<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Number Crunch: Where Canada&#039;s Emission Targets Stand</title>
	<atom:link href="http://adoptanegotiator.org/2009/06/12/number-crunch-where-canadas-emission-targets-stand/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://adoptanegotiator.org/2009/06/12/number-crunch-where-canadas-emission-targets-stand/</link>
	<description>tracking climate negotiators on the road to Copenhagen</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:48:54 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Slit-leggings at American Apparel and Current Climate Policy in Canada &#171; For Serious?</title>
		<link>http://adoptanegotiator.org/2009/06/12/number-crunch-where-canadas-emission-targets-stand/comment-page-1/#comment-392</link>
		<dc:creator>Slit-leggings at American Apparel and Current Climate Policy in Canada &#171; For Serious?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:56:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptanegotiator.org/?p=1021#comment-392</guid>
		<description>[...] The deal was that Canada would reduce its emissions 6% below what they were in 1990, by the time the year 2012 rolled around. It became a commitment known to the world, staring us in the face every day. Regardless, our emissions went up about 25%. This means we&#8217;ve committed ourselves to a 30% reduction, while the year 2012 is quickly approaching. So what did we do? We changed our targets. We cut it in half (to 2.7%) and extended the deadline (to the year 2020). See this blog post for details. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The deal was that Canada would reduce its emissions 6% below what they were in 1990, by the time the year 2012 rolled around. It became a commitment known to the world, staring us in the face every day. Regardless, our emissions went up about 25%. This means we&#8217;ve committed ourselves to a 30% reduction, while the year 2012 is quickly approaching. So what did we do? We changed our targets. We cut it in half (to 2.7%) and extended the deadline (to the year 2020). See this blog post for details. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zoe</title>
		<link>http://adoptanegotiator.org/2009/06/12/number-crunch-where-canadas-emission-targets-stand/comment-page-1/#comment-384</link>
		<dc:creator>Zoe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptanegotiator.org/?p=1021#comment-384</guid>
		<description>Hi Franny,

Looks like the links in the post got lost once we transferred to a new website. Sorry about that. The study is from The Pembina Institute. I&#039;ll find the link and post it here when I have it.

Zoë</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Franny,</p>
<p>Looks like the links in the post got lost once we transferred to a new website. Sorry about that. The study is from The Pembina Institute. I&#8217;ll find the link and post it here when I have it.</p>
<p>Zoë</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Franny</title>
		<link>http://adoptanegotiator.org/2009/06/12/number-crunch-where-canadas-emission-targets-stand/comment-page-1/#comment-368</link>
		<dc:creator>Franny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:04:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptanegotiator.org/?p=1021#comment-368</guid>
		<description>Hi!

Thank you for all of this excellent tracking. So useful.

I have a request. Given this statement: 

Studies show that it is economically feasible for Canada to achieve the 25 to 40% by 2020: this target is ambitious, though certainly possible.

Could you tell us which studies and who conducted them?

Thank you! Much appreciated!

Take care,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi!</p>
<p>Thank you for all of this excellent tracking. So useful.</p>
<p>I have a request. Given this statement: </p>
<p>Studies show that it is economically feasible for Canada to achieve the 25 to 40% by 2020: this target is ambitious, though certainly possible.</p>
<p>Could you tell us which studies and who conducted them?</p>
<p>Thank you! Much appreciated!</p>
<p>Take care,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zoe</title>
		<link>http://adoptanegotiator.org/2009/06/12/number-crunch-where-canadas-emission-targets-stand/comment-page-1/#comment-161</link>
		<dc:creator>Zoe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:33:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptanegotiator.org/?p=1021#comment-161</guid>
		<description>Hi Julie,

Apologies for a delayed reply.

Canada did submit new text related to adaptation, technology and mitigation, but those have not been made public.

Canada committed to provide its “fair share” of financial support for climate action in developing countries.

New analysis from the Pembina Institute shows that Canada’s contribution would be about 3–4% of the total. Using conservative estimates, Canada’s “fair share” works out to approximately $2–6 billion per year.


I hope that helps,
Zoe</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Julie,</p>
<p>Apologies for a delayed reply.</p>
<p>Canada did submit new text related to adaptation, technology and mitigation, but those have not been made public.</p>
<p>Canada committed to provide its “fair share” of financial support for climate action in developing countries.</p>
<p>New analysis from the Pembina Institute shows that Canada’s contribution would be about 3–4% of the total. Using conservative estimates, Canada’s “fair share” works out to approximately $2–6 billion per year.</p>
<p>I hope that helps,<br />
Zoe</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julie Erickson</title>
		<link>http://adoptanegotiator.org/2009/06/12/number-crunch-where-canadas-emission-targets-stand/comment-page-1/#comment-160</link>
		<dc:creator>Julie Erickson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:09:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptanegotiator.org/?p=1021#comment-160</guid>
		<description>Hi Zoe -

Any word on where Canada stands on Annex II obligations? Has their negotiator made any statements about funds for adaptation/tech transfer/REDD?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Zoe -</p>
<p>Any word on where Canada stands on Annex II obligations? Has their negotiator made any statements about funds for adaptation/tech transfer/REDD?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Number Crunch: Where Canada&#8217;s Emission Targets Stand &#171; It&#8217;s Getting Hot In Here</title>
		<link>http://adoptanegotiator.org/2009/06/12/number-crunch-where-canadas-emission-targets-stand/comment-page-1/#comment-159</link>
		<dc:creator>Number Crunch: Where Canada&#8217;s Emission Targets Stand &#171; It&#8217;s Getting Hot In Here</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:27:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adoptanegotiator.org/?p=1021#comment-159</guid>
		<description>[...] Continue reading &#8220;Number Crunch: Where Canada&#8217;s Emission Targets Stand&#8221; here&amp;#8230... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Continue reading &#8220;Number Crunch: Where Canada&#8217;s Emission Targets Stand&#8221; here&amp;#8230&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
