Does Russia and Canada have any incentive to stop global warming?

You're late with the "burritos question of the week". Must be bored. However, I'm even more bored, so I'll answer. Yes they care.

Their well being is better off if they are not overwhelmed with immigrants.

 

Western Russia and Eastern Canada will be in serious trouble if enough fresh water gets released into the northern atlantic to shut down the main current. That current is responsible for warming up much of Europe and the east part of North America.
While global temps may go up, those regions will actually cool if that happens.
Average temperature is not the most dire result of GW. Longer and more sever droughts and other changes in rainfall will be more of an issue.
Add to that the fact that a large fraction of humanity gets its fresh water off glacial melt (which is decreasing now, and may be gone in the near future) and it really is a lose-lose really big scenario (although I am not aware how many people, if any, in Canada or Russia rely on mountain glacial melt for fresh water).

 

Oh, and let's not forget the melting of the permafrost. Much of Canada's northern infrastructure is built on permafrost. As this melts, things are falling over/apart.
Unlike concerns of sea levels, which affect coastal areas, permafrost melt will affect a much larger area.

 

Not sure about Russia and global warming. They seem pretty excited about an ice-free Arctic Ocean with oil drilling etc.

On the other hand, last I heard, Canada was making a lot of progress in reducing carbon emissions. At least prior to PM Harper.

 

well, would you want to be stuck on a desert island with all the fruit you can eat... plenty of fresh water, shelter... good mild weather, etc??

having everything you need to survive physically and nothing else is not an existence that anyone would want.

besides, GCC (dont refer to it as global warming anymore...too much dissension on that...i call it global climate change now) will also affect them as well. massive deserts will spring up overnight, coastal areas will be destroyed and at a speed that will not allow a comfortable relocation process...iow, all hell will break loose for EVERYONE and that simply makes one with a lot of carbon based fuel the bad man...not an enviable position...

the Beijing Olympics should be testament enough that chinese already suffer a large reduction in lifespans due to air pollution that is only escalating at a faster rate than their conversion to the modern world. they will face much greater challenges just maintaining their fresh water supply....

ya, the global thing is just that... a GLOBAL PROBLEM and unless you a moon man, you crazy if you think it wont affect you.

 

Not sure where you got *that* information. Under Chretien, there was a lot of hot air about Kyoto, but under Chretien Canada's total GHG emissions increased 24% - of course GHG "density" decreased but that is statistical obfuscation:

Environment Canada - GHG - CANADA'S 2003 GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY

Note that Harper didn't enter the picture until +2006

Now Dion is going on and on about Carbon Tax and other things. Since the Liberals supposedly "saved" the environment I wonder how they will "save" it again assuming they win a minority gov

 

As far as "caring" about emissions, I would have to suggest that Canadians lag behind the US in terms of emissions control. The US EPA standards are far stricter than comparable Canadian standards. The US has CERCLA, aka "Superfund," with no such comparable environmental restoration and cleanup in Canada.

Canadians might assume they are more enviromentally friendly than Americans, but the truth is fuzzy. Personally, I would like to see Canada adopt American emissions standards.

All 3 major political parites - Liberal, PC, and NDP - have made various noises about the environment. Federally, both Liberals and Conservatives have run the country, with about equal results for the environment.

Provincially, the socialist NDP had a long reign in Saskatchewan until last year. Their environmental response was quite poor, especially with radioactive contamination from uranium mining operations in northern Saskatchewan.

Here in Manitoba, the NDP have made odd decisions regarding farming as a source of outfall to Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg. Even though the official report disagreed with them

http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/File/Hog%20Production-%20Final%20Report2.pdf

Like anywhere else, political bulls*** can help a party get elected and stay in office.

 

Jayman,

Do ye know what percentage of that 24% increase is attributable to Alberta Oil Sands production/development?

