What's Wrong with Canada?

[Dari]

I've been reading the past week about how the mayor of Toronto and senoir figure in the federal gov't have been throwing temper tantrums when the World Health Organization put out a travel warning on the city of Toronto. What, are Canadians too proud to be included in the list of countries that people should steer clear of because of this SARS scare? When the WHO declared the travel warning, the mayor of toronto seemed more worried about the loss to businesses and the pride of the city than that of risk of traveling to such a relatively hot zone. He came off as being incredibly insensitive to the nature of the problem and focused more on the financial lost that the city might incur. He, and other senior figures, even went so far as to question WHO's right to put out health warnings. The idiot even asked "who the hell do they think they are?" Now they are trying to make this a political case rather than a medicalone by appealing the travel warning. What a fool.

link

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Dari
I've been reading the past week about how the mayor of Toronto and senoir figure in the federal gov't have been throwing temper tantrums when the World Health Organization put out a travel warning on the city of Toronto. What, are Canadians too proud to be included in the list of countries that people should steer clear of because of this SARS scare? When the WHO declared the travel warning, the mayor of toronto seemed more worried about the loss to businesses and the pride of the city than that of risk of traveling to such a relatively hot zone. He came off as being incredibly insensitive to the nature of the problem and focused more on the financial lost that the city might incur. He, and other senior figures, even went so far as to question WHO's right to put out health warnings. The idiot even asked "who the hell do they think they are?" Now they are trying to make this a political case rather than a medicalone by appealing the travel warning. What a fool.

link

I agree completely. Also, your same methodology applies to my view of the US's decision to ignore the Kyoto protocol.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: Dari
I've been reading the past week about how the mayor of Toronto and senoir figure in the federal gov't have been throwing temper tantrums when the World Health Organization put out a travel warning on the city of Toronto. What, are Canadians too proud to be included in the list of countries that people should steer clear of because of this SARS scare? When the WHO declared the travel warning, the mayor of toronto seemed more worried about the loss to businesses and the pride of the city than that of risk of traveling to such a relatively hot zone. He came off as being incredibly insensitive to the nature of the problem and focused more on the financial lost that the city might incur. He, and other senior figures, even went so far as to question WHO's right to put out health warnings. The idiot even asked "who the hell do they think they are?" Now they are trying to make this a political case rather than a medicalone by appealing the travel warning. What a fool.

link

I totally agree with you, I live in Toronto, and let me tell you that the Mayor (Mel Lastman) is a total jack ass. It seems like he always has good intentions but at the end it never pans out and makes him and Toronto look very bad.

Some other stupid and amusing things he has done:

-Before his trip to to Kenya he remarked "What the hell do I want to go to a place like Mombasa [Kenya]? ... I'm sort of scared about going there ... I just see myself in a pot of boiling water with all these natives dancing around me."
-Shaking hands with a member of Hell's Angels gang. The most troublesome gang in Canada.
-His wife was caught stealing a pair of jeans at Eatons. After a CBC reporter made it public, Mel Lastman threatened to kill him or fire him.

And that is just from the top of my head. It is totally embarrassing.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Dari
I've been reading the past week about how the mayor of Toronto and senoir figure in the federal gov't have been throwing temper tantrums when the World Health Organization put out a travel warning on the city of Toronto. What, are Canadians too proud to be included in the list of countries that people should steer clear of because of this SARS scare? When the WHO declared the travel warning, the mayor of toronto seemed more worried about the loss to businesses and the pride of the city than that of risk of traveling to such a relatively hot zone. He came off as being incredibly insensitive to the nature of the problem and focused more on the financial lost that the city might incur. He, and other senior figures, even went so far as to question WHO's right to put out health warnings. The idiot even asked "who the hell do they think they are?" Now they are trying to make this a political case rather than a medicalone by appealing the travel warning. What a fool.



link

I agree completely. Also, your same methodology applies to my view of the US's decision to ignore the Kyoto protocol.

