And if you think only radical leftist magazines are slamming this Country, from The Economist - bolded highlight mine

Dec 3rd 2009, The Economist | WASHINGTON
COMES from the New Republic's Jesse Zwick:

When did Canada start acting like Saudi Arabia when it comes to climate change? As George Monbiot notes in the Guardian this week, the normally good-natured country now has the dubious distinction of being the only country to ratify Kyoto and then formally renege on its commitments.

Canada has a very progressive image (particularly by North American standards), which it is proceeding to shred into pieces over the issue of its tar sands. The tar sand reserves have the potential to turn Canada into a global energy player on a par with Saudi Arabia, but at what great cost:

Refining tar sands requires two to three times as much energy as refining crude oil. The companies exploiting them burn enough natural gas to heat six million homes. Alberta's tar sands operation is the world's biggest single industrial source of carbon emissions. By 2020, if the current growth continues, it will produce more greenhouse gases than Ireland or Denmark. Already, thanks in part to the tar mining, Canadians have almost the highest per capita emissions on earth, and the stripping of Alberta has scarcely begun.

This is the bitter calculus that will constrain any effort to address global warming. Canada hasn't even the ability to cry poverty as a reason to develop this resource. If India can take steps to reduce the carbon-intensity of its economy, then surely the Canadians have a responsibility not to selfishly stand in the way of real progress on emissions.
 

BEshpin grow up.  I know many ALbertans who would make the same statements you see on this and the other environmanetal threads.  I was one of them until I was moved out of the province through education and settlement.

Alberta has been complaining that the rest of Canada doesn't appreciate their petroleum industry for 30 years--there are still some who believe that the NEP killed the oil industry even though there was a global recession at the time.

Will Alberta's economy get hurt if we actually started to change away from petrochemicals?   YEs.  Does that give them a free pass?  no.  ALberta likes to talk about intensity cuts not real cuts.  Alberta and the rest of Canada like to pretend that real changes to assumptions about standard of living don't have to happen.

THe Tar sands are a horribly inefficient energy source.  But as long as we forget to look at the input costs and just think of the oil that may be recovered it allows us to not do the real work of change.  And of course the tar sands (and other non-tradiotional sources of oil) only become worth processing when the tradiotional fields are starting to decline and when the price of oil is well up--some suggest that $90-100 plus per barrel in the case of the tar sands.

Luckily for Alberta the price of oil will skyrocket again once the global economy starts rolling.

Because, as we all know, the need to make money excuses all bad behaviour.  Not my fault my job kills people - I need to make a living! 

Beshpin,

ALberta as an entity has tunnel vision.  ANd ALberta as an entity has a select view of "realism".

THe choice is always what price we will pay.  The price of economic disruption as things are changed or the price of economic disruption as vast areas of the globe become unproductive....

Proponents of the tarsands like to pretend there is another choice--continuing to grow unchecked.  Actually many economists over the years have believed unending growth is not only possible but mandatory. But of course that is really only true if you are talking about cancer, not living organisms (which I believe the economy is, and certainly is not a bad metaphor for the globe, or for various civiliazations)

When the rest of the world leaves petroleum based products behind - and they will - Alberta and the rest of Canada will be left, literally, in the cold because the nation behaved like the dinosaurs that fueled the economy.

Think it won't happen.  Ask a British coal miner about the immortality of a fossil based fuel.

We will be left with nothing.  No reputation as an environmental leader which, btw, we once held.  No economy because no one will want to do business with Nethanderals.  The label Fossil Nation will stick like an oil slick on a sea-bird's feathers.

LB

Today we have a temporary aberration called “industrial capitalism” which is inadvertently liquidating its two most important sources of capital:  the natural world and properly functioning societies. No sensible capitalist would do that.
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute CEO

Beshpin, humans can't eat petroleum - although Kraft Foods is working hard at bringing that possibility to your table.

If the fields dry or become flooded due to climate change, if the fish die in the oceans due to toxic waste, there will be no food on your table and all the black gold in the nation will not fill your belly.  Humans can go two to four weeks without food that is if they have water, less if they don't.

The technology is out there to reduce carbon out put.  This country has the people and the resources to create alternatives.  Quality of living will not decrease it will increase because new sources of employment and income will be found.

All this country lacks is leadership and will.

LB

We never know the worth of water till the well is dry.

Thomas Fuller, 1732

The deal in Copenhagen was disappointing...to say the least.

 kind of disappointing that the world views Canada negatively because of the issue. I'm all for shifting towards an environmentally friendly nation, but at this time I realize that Canada would suffer if we up and shut down the tar sands right now. 

both sides should probably chill out... Harper, who we all know is in favour of the sands, should make some sort of effort to reach an agreement to reduce reliance on the sands.. or at least invest in some alternatives, and environmental groups should be more empathetic as well. 

