OIL INDUSTRY did nothing for over a decade; so why reward THEM with INTENSITY TARGETS?
Since Canada's neo-cons love to come up with analogies, here's mine for intensity targets:
You own an old chevy, and you drive daily from Victoria (BC) to Sidney (BC) and back, which is about 60 kilometers. Now, you're asked to limit your reductions, but, you actually have ideas to travel around the world.Yes, that's what intensity targets are about; make small improvements to your dirty industry, then you can pollute as much as you like. Who cares if the overall pollution rises?
The Conservatives make both possible!
Just buy a small Toyota that will reduce at least 6% per kilometre and you can drive as far as you like, pollute as much as you like.
Oil industry is like a dirty old ChevyNo wonder Canada's dirtiest industry, the oil industry, likes the new plan. They're the old chevy that should have been replaced over a decade ago, but now they can get away with polluting even more!
It's of course a lot easier for the Canada's neo-cons to blame Liberals for inaction (not enforcing emission regulations) than punishing the REAL source of pollution due to inaction; Canada's dirtiest industry, the oil industry.
footnote: It's interesting to see that both parties (Libs and Cons) are so much alike, even on environment; neither one is serious about Kyoto once in power.
6 comments:
Whooee! Yer on the money a hunnert percent's worth, EricFeller. The gas-guzzler vs. econobox analogy is okay but I'm findin' the explanation of intensity targets to be a tough one to communicate. Even the chev-toyota thing is awkward.
I reckon a less PC version might be a fat man analogy.
The doc tells a fat guy he's gonna die if he don't lose weight. The fat guy's been gainin' weight at the rate of a pound a week.
He goes on a diet an' he only gains a pound a month -- a 75% reduction in intensity of weight gain.
But, dang-it-all, the doctor said he'd die if he didn't lose weight. He's still gainin' - maybe not as fast as he was gainin' but nonetheless, he's gainin' weight an' still headed fer an early grave.
If we're goin' on a diet, we oughta be losin' weight -- not just reducin' the rate at which we're blimpin' out.
JimBobby
Thanks Jim, indeed, intensity targets are hard to communicate.
As long as people realize that small industrial innovations allows industry to pollute more than ever before, than the message should be clear. Hence the increase in the first few years.
Somewhat off topic: I know the diet analogy from a joke about a guy going to a bar. His first order is 10 beer, and each time he orders again (drag this out as long as you can to make the joke effective), he orders one drink less. At the end he tells the bar tender: "I don't understand this at all, the less I drink, the more drunk I get!"
Cheers!
"Yes, that's what intensity targets are about; make small improvements to your dirty industry, then you can pollute as much as you like."
Unfortunately, your analogy stinks. No one can pollute as much as they like because the emissions requirements apply as a percentage of total production.
Be serious or be a hack. Your choice.
Peter tries to be mister smart-ass.
Peter, as my analogy shows, you can drive all around the world, pollute far more than ever before, and still comply with the Neo-Con plan.
Driving more means polluting more. It's up to industry how far they want to drive and pollute.
So get your facts straight before you start accusing me writing stinking analogies.
You're the hack, but you're too stupid to see it. No brains, no choices.
"Driving more means polluting more. It's up to industry how far they want to drive and pollute."
Companies can't expand unless they devise a way to limit the total emissions. Which means that if they use the same old technologies, they won't be able to expand and limit emissions simultaneously (your claims to the contrary notwithstanding). For companies to expand, they have no choice but to develop cleaner technologies.
Furthermore: How many companies are even in a position to grow? For those that aren't, intensity targets are essentially hard caps.
I realize that I'm wasting my time here but oh well.
Peter, you say my analogy stinks but you're not contradicting my analogy; in fact you are approving it.
Indeed, small technological improvements give carte blanche to as much expansion (read pollution) as they want.
The last crap of you I will be dealing with:
"Furthermore: (1) How many companies are even in a position to grow? (2) For those that aren't, intensity targets are essentially hard caps."
BS, and you know it too, you're not that stupid, are you?
(1) OIL: [...] Athabasca oil sands - is still only a partially exploited resource. By 2025 this and other non-conventional oil resources - the northern and offshore frontiers and heavy crude oil resources in the West - could place Canada in the top ranks among the world's oil producing and exporting nations.
(2) Have you heard any industry today getting worried about their ability to meet your so-called hard caps? I don't think so. Don't you think Canadian Industry Inc. would be crying like a baby if these were real "hard caps"?
I guess I'm wasting my time on you too. You don't even understand the word contradiction, so what else is there to say?
Peter, do everyone a favour here: keep your own neo-con "message" on your own blog.
New comments are not allowed.