Cheers,

Andy

Is toronto the worlds largest economy? lol

How many nations have ratified Kyoto?

European Commission Delegation in Washington DC, EU News Release, 3 June 2002

"The challenge of attaining the second threshold for the Kyoto Protocol's entry into force, that requires the ratification of countries responsible for 55% of industrialized countries' emissions in 1990, is now much closer."

As of that date, 70 countries had ratified Kyoto, including the 46 Island nations that had done so when it was first possible, notice the EU waited themselves.

Is the US the one nation that is going to tip that percentage over 55%? We are only one nation, if only one more is needed they can find someone else. It's nice to see some in Britian still cant get over the revolution, but can easily forget ww2.



And even though the world's largest polluter has stayed out, the treaty's signatories collectively produce more than twice as much greenhouse gas as the U.S.

Of course, the revised Kyoto Accord hammered out in three days of intense negotiations in Bonn is but a shadow of its former self. It has reduced the average cut in greenhouse gas emissions required by the year 2012 from 5.2 percent below 1990 levels to 1.8 percent below 1990 levels, and has incorporated a number of the negotiating positions previously advanced by the Clinton administration, such as crediting nations for maintaining large forests to serve as "carbon sinks" to soak up the offending gas. (And all this in response not to pressure from Washington, which had removed itself from the debate by rejecting Kyoto out of hand, but to the demands of other industrialized countries such as Japan and Canada.)

Where is the blame for the those who fought to water Kyoto down? Is there any evidnece the US already exceeds these now acceptably highel levels?

Did you even know "developing countries" like China and India do not have any binding limits, much like 15 EU nations INCLUDING BRITIAN?

We were told the Europeans are saints and exemplars in all matters greenhouse, who put us to shame.

What we weren't told is that they're sanctimonious hypocrites. They cooked up a unique deal where 15 countries are included in one big EU "bubble".

Because this bubble includes within it the large emission reductions that arose years ago from Britain's decision to switch its power stations from coal to natural gas and from the closure of many hugely inefficient and polluting power stations in the former East Germany, the EU's binding limit isn't binding.

So even though the emissions from countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece will grow way above their 1990 benchmarks, they don't have a problem. And yet when we negotiated the right to get credit for stopping land-clearing and planting forest "sinks" - measures with various other environmental benefits - the Europeans and our eco-activists had the hide to condemn this as a "loophole".

We were continually left with the impression that implementing Kyoto would make big strides towards reducing global warming. What we weren't told was that it would make the most pathetic amount of difference.

Were all the developed countries to achieve their targets, we would be left with global emissions in 2012 that were a mere 1 per cent less than those in 1990. Why so small? Because the entire developing world - including such huge and rapidly growing economies as China and India - would be left free to let its emissions rip.

Don't let your own countries hypocrisy or the fact this isn't going to make a difference in global warming change your opinion of the US though, I rather enjoy doing this. Let me guess, you will ignore all this, make some comment and then add a little

.......lol

Have MOST countries acted out of their own financial interests in this issue, yes, some, like your own, even made sure they didn't have to comply. I find it rather galling their citizens would complain about others not complying either, next time include us in your loophole, so we can (non)comply with you...... <- that one was for you.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Siwy

Originally posted by: Dari
I've been reading the past week about how the mayor of Toronto and senoir figure in the federal gov't have been throwing temper tantrums when the World Health Organization put out a travel warning on the city of Toronto. What, are Canadians too proud to be included in the list of countries that people should steer clear of because of this SARS scare? When the WHO declared the travel warning, the mayor of toronto seemed more worried about the loss to businesses and the pride of the city than that of risk of traveling to such a relatively hot zone. He came off as being incredibly insensitive to the nature of the problem and focused more on the financial lost that the city might incur. He, and other senior figures, even went so far as to question WHO's right to put out health warnings. The idiot even asked "who the hell do they think they are?" Now they are trying to make this a political case rather than a medicalone by appealing the travel warning. What a fool.

link

I totally agree with you, I live in Toronto, and let me tell you that the Mayor (Mel Lastman) is a total jack ass. It seems like he always has good intentions but at the end it never pans out and makes him and Toronto look very bad.

Some other stupid and amusing things he has done:

-Before his trip to to Kenya he remarked "What the hell do I want to go to a place like Mombasa [Kenya]? ... I'm sort of scared about going there ... I just see myself in a pot of boiling water with all these natives dancing around me."
-Shaking hands with a member of Hell's Angels gang. The most troublesome gang in Canada.
-His wife was caught stealing a pair of jeans at Eatons. After a CBC reporter made it public, Mel Lastman threatened to kill him or fire him.

And that is just from the top of my head. It is totally embarrassing.

haha, thanks for the facts... i had no idea he is such a jerkoff!
<-- lives in London, Ont.

 

[Fencer128]

Is toronto the worlds largest economy? lol

No. But it was the point of view I was referencing, not the scale.

How many nations have ratified Kyoto?

European Commission Delegation in Washington DC, EU News Release, 3 June 2002

"The challenge of attaining the second threshold for the Kyoto Protocol's entry into force, that requires the ratification of countries responsible for 55% of industrialized countries' emissions in 1990, is now much closer."

As of that date, 70 countries had ratified Kyoto, including the 46 Island nations that had done so when it was first possible, notice the EU waited themselves.

Is the US the one nation that is going to tip that percentage over 55%? We are only one nation, if only one more is needed they can find someone else. It's nice to see some in Britian still cant get over the revolution, but can easily forget ww2.

??? What's that all about? WW2? If there were but one country trying to do something about their emissions - it wouldn't make the effort to reduce emissions less worthy. Yes, technically more countries are needed to move through the second stage but that isn't the reason the US should've signed up if it chose to.

And even though the world's largest polluter has stayed out, the treaty's signatories collectively produce more than twice as much greenhouse gas as the U.S.

That's right. Does that mean that the US could not still have taken part?

Of course, the revised Kyoto Accord hammered out in three days of intense negotiations in Bonn is but a shadow of its former self. It has reduced the average cut in greenhouse gas emissions required by the year 2012 from 5.2 percent below 1990 levels to 1.8 percent below 1990 levels, and has incorporated a number of the negotiating positions previously advanced by the Clinton administration, such as crediting nations for maintaining large forests to serve as "carbon sinks" to soak up the offending gas. (And all this in response not to pressure from Washington, which had removed itself from the debate by rejecting Kyoto out of hand, but to the demands of other industrialized countries such as Japan and Canada.)

Where is the blame for the those who fought to water Kyoto down? Is there any evidnece the US already exceeds these now acceptably highel levels?

Did you even know "developing countries" like China and India do not have any binding limits, much like 15 EU nations INCLUDING BRITIAN?

Maybe before the whole thing became a farce an international concensus that was meaningful and might have changed something could have come about. But as soon as the big plyers start to fall away all hell breaks loose. If the US didn't like the way things were with the other countries emissions it should have tried to exert a little diplomatic skill to change them. Not use their (other countries) failures as an excuse not to live up to their own environmental committments and back out. I would like to see the UK stop fudging and start moving on this issues - along with other countries. I'll be exerting my power at the ballot box.

We were told the Europeans are saints and exemplars in all matters greenhouse, who put us to shame.

What we weren't told is that they're sanctimonious hypocrites. They cooked up a unique deal where 15 countries are included in one big EU "bubble".

Because this bubble includes within it the large emission reductions that arose years ago from Britain's decision to switch its power stations from coal to natural gas and from the closure of many hugely inefficient and polluting power stations in the former East Germany, the EU's binding limit isn't binding.

So even though the emissions from countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece will grow way above their 1990 benchmarks, they don't have a problem. And yet when we negotiated the right to get credit for stopping land-clearing and planting forest "sinks" - measures with various other environmental benefits - the Europeans and our eco-activists had the hide to condemn this as a "loophole".