I confess I know little about science in general and climate change in particular. A recent conversation with one of my step-daughters, leaves me with a question I'd like answered.

Basically, I said I was pessimistic because, even in my lifetime people seemed ever more hungry for using up the Earth's resources. When I was a kid, houses were small, bedrooms were shared, there was one t.v. and one telephone per household etc. etc. I added I just couldn't see even the committed cutting back on their use of resources - hence my pessimism.

She replied that we didn't have to cut back on our "goodies" - that just changing from coal to wind, wave, solar would do it. Besides, it was the power consumed by industry, not us as individuals, that mattered.

Isn't industry producing goods for us??

Is she right - that it's simply a matter of changing over to a eco friendly power source?

Yes, it is as simple and complicated as any other change throughout mankind's history.

What seems to be lost to the people who argue that removing a resource based industry like oil will destroy the economy is there can be other industries to fill the void.  Industries that will provide jobs and economic development.

The horse was replaced by the automobile and the smart blacksmith became a mechanic.

There is also the failure to see the economic cost of not adopting new technologies.  The ever increasing insurance premiums due to changes in storm patterns.  The rising food costs caused by drought and soil erosion.  Rising health care costs due to poor air quality induced asthma and compromised immune systems.

What is so wrong about the current Canadian government's position is the unwillingness to see the future; to see the potential of promoting environmental friendly businesses.  It is their categorical denial that there is a need to do anything:  That it is business as usual.

There is change coming whether we like it or not.  It is unstoppable and if we don't get ahead of the horse we'll be trampled and left behind.

The choice is ours as to whether we want look at the horse's ass driving this country while the rest of the world passes us by in their Prius or lead the way in our own brand.

LB

Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming.    

John McCain, US Republican Presidential Candidate

Well however you want to look at it Beshpin I'm with RevMatt.  If we stay stuck in the present and hold onto the way that we are doing things in the present - the consequences for the future are going to be grave and not something that we can reverse when the time comes.  Right now we have a chance to make some very significant (and very painful - no doubt about that) changes that will help with the problems that we have been creating.  Not just in Alberta but in so many different places.

Most of the time I feel good about being Canadian.  After following the talks in Copenhagen day by day and seeing the end results I feel ashamed by our country's stand on things at this time.

TL

Excerpt below is from the International Energy Agency.  Bolded emphasis mine.

The IEA is an intergovernmental organisation which acts as energy policy advisor to 28 member countries (including Canada) in their effort to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for their citizens. Founded during the oil crisis of 1973-74, the IEA’s initial role was to co-ordinate measures in times of oil supply emergencies. As energy markets have changed, so has the IEA. Its mandate has broadened to incorporate the “Three E’s” of balanced energy policy making: energy security, economic development and environmental protection.

“The message is simple and stark: if the world continues on the basis of today's energy and climate policies, the consequences of climate change will be severe. Energy is at the heart of the problem – and so must form the core of the solution. For this very reason, following discussions with IEA member governments and the UNFCCC Secretariat, I took the unprecedented decision to present an exceptional early release today of the climate change work of our flagship publication WEO 2009 to provide a timely contribution towards a landmark agreement in Copenhagen,” said Mr. Tanaka.

The IEA 450 ppm Scenario sees the use of fossil fuels peak before 2020, and energy-related CO2 emissions just 6% higher in 2020 than in 2007. Relative to a Reference Scenario of current policies, emissions in 2020 would need to be reduced by 3.8 gigatonnes (Gt) worldwide to achieve the 450 Scenario. 1.6 Gt of this reduction occurs in OECD countries, while policies and measures in China – already being considered by the Chinese government – account for 1 Gt of emissions reductions, more than anywhere else. This underlines the leading role China will play in the global combat against climate change.

To achieve this energy revolution, incremental investment of USD 10 trillion will be necessary between 2010 and 2030 in the energy sector - equivalent to 0.5% of global GDP in 2020, rising to 1.1% of GDP in 2030. Yet fuel savings across industry, transport and buildings total USD 8.6 trillion between today and 2030, similar to the additional investment in these sectors.

“The biggest challenge will be to ensure there is funding to back this energy transformation, with substantial support for developing countries,” said Mr. Tanaka. “In 2020, the energy sector in non OECD countries would need to make USD 200 billion of extra investments in clean power, energy-efficiency measures in industry and buildings and next-generation hybrid and electric vehicles. For this, developing countries will need some financial support from OECD countries. OECD domestic investment needs amount to a further USD 215 billion in 2020. But the benefits, in terms of energy savings, reduced fuel imports and air quality improvements offset much of this extra cost, not to mention the fact that this will help to avoid extreme climate change.”

