If, considering the emissions are much higher in 2006 based upon the sheer volume than they were in 1990, doesn't it seem that a 30% cutback based on 2006 would be MUCH better than a 30% cutback based on 1990 numbers?
Or is Gore's complaint in reality that because of emissions controls from 1990 through 2006 emissions are way LESS already so the cutback based on 2006 numbers isn't impressive enough for him because he has to then admit that the world had already begun cutting back since 1990 in large amounts and that 'current' global warming really IS part of nature and not because of humans?
TONI
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Gore blasts Canada's greenhouse-gas plan.
In Toronto to present his global-warming film "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore sharply criticized the new strategy unveiled Thursday by the Canadian environment minister, John Baird.
The strategy aims to cut greenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming by 150 megatonnes, or 20 percent, by 2020.
However, the cutbacks would be based on emission levels in 2006, rather than 1990, the reference year for the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations pact ratified by 168 countries, including Canada, and aimed at reducing the emissions.
Discussion is locked
10 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
that the story as presented doesn't spell out the problem very well. The issue is really about "reduction in intensity". This might be a little more clear. Needs more exploring.
- Collapse -
That's 30% PLUS the growth from the 1990s to 2006.
- Collapse -
if it was (for arguments sake) 100 in 1990 then a 20% reduction would leave 80
today it's 135, so a 20% reduction would leave 108....
in reality, Gore is probably a little 'p***** of that Canada at least ratified the treaty?
jonah
.,
- Collapse -
they are now trying to escape any actual effort to implement it. At least the administration in which he participated did not do that. They simply did not sign on in the first place.
- Collapse -
You're upset that Canada isn't going to enforce standards to control something that you think isn't a problem?
OR are you just on Gores side about his argument that Canada should do more?
- Collapse -
I'm enjoying the spectacle of the hypocracy on display, and the contrast with the honesty displayed by the US whose position has previously been condemned.
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic