across the country. Issues such as provincial sovereignty, economic suicide, and confidence in the intentions behind Kyoto are leaving many Canadians confused, alarmed and burning their recycling boxes in protest.

To allay these fears, and put to rest the growing concerns among Canadians and the citizens of other Kyoto Nations, the Federal Government has boldly issued a Kyoto FAQ, which practically guarantees a universal understanding and consensus between all the peoples of the world. For the sake of our international brethren, I’ll also be happy to translate from Canadian into English, so that everyone can bask in the example of our nation.

And so, without further ado, I present:

Canada’s Kyoto Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: When are we going to ratify the Kyoto Protocol? What are we waiting for?

· The Prime Minister has clearly stated that the Bonn Agreement opens the way for Canada’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, following full consultations with the provinces, the territories, stakeholders and other Canadians.

Translation:

Nothing! And the Government is happy to see that you’re so eager to have it ratified right this very second. The Prime Minister has stated that the Bonn Agreement is enough of an excuse to go forward with his agenda, after sending out an e-mail to all of the provincial premiers, except for Ralph Klein, whose address the Prime Minister lost a long time ago.

· This action is in step with other G8 countries (except the United States), arguably the most exclusive “club” in the world. The EC Council has directed member countries to complete their ratification processes by June 2002. The Japanese Diet has adopted resolutions favouring the Protocol’s “early ratification.”

Above: Nature Chan, the official Kyoto Agreement mascot, illustrating his slogan, “If you exclude our characters! Inserting do your gas!”

This action is in step with other G8 countries (except the United States), which is therefore arguably the most pointless move since the whole landmine thing. The European Union had directed its member countries to complete ratification by June of 2002, during high summer — arguably the height of European productivity — while Japan has adopted resolutions favouring the Protocol’s “early ratification,” as well as those in favor of “cookies,” and “super happy good fortune party fun time, Joe.”

· Whether we ratify or not, we will be acting to address climate change and are already spending over $1.2 billion over 5 years to do so.

Regardless of why they’re doing it, the Canadian government is committed to spending $1.2 billion over 5 years on something, whether it’s climate change or not.

Q2: How does the government intend to consult Canadians?

· We will intensify consultations with the provincial and territorial governments as well as with stakeholders and the general public. These consultations will build on the broad-based National Climate Change process that has involved over 450+ experts from governments, industry and non-governmental organizations since its inception in early 1998.

The Government intends to intensify pressure on the provinces and territories first, then stakeholders, and eventually the general public. These consultations will build on the input gathered from the over 450 people who think that Kyoto is a good idea, clearly reflecting the opinions of the other 30 million living in Canada .

· At the September and October 2001 Joint Ministers of Energy & Environment meeting (JMM), we held consultations with provincial and territorial governments. We have further JMM discussions planned for February and May 2002.

At the September and October 2001 Joint Ministers of Energy & Environment meeting (JMM), we held consultations with provincial and territorial governments, during which we pretended to discuss future actions with them. We have further JMM discussions planned for February and May 2002, at which time we will be ready to dictate the agenda.

· We’ll also be intensifying and expanding our consultations with stakeholders, who have been engaged in our national climate change process for the last four years. And we’ll be consulting Canadians at large next spring.

The government also plans to lean very heavily on stakeholders, such as natural resources and manufacturing industries, whose resistance it has been grinding down since 1998. Canadians at large will be addressed next spring, by which the government means next fall sometime, when there’s finally an election.

Q3: Why ratify when the science is not certain?

· The Government of Canada is in no doubt about the reality of climate change.

The Government of Canada is in no doubt about the reality of climate change, in that the climate changes, no doubt about it.

· Over 100 Nobel laureates, including Canadians such as John Polanyi, Bert Brockman and Sidney Altman, recently stated that climate change is one of two vital components (the other is the weaponized world) that must be addressed to give hope for world peace.

Over 3 Canadian Nobel Laureates, including 100 others, have said we should do something about this and the weaponized world in order to achieve world peace — consequently, Canada is determined to become the leader in both climate change, and in heavily arming every single person in the free world.

· We believe, along with a large majority of scientists, particularly those on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the authoritative international body on climate science, that:

Canada believes, because the United Nations scientists believe, that:

· climate change is happening and at an unprecedented rate;

Climate change is happening at an unprecedented rate, which is all the more impressive because there are no recorded precedent in the last 50 years.

· the principal reason is human activities; and

That naturally occurring car exhaust, industrial fumes and chemical spills do not contribute in any meaningful way to climate changes; and

· without deliberate action, the changes will increase with long-term consequences.

without us doing stuff, then other stuff will happen, later.

· While there will always be more to learn, we know more than enough to start taking concrete actions to reduce emissions.

While we don’t necessarily know what we’re doing right at the moment, we do think that what we’re planning won’t really affect things either way, so it’s not a big deal if we’re wrong.

· In Canada, the long-term consequences of climate change will be dramatic:

· Weather extremes such as heat waves and floods could
become more frequent.

· Increasing frequency and severity of heat waves could lead to an
increase in illness and death, especially among the very young, the
elderly and the ill.

· One serious impact of climate change may
be drought, resulting in declining surface water levels and
diminished groundwater supplies. Inland shipping routes on the Great
lakes could be threatened.

· An estimated three- to
five-week extension of the frost-free season would benefit
commercial agriculture in Ontario, Quebec and the Prairies - but it
is also expected that dry soil conditions will intensify and net
yields could be smaller in many regions.

· Forests could experience more droughts and
fires, and the migration of insects and disease into new
territories.

· In the north, permafrost and sea ice are in retreat or are melting. As a result,
Hudson Bay polar bears are at increased risk of starvation because
of a shorter seal hunting season, the cost of moving supplies to
communities on resource development projects is increasing because
the ice road season is shorter, and the traditional lifestyle of
Aboriginal peoples is threatened.

Everything will be horrible. Simultaneous flooding and draught, increased disease for some reason, and worst of all, polar bears will starve. They’re cute. Look at them! Do you want them to starve? No you don’t.

Oh right, and all the Aboriginals in the northern reaches of the country will die or whatever. Polar bears! They’re cute! Every time you leave your car idling in the driveway, you’re killing a polar bear!

“In the north, permafrost and sea ice are in retreat or are melting. As a result, Hudson Bay polar bears are at increased risk of starvation because of a shorter seal hunting season… and the traditional lifestyle of Aboriginal peoples is threatened, in that they are constantly being devoured by insane, starving polar bears.”

Q4: Are we going
to have to ration energy to achieve Canada’s Kyoto
target?

· No. We have to use cleaner kinds of energy (natural gas, hydro,
wind), and we have to use energy more efficiently, for example with
more efficient cars and furnaces. These are energy sources and
technologies that are already available to us.

No. By which Canada means, of course, yes. Driving your grandfather’s K-Car with the hole in the gas tank and burning your one-hundred-and-forty year-old oil furnace are no longer going to cut it, and if you persist in using them, you will shipped to Alberta and converted into clean, efficient natural gas.

Q5: Is domestic emissions trading different from
rationing? Isn’t it a tax in disguise?

· Domestic emission trading is a form of
smart regulation that harnesses the marketplace to find the most
cost-effective way of achieving an emission reduction target, it is
not about rationing.

Domestic emission trading is a form of smart regulation that harnesses the marketplace to find the most cost-effective way of achieving an emission reduction target, while allowing us to avoid any kind of answer that involves acknowledging its handy use as a tax in disguise.

· A DET system is
the best way for Canadian business and industry to access the
international carbon trading market. The Kyoto Protocol created
several market mechanisms that allow Canadian firms to purchase
emission reductions overseas.

A DET system is a great way for Canadian businesses to access the international carbon trading market, or “white slaving.” The Kyoto Protocol created sever mechanisms that allow Canadian firms to pay off other companies to “reduce emissions overseas.”

· Many of
Canada’s G8 partners believe DET is the way to go. The United
Kingdom launched an emissions trading system this past August. The
European Union is launching an EU-wide emissions trading scheme in
2005.