I don't know the full details of this - but I'm all against slithering out of committments with global ramifications. But I see no practical difference between fudging your committments to appease the electorate and doing little to nothing because you can't bend the protocol to go exactly to your own way. If you want to criticise the system - get inside it where you can actually effect a change, don't stand outside looking in and whinge about it.

We were continually left with the impression that implementing Kyoto would make big strides towards reducing global warming. What we weren't told was that it would make the most pathetic amount of difference.

Well, that may be true now (if your above facts are correct).

Were all the developed countries to achieve their targets, we would be left with global emissions in 2012 that were a mere 1 per cent less than those in 1990. Why so small? Because the entire developing world - including such huge and rapidly growing economies as China and India - would be left free to let its emissions rip.

You choose your examples well. Firstly, I would have hoped to see the definition of "developing" countries applied to those where a good proportion of the population were without electricity or clean water. Secondly, ther's no way I would want places like Ethiopia, Afghanistan or their like to be hindered in providing basic care for their inhabitants - not at the level their standard of living is presently at. They should be allowed to expand ad hoc because at present most of these people have nothing. How do the emissions of the US + EU compare to the third world? (I doubt there's much equality). Primarily, we should be the ones making this change.

Don't let your own countries hypocrisy or the fact this isn't going to make a difference in global warming change your opinion of the US though, I rather enjoy doing this. Let me guess, you will ignore all this, make some comment and then add a little

.......lol

I only think I've

once as far as I can remember - and that's when the BBC was compared to the Nazi propaganda machine. I make my points for a reason - and its not predjudice nor self-vanity, its because I see a real issue.

Have MOST countries acted out of their own financial interests in this issue, yes, some, like your own, even made sure they didn't have to comply. I find it rather galling their citizens would complain about others not complying either, next time include us in your loophole.

As I said above, if its a mess it hasn't got this way overnight, there's a possibility that if all the big guns were in there from the outset they could have bashed something out between them. You won't effect any change from the outside.

Cheers,

Andy

ps Please could you linky the environmental policies that are being adopted/are in force to curb emissions in the US as I can't get hold of the details of the "clean air act". Cheers.

EDIT: Found lots of stuff - but no link to the actual act.

 

[Alistar7]

If the US didn't like the way things were with the other countries emissions it should have tried to exert a little diplomatic skill to change them. Not use their (other countries) failures as an excuse not to live up to their
I apologize for the

thing, confused you with Apopin, all you wolves look the same...

Clinton tried, notice his recommended changes are very similar to the ones called for and finally agreed upon by other countires such as Canada and Japan. The big countries, China, India, would not have signed if they were not exempted basically, you think there was any other reason they created the EU bubble? No we will not sign, oh, we don't have to comply, ok we'll sign. This reminds me of France, Germany, Russia, China, signing resoltuions against Saddam, while at the same time violating them. This time they incorporated legal protection for themselves to NOT comply once again, but still have the nerve to call out the US for being upfront and honest in our position.

"As I said above, if its a mess it hasn't got this way overnight, there's a possibility that if all the big guns were in there from the outset they could have bashed something out between them. You won't effect any change from the outside."

Did you catch the reference of the makeup of the original singers and ratifiers? 46 ISLAND nations. Did the US object to some measures and work diplomatically to try to change them, yes. Did other countires do the same, yes. Did the majority of the industrial world wait, manuever, attempt to change the requirements wholy or only for themsleves or other "friends, yes. Did they base their decisions primarily on financial consideration, yes.

This is not however a new airborne virus with global potential for IMMEDIATE catastrophe, huge difference. Yet, I have hear this compared to US policy and action which only mirrors the rest of the world. When I see an arguement in which an example is used which in and of itself underscores a certain bias, I tend to view the entire arguement itself with skepticism, as well as question the logic and motive of the individual.

I am just riled up over people just blindly blaming the US on here......

Care to find the US's output levels from 1990 and compare them to today to see if they have been lowered BEYOND the 1.8 percent drop that would have been required by the US had they participated in Kyoto?