 

Trying to get a straight answer from Syncrude is all but impossible. It's estimated that Syncrude contributes 4% of Canada's total GHG emissions. Here is their official stuff

Syncrude Sustainable Development Annual Report 2003 - Air

An environmental watchdog group has ranked Syncrude for toxic emissions

Company Profile

The Carbon Disclosure Project didn't get too far with them

Carbon Disclosure Project: Online response

Various tar sands watchdog groups are far more concerned about Syncrude's consumption of natural gas, which will probably leave Canadians short. Under NAFTA, Canada really can't break out of it

I would be far more concerned about Syncrude toxic emissions, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, sulfur (Sulfur dioxide), heavy metals, and naphthenic acid. Naphtha is used to enhance oil liberation from the ore, the wash cycle introduces naphthenic acid into the environment.

Currently, the "best practise" to deal with the sludge is to permanently store it in giant retention "ponds." They are not ponds, rather giant lakes, easily seen from orbit.

The various watchdog groups have brought all of this up before

Tar Sands Watch

Of course, the various tar sands proponents would have you believe that nothing but Wholesome Goodness (tm) results from synthetic crude extraction

 

Aye, the toxic nature of it is pretty heinous. It also consumes and immense amount of water, no?

Isn't Naptha also a primitive form of petrol? I seem to recall last year a tank of naptha exploding at an Oklahoma refinery.

 

Certainly not. The day after movie is just that, a movie.
If you add enough fresh water to the main ocean current that current can break down.
The current fluxuates from year to year. However, a complete breakdown is thought to be what caused the 'little ice age'.
There won't be any storms such as you saw in 'The day after' with extreme temperature changes. However, it is expected that, if the current fell apart, there would be dramatic changes in climate for the western part of North America and Europe (Britian especially).

Here is a link for some information on the topic: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0105-scripps.html

 

The little birdies thought so

Hundreds of ducks dead or dying after landing on Syncrude tailings pond (Alta-Oilsands-Birds) | Oilweek Magazine

Syncrude issued an apology, great

Syncrude Canada Ltd. - News Room

Yes

Oilsands activity threatens water supply: study | Energy Bulletin

Oil boom puts stress on water supply

They claim to be making progress

Syncrude Canada Ltd. - Research & Development Programs

I'm pretty sure I covered this in my discussion of oil refineries. Naphtha is primarily derived from the upper stage aromatics in the Crude Distillation Unit.

You require a source of naphtha, either from a conventional crude refinery or from an upgrader plant in-situ, to get the naphtha. Another example of robbing Peter to pay Paul

Naphtha processing can be dangerous, due to the explosive nature of the vapors in hydrotreating and condensation. Actually most parts of an oil refinery have the potential to go kaboom, especially during a process upset

Hence the need for a flare gas header system. When a process upset happens, the theory is that the excess gases like naphtha and hydrogen can be quickly flared off.

 

I remember they mentioned some ungodly low number as the freezing point of military jet fuel, JP-8, something like minus 100 something or another.

Actually, JP-8 has a rated freeze of -47 C. JP-8 is universally used by the military to replace many different grades of turbine fuel and diesel fuel, to aide logistics.

As an example, for cold weather operation they used to use a diesel fuel called DFA (Diesel Fuel - Arctic), now JP-8 is used

 

except generators. We used mogas in our generators on M577s. If you put JP-8 in you got yourself a nice smoke generator. Not so good if you don't want to be noticed, however. A 577 already has enough antennas on it, the last thing you need another attention getter.

 

I've never understood the M577 TOC. It has a Detroit Diesel to move the thing, but a mogas APU to run the electronics. IMHO that is a tactical and logistic boo-boo. Why not have a diesel APU and run everything off the same fuel tank??

 

that's the same thing we thought. Never liked the 577. Roomy, yes. But top heavy and gutless. The thing had a rated top speed of 45 km/h, I think, it could only do that falling down a mineshaft. You can run the electronics off of the main engine, but there are obvious draw backs to that. We did it all the time because mogas was often hard to come by in training.

It was a lot more comfortable than the M981 and the M3, which are the other two vehicles I had experience in.

 

Overall I'm not that crazy about tracked vehicles anyway. They have a purpose, but not my favorite ride