Europe is considering a DET system in the next four years or so, so therefore we should implement one right now, so that Canada will have more channels to close in future trade disputes with the EU.

· Federal, Provincial and
Territorial Ministers of Environment and of Energy are examining
options for the design of a DET system for Canada. Results from this
work are expected in the first part of 2002. Key stakeholders are
involved in the process.

People are thinking really hard about DET, making it a great idea.

· As well, the Prime Minister’s National Roundtable on the
Economy and the Environment will be conducting a nation-wide series
of workshops early in the New Year to broaden awareness on DET
amongst stakeholders and get input on possible program design.

Also, an ongoing series of propaganda pieces are in the works, aimed at gathering more honest, spontaneous, unanimously positive input on possible program design from stakeholders.

Q6: What’s the Government’s plan for achieving
Canada’s Kyoto target?


· We
have a three-part plan.

We have a three-part plan, which is on its own a strong enough point to stand alone. Remember: A plan, comprised of three parts. Three. Part. Plan.

· First, we
have put in place a series of emission reduction programs across a
wide-range of sectors in Action Plan 2000, aimed at achieving
one-third of our target. We also expect that the good forest
management and agricultural practices of Canadian foresters and
farmers will result in at least 30 MT of sinks credits for Canada by
2010. These investments reflect the Government of Canada’s intention
to target the most cost-effective measures and those with the most
future promise, and take us roughly halfway to our Kyoto target.

First, we have come up with a futuristic-sounding agenda called Action Plan 2000, aimed at achieving 1/3 of the target — we won’t tell you how, but we do expect that existing practices will result in 30 MT of sinks credits for Canada by 2010, just in time for Action Plan 2003.

The Canadian Government is certain that not all Canadians are familiar with sinks credits, and consequently will infrequently at best ask for a definition of them, thereby exempting the discussion of them in this FAQ.

· Second, Canada will be able to use
tools successfully negotiated in Bonn and Marrakech, such as
international emissions trading and investments in developing
countries and economies in transition. While we don’t know the
international price of carbon yet, experts are anticipating a low
price, in the $10 range;

Second, Canada will be using the loopholes opened up at Bonn and Marrakech to leverage Third World countries into reforming the environment for us. Don’t worry, though — experts are anticipating a low price for carbon, so it can’t contribute to Canada’s economy that much.

· Third, we are working on options with provinces to achieve domestic emissions reductions. These include domestically targeted measures
in key sectors such as transportation, electrical generation and oil
and gas. As well, the Prime Minister’s National Roundtable on the
Economy and the Environment will soon be holding consultations on
the feasibility of a domestic emissions trading system.

Third, the Federal Goverment will be working on tactics to cripple the transit, power and fuel industries in key troublemaking provinces, ensuring that they don’t step out of line during future federal elections.

Q7: Will the cost to Canada’s economy be too
high?

·
It depends on how we do it. If we choose the least cost
opportunities, we can minimize the cost. It’s also important to bear
in mind that climate change will have significant costs if we don’t
address it. We’re seeing signs of the changes already, but the cost
for future generations could be massive.

On the one hand, yes; however, on the other hand, yes. Let’s not forget that if we choose the opportunities with the least cost, then those opportunities will cost the least, and that the cost of not doing anything will certainly be more than the least most.

· Extensive analysis that has been done over
the past three years indicates that achieving our Kyoto target would
reduce our GDP by 0 to 3% in 2010. That’s before counting the
positive benefits from using more efficient, productive
technologies, lower health costs and improved quality of life.

Extensive analysis has shown that among people don’t really know what the GDP is, lumping it together with a bunch of good things might actually make a decline in the GDP sound like a good thing, too.

· Much of the economic impacts being quoted by the media do
not reflect the Bonn/Marrakech Accords. Preliminary analysis shows
that estimates of the costs of action are lower in the wake of Bonn
and Marrakech, due to Canada’s sinks deal and relatively
unrestricted access to the Kyoto Mechanisms.