If the expected drop is only going to 1% overall, there is a strong case the money and energy could have been spent better and brought better results, at least I hope so, if that's the best we can do or WILL do it's pathetic.

There is no "Mother Theresa" of nations, we ALL have made incredible blunders in our pasts. We could go back far enough in time to trace back the evolution and spread of man across the world from Africa and blame everything on the "Africans", even those funky ones who adapted to different climates and look all pale like me......

 

[Alistar7]

Missed the request for the clean air info.

Off the top of my head, most states require vehicles to undergo tailpipe emissions to make sure they comply within manufactures federally mandated requirements. HVAC fields are regulated to ensure proper compliance with federal regulations regarding cfc's, this also incluse motor vehicle AC systems. There are also federal mandates for emissions from smokestacks from industrial sites and factories. Multiple federal agencies overlap in this area though, even OSHA, an employee safety protection group. In the US, the lowest man on the pole can have an entire company shut down for violations by calling in OSHA, does Kyoto give every citizen of those few countires that actually have to comply the power to have ??? come in and shut down the facility or correct the problem?

As China and India become more industrialized they will outpace the rest of the world in pollution, their populations alone gurantee this. Now they are exempt. I'm glad we did not sign this. Seems the efforts made here are more stringent and actually hold everyone responsible. Let history be the judge, we can watch whose pollution output goes up, and whose goes down, and see whether or not they were part of Kyoto. Thank god out of the 70 who have signed, we already have 46 island nations, probably the single largest group of the most egregious violaters of pollution the world has seen. You know what I get from Kyoto? Nobody is really going to do crap (1.8% reduction, buy a K&N air filter for the car, woohoo, you surpassed Kyoto requirements), and the majority of those who have signed on only did so because they are exempt. Let's see other countries monitor EVERY factory and vehicle as the US does and give the power of their govt to their citizens to shut down a private business over these issues, not going to happen. Some people talk about doing things, others just spend that time getting it done.....

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Missed the request for the clean air info.

Off the top of my head, most states require vehicles to undergo tailpipe emissions to make sure they comply within manufactures federally mandated requirements. HVAC fields are regulated to ensure proper compliance with federal regulations regarding cfc's, this also incluse motor vehicle AC systems. There are also federal mandates for emissions from smokestacks from industrial sites.

As China and India become more industrialized they will outpace the rest of the world in pollution, there populations alone gurantee this. Now they are exempt. I'm glad we did not sign this. Seems the efforts made here are more stringent and actually hold everyone responsible. Let history be the judge, we can watch whose pollution output goes up, and whose goes down, and see whether or not they were part of Kyoto. Thank god out of the 70 who have signed, we already have 46 island nations, probably the single largest group of the most egregious violaters of pollution the world has seen. You know what I get from Kyoto? Nobody is really going to do crap (1.8% reduction, buy a K&N air filter for the car, woohoo, you surpassed Kyoto requirements), and the majority of those who have signed on only did so because they are exempt. Let's see other countries monitor EVERY factory and vehicle as the US does...

Thanks. I've been reading that there's some issues about the Bush administration being leanient about what factories/plants/etc are exempt from the more stringent parts of the act - namely older more polluting sources - and that some are worried that this is coming about through economic lobbying from the energy companies.

Do you have any insight into this?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

Hello, of course politicians take money and shape legistlation quid pro quid, here and everywhere else in the world where people have access to their govt. Kyoto was no different for the US or any other nation, business as usual.

It just seems our laws and regualtions are more stringent, and are already in place and being productive. I do remember reading about some exemptions for older factories, I think the majority of them were not going to be used for much longer, scrapped for newer systems on a profit basis, cheaper to build new than retrofit and rebuild an outdated factory. At least some of the exemptions I read about were conditional, based on time, but done to ensure production until the alternative that is in compliance was ready to take over.


Fencer128, don't worry, we have enough liberal media and politicians that look at every single little thing Bushy does, he knows he is being watched.