Concluding, Mr. Tanaka stressed that “The IEA 450 scenario is the energy pathway to Green Growth. Yet we need to act urgently and now. Every year of delay adds an extra USD 500 billion to the investment needed between 2010 and 2030 in the energy sector”.

IEA Website

Climate experts believe that 350 ppm is the optimal level for a healthy environment.  While the IEA's goal of 450 ppm is higher it is a lot better than the 770 ppm agreed upon at Copenhagen.

From ARC Centre of Excellence 

When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.

 [...]

“It isn’t just the coral reefs which are affected – a large part of the plankton in the Southern Ocean, the coccolithophorids, are also affected. These drive ocean productivity and are the base of the food web which supports krill, whales, tuna and our fisheries. They also play a vital role in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which could break down.”

From Health Canada, Health Effects of Air Pollution

A recent study examined the economic value of reducing the health effects of air pollution by introducing cleaner vehicles and fuels in Canada. This study found that the economic value of avoiding these health effects was $24 billion over a period of 24 years, compared to a cost of $6 billion to implement the program.

But I'm told that it's me that should apologize for having criticized Canada.      Steven Guilbeault, Equiterre

Beshpin, the experts I quoted are all talking about the effects of emissions from fossil fuels - gas, oil and coal.

The IEA is a conservative agency who have been leaders in energy management for over 30 years.

Health Canada is a ministry of the Canadian Federal government and have been monitoring the effects of air pollution on Canadians for over 30 years.

The effects of emissions is well known.  In London, England in 1950's and 1960's a yellow smog would descend that was so thick you couldn't see and the air so foul you couldn't breath.  It was the result of air inversion trapping coal based emissions.  England switched to cleaner energy resources.  It devastated the coal industry but England survived and the people healthier for it. [1,][2]

Mexico City experienced the same effect in the 1980s and 1990s.  This time as the result of automobile emissions.  The emissions are trapped by downward air currents in the valley basin the city is built.  Thousands died and more became chronically ill.  Mexico has responded by enforcing emission standards, city vehicles have all switched to alternative fuel sources.[3][4]

China is also recognizing the heavy cost of unfettered use of fossil fuels and rapid expansion.  They are moving to cleaner energy sources.[5]

From democracies to dictators, the rest of the world is waking up to the human and economic cost of fossil fuel dependence.  They realize that if they do not act now the price paid will be higher later.

I, personally, will not bear the brunt of airborne pollution.  I live in a rural area with strong air currents that blow most of the contaminants away to others - Ottawa I think.  I can grow and hunt my food.  I don't particularly care if I eat fish or not.  If we continue to act as business as usual I, and the members of Parliment, will be well into our dotage when the particulates reach lethal limits and health and food costs skyrocket.

You, on the other hand, will still be a young man possibly with children of your own.  Who do you think your children are going to wish had been heard, the pandering morons or the foolish fossils?

LB

"Even if the talk about the climate and the global changes taking place in the environment is not confirmed, as a minimum we shall lose nothing, because we shall engage in energy efficiency and have a certain effect on improving the surrounding world,"

"But if, God forbid, what the scientists are currently saying turns out to be true in one way or another, it still definitely follows that that is what we have to do. So that means we win either way." 
Dmitry Medvedev, current President of Russia

,

"Even if the talk about the climate and the global changes taking place in the environment is not confirmed, as a minimum we shall lose nothing, because we shall engage in energy efficiency and have a certain effect on improving the surrounding world,"

 Except that we do have something to lose.  The global carbon cap trading thing is just setting up another venue for the vultures who prey on Wall Street trading funds back and forth like musical chairs.  Carbon credits could replace our currencies - and their value will depend entirely on market speculation - removing any modicum of influence we as people or governments have on our monetary policies.  Has not the last year of financial turmoil woken anyone up?  The collapse wasn't about sub-prime mortgages - it was about way too much debt and someone calling in the loans --- and we are going to give the same people (Goldman Sachs etc...) the keys to vault on environmental stewardship?  Like giving the keys to the family car to the teenager along with a bottle of whiskey!

Isn't anyone who is advocating these cap and trade schemes bothered about Maurice Strong's history with the petro-industry?  Is at all concerned that Al Gore started and owns a big chunk of the CCX?  Makes money with cap traded?

I know I am new here to the wondercafe --- did the issue of the climagegate emails ever come up?  Does that concern anyone?  anyone?  Bueller?  Bueller?