Plus, don’t forget that the G8 nations have found countless ways of leveraging other countries to do things for them in order to meet their Kyoto obligations, meaning that while an economy will definitely be impacted by Kyoto, it won’t necessarily be Canada’s.

· Best cost estimates to achieving Canada’s
Kyoto target now are in the order of 0.5 to 1% of GDP in 2010. . In
other words, compared to the base case assumption that our GDP would
be 30 percent larger a decade from now, it would only be 29% to
29.5% larger. Moreover, our experience in other areas of
environmental regulation suggests that actual costs are generally
significantly less than forecast costs.

Best cost estimates to achieving Canada’s Kyoto target are now in the order of 0.5 to 1% of GDP in 2010. In other words, since the average Canadian has absolutely no clue what that means, then saying that Canada’s GDP will have a guaranteed decline of 0.5 to 1% in eight years doesn’t sound that bad. Also: 80.

· There are also many benefits to Canada in
terms of a more innovative, competitive economy. Good examples of
this are the Canadian developed Ballard fuel cell, which is expected
to play a major role in making the transition to sustainable
transportation, and Iogen Ltd., which is developing a process to
mass produce ethanol from agricultural and forestry by-products.

Despite what those bellyachers out West are complaining about, up to two businesses will be able to compete in the new Kyoto economy.

· A
federal/provincial/territorial analytical working group, which also
has industry participating in an advisory role, is currently
examining the cost of the Bonn/Marrakech Accords. The work of this
group will provide the solid analysis upon which to base our
decision on ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Results are
anticipated in March.

A government thinktank is busily toiling away on a cost-benefit analysis of Kyoto, in terms of the Bonn/Marrakech Accords, and will be ready to present its recommendations on ratification approximately four months after ratification has actually taken place.

Q8: Will ratification put us
at a competitive disadvantage with the United States?

· In developing our
strategy we will pay particular attention to the competitive
position of those industries that compete with the US. The
competitiveness impacts of the U.S. being outside the Protocol are
not black or white. These impacts should be somewhat diminished if
the U.S. is outside the Kyoto framework, since that will likely lead
to a low international price for carbon.

The competitive impact of the U.S. being outside of Kyoto aren’t black and white so much as they’re clear and crippling, but don’t forget that you’ll soon be able to buy more carbon than you know what to do with, for the rock-bottom prices you’ve only dreamed about…

· Quite frankly, we are moving towards a carbon
constrained world and firms which do not take action risk being left
behind in the global marketplace.

…and don’t kid yourself. No matter how the bottom drops out from under carbon prices, pretty soon there won’t be enough carbon left for anyone. Do you want to risk being left behind in the global marketplace? Do you really want to risk living in a world where your children have to hoard all the meager scraps of carbon they can find?

· We
also recognize the need to engage the United States in taking action
to address climate change. We will encourage the US to take
co-operative actions in areas that will help us to achieve our Kyoto
target. These areas include energy efficiency standards, vehicle
fuel efficiency, carbon capture and storage, clean coal technology,
renewable energy and domestic emissions trading.

We also understand that none of this is going to amount to more than a single season of Captain Planet and the Planeteers unless we can push the United States to get on board, which they won’t. Among the many co-operative initiatives we’re planning to be ignored on are energy efficiency standards, vehicle fuel efficiency, carbon capture and storage, clean coal technology, renewable energy and domestic emissions trading.

· We also need to look at the potential up-side
of getting ahead of the US. The Pew Centre in Washington just
released a report indicating that a number of leading companies in
the US and worldwide see taking action to reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions as improving their competitive position. These
companies include: Shell, ABB, Toyota, IBM, and United Technologies.

Plus, we need to look at the potential up-side of getting ahead of the US. A bunch of American companies see reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as improving their competitive position, and if that’s not reason enough to change national policy, we’re not sure what is.

· There are challenges to overcome in reducing our greenhouse
gas emissions, but there are also opportunities. Canada has
considerable expertise in clean energy and energy efficiency, and
there will be vast new markets for our know-how. The economic
rewards will be large for companies and countries that are first in
developing clean energy and energy efficiency technologies that can
compete in the market place. This government is of the view that
Canada should strive to be first.

Sure, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be painful and costly, but at least when the time comes that other nations are desperate and choking on their own smog, we’ll be ready, willing and able to profiteer from their plight.

00:31:55 (ralphklein_999) ralphklein_999 has joined channel 00:32:10 (father_lorne_calvert) hi ralph! a/s/l? 00:32:20 (ralphklein_999) its me ralph from alberta 00:32:26 (bert_n_ernie_eves) Fuck, it’s Klein. 00:32:26 (gord_campbell) has left the channel 00:32:27 (glazed_hamm) has left the channel 00:32:27 (st_bernard_landry) has left the channel 00:32:28 (bert_n_ernie_eves) has left the channel 00:32:30 (ralphklein_999) jean, r u there 00:32:40 (ralphklein_999) jean? u there? 00:32:55 (ralphklein_999) jean why arent u answering 00:33:57 (jean_d’armes) hi ralph 00:34:00 (jean_d’armes) howzit goin 00:34:25 (ralphklein_999) jean how come u didnt tell me that you were ratifying kyoto? 00:35:01 (jean_d’armes) i did 00:35:02 (jean_d’armes) i sent an email abou tit to everybody 00:35:40 (ralphklein_999) no u didnt 00:35:50 (ralphklein_999) u didnt send it to me 00:36:10 (jean_d’armes) r u sure? i think i did 00:36:25 (ralphklein_999) no i only got it b/c gary forwarded it 2 me by accident 00:36:30 (doer_gary!) Oh, shit. 00:36:31 (doer_gary!) has left the channel 00:36:50 (jean_d’armes) oh isnt your email addy st00pidass@gov.ab.ca? 00:36:52 (cap’n_grimes) LOL! 00:37:02 (ralphklein_999) no it isnt r u mkaing fun of me 00:37:12 (jean_d’armes) no, ok, lemme send it again 00:37:20 (ralphklein_999) thats not the point i already have it 00:37:30 (jean_d’armes) hang on i’ll open up outlook and sent it again 00:37:38 (ralphklein_999) i already have it i said 00:37:47 (ralphklein_999) why didnt you answer when i called yesterday aft 00:37:52 (ralphklein_999) ur wife said u werent there but i could totoally hear u 00:38:10 (ralphklein_999) jean r u there 00:38:42 (jean_d’armes) hold on i think my m/c is crahsing 00:39:44 (jean_d’armes) has left the channel 00:40:10 (ralphklein_999) jean r u there 00:40:23 (ralphklein_999) jean r u there 00:40:35 (ralphklein_999) jean r u there 00:40:51 (ralphklein_999) jean r u there 00:41:40 (ralphklein_999) fag 00:41:43 (cap’n_grimes) LOL!

Q9: Will some
regions’ economies suffer or bear an unreasonable burden? How can
the federal government move when ratification will hurt Alberta’s
economy?

· First
Ministers were clear in their 1997 statement that no region of the
country should bear an unreasonable burden in addressing climate
change. That statement is one of the principles being used as we
work with provinces, territories and stakeholders to find the best
way of achieving our Kyoto target.

First Ministers were clear in their 1997 statement that no region of the country should bear an unreasonable burden in addressing climate change. Fortunately, they were oustandingly vague in defining exactly what might constitute an “unreasonable burden,” creating the greatest Canadian loophole since the Notwithstanding Clause, which has been used as we’ve worked with provinces, territories and stakeholders since the signing of the Constitution.

· If there is an unreasonable burden on a provincial or
territorial economy, governments will discuss appropriate measures
to address it.

If there is an unreasonable burden on a province or territory’s economy, the federal government will move quickly to ignore it.

Q10: What is the
government doing here in Canada to reduce emissions?

· Between Budget 2000 and the Fall 2000
Economic Statement, the government committed $1.1 billion, over the
following five years, in climate change initiatives. These include
development and demonstration of innovative technologies for
reducing greenhouse gas and other air emissions; increasing the
uptake of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies;
sustainable forest and agricultural management; and helping
municipalities improve the eco-efficiency of their operations.

The government is investing $200 million per year to assist local governments in such energy-saving, efficiency improving efforts as utility privatization, competitive local energy markets, and blanket pro-Kyoto advertizing campaigns.

· Action Plan 2000 on Climate Change, a
$500 million, 5-year program, will reduce our GHG emissions by an
estimated 65 megatonnes per year. It sets the course for action in
all sectors of the Canadian economy and lays the groundwork for
long-term behavioural, technological and economic change. We are
developing additional initiatives to take us the rest of the way to
our Kyoto target.

Action Plan 2000, which apparently comprises less than half of what we just said we were spending on Climate Change, sets the course for action in all sectors of Canadian life and lays the groundwork for long-term behavioural, technological and economic change. These have all been developed prior to the gathering of input from Canadians or stakeholders, who really don’t know what’s good for them anyway.

· Action Plan 2000
gives individual Canadians the tools they need to do their part.
Here are a few examples: an Energy Star mark that helps consumers
identify products that are more energy efficient; a consumer
information and education program to encourage “clean choices” in
vehicles and fuels; support for home energy evaluations in key
centres across Canada; and information for home buyers about the
benefits of buying or building an energy-efficient home.

Action Plan 2000 also gives individual Canadians the tools they need to do their part: an Energy Star mark that’s been around on computer monitors for ten years already; heavy, persistent education targeted at the elementary school level; a toll-free anonymous “tip line” to report Kyoto-resistent businesses and residences; rotating roof-mounted “Kings of Kyoto” missile launchers to bring down repeat polluting vehicles, neighbors or pedestrians; and information for home buyers about the benefits of buying or building an energy-efficient home.

· Budget 2002 includes more action addressing
climate change, including:

· a doubling of the Green Municipal
Enabling Fund and the Green Municipal Investment Fund, at an
additional cost of $25 million and $100 million respectively. These
funds have been effective in stimulating community-based feasibility
work and investments in more than 100 projects that reduce GHGs
across Canada;

A doubling of Federal and Provincial slush, favor-granting and nepotism funds, at an additional cost of $25 million and $100 million respectively. These funds have been effective in stimulating community-based feasability work and concealing Old Boy patronage payments in more than 100 projects that reduce GHGs across Canada;

· a new production
incentive for electricity produced by wind energy, worth over $260
million over the next 15 years;

A new production incentive for electricity produced by wind energy, worth over $260 million in the next 15 years, as well as research into clean energy produced by Polar Bears, which are quite possibly Canada’s most valuable natural resource.

· a broadening of eligibility
for income tax incentives that apply to renewable energy and certain
energy efficiency projects.

A broadening of eligibility for income tax incentives that apply to renewable energy and certain energy efficiency projects, absolutely none of which will be available to Canadian consumers.

Q11: Why is Canada doing this? Am I going to lose my job?

· Credit for clean
energy exports was not part of the negotiations in Bonn or
Marrakech, and at present, there are no mechanisms for encouraging
countries to export clean energy.

Q12: No really — my community is centered around a large industrial plant, and I’m concerned that Kyoto will cause it to shut down. How is my government protecting me?

· Canada believes that the recognition of the global benefits of clean
energy is important to the long-term efforts to address climate
change.

Q13: My daughter needs braces or she’s going to end up with a mouth like a wheat thresher, and I think my son is missing two or three chromosomes. Now that Canada’s spending all this money on Kyoto and climate change, does that mean there’s more money for healthcare, too?

· We drew this problem to the
attention of the world community in Bonn, and will be discussing it
further at a formal UN meeting to be hosted by Canada next spring.

Q14: But, my son is seriously fucked up. Yesterday I caught him eating a bird; tomorrow I’m afraid it’ll be his sister. Doesn’t anyone care?

· This issue is
important for Canada, but it is also one that will take some time to
resolve. The United Nations process moves slowly.