A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
I have always been somewhat of a devil's advocate, so my nature tells me that if everyone's saying climate change will be awful for Canadians, then there's an opposite POV as well.
|
|
|
G
ganjavih
Guest
Even if we assume climate change were to cause flooding in the future, how much impact would implementing Kyoto really have on climate change? It would cost us billions and really only reduce global emissions of CO2 by a miniscule amount. Perhaps it would delay the flooding by a few years? That's the problem I have with it. There must be a better way.
B
bizorky
Guest
Your point is taken, but when dealing with potential outcomes that are yet to be completely understood, it is usually prudent to err on the side of caution.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
ganja:
Kyoto is not designed to solve the problem - it is the first step in doing so. Opposition to it as practiced by many quarters has nothing to do with it being ineffective - but more as a front against any sort of emissions reduction in general.
AoD
Kyoto is not designed to solve the problem - it is the first step in doing so. Opposition to it as practiced by many quarters has nothing to do with it being ineffective - but more as a front against any sort of emissions reduction in general.
AoD
A
afransen TO
Guest
There was always plans for another round of cuts, starting after Kyoto came into force. Unfortunately the outlook on that is looking rather grim, with N. America abrogating the treaty.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
Unless you can force the USA, China and the Indian Subcontinent to cut their emissions, any plan to reduce emissions will fail to acheive any results.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
I don't call any amount of decline in CO2 emissions "failure to achieve any results".
AoD
AoD
C
cacruden
Guest
Kyoto was a political vehicle to pretend that they were doing something -- while doing practically nothing. It was a game that governments of the day were playing -- while most democratic governments knew that when it actually came due -- they would be retired.
As far as the "government cuts" that may or may not happen.... In Canada we have a bunch of governments that have created a bunch of feel good programs that did little other than waste money..... the proof is that even though our government "was working towards Kyoto" the results were worse than the government (USA) that had not signed it.
As far as the "government cuts" that may or may not happen.... In Canada we have a bunch of governments that have created a bunch of feel good programs that did little other than waste money..... the proof is that even though our government "was working towards Kyoto" the results were worse than the government (USA) that had not signed it.
A
afransen TO
Guest
Apparently much of the huge increase in CO_2 emissions comes from the Alberta oilpatch and Ontario's increased reliance on fossil fuel electricity generation.
That said, I think it shouldn't be too difficult to work on CO_2 emissions reductions. Instead of operating on the principle that corporations or industries "deserve" to emit a certain amount of CO_2, and should be rewarded directly for reducing their output, we should move towards taxing every tonne of formerly sequestered CO_2 emitted (ie, not biomass) and using the proceeds to reduce the tax burden on relatively beneficial activities such as corporate income and capital investments.
And if the government had control over it, it could easily manage price vs. need to meet targets. It would also be readily extended to meet further cuts in emissions.
Harper, of course, won't do this, as the Alberta oilpatch has much to lose from this. Quebec, and probably even Ontario would be on-board, as it would be net-beneficial for most corporations in Ontario.
It's by no means impossible, as some people say. It requires some political will. The savings can be found, if we were only given some incentive to do so.
That said, I think it shouldn't be too difficult to work on CO_2 emissions reductions. Instead of operating on the principle that corporations or industries "deserve" to emit a certain amount of CO_2, and should be rewarded directly for reducing their output, we should move towards taxing every tonne of formerly sequestered CO_2 emitted (ie, not biomass) and using the proceeds to reduce the tax burden on relatively beneficial activities such as corporate income and capital investments.
And if the government had control over it, it could easily manage price vs. need to meet targets. It would also be readily extended to meet further cuts in emissions.
Harper, of course, won't do this, as the Alberta oilpatch has much to lose from this. Quebec, and probably even Ontario would be on-board, as it would be net-beneficial for most corporations in Ontario.
It's by no means impossible, as some people say. It requires some political will. The savings can be found, if we were only given some incentive to do so.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
cacruden:
Political vehicle it maybe, but it is also a binding treaty for the signatories. Inability to meeting the requirements are the fault of the governments in question, not the treaty itself.
That, in addition to the points afransen raised, points to the incompetence in the federal government's ability to deal with the issue. It does not however address the validity of the issue itself, however.
I've noticed that for all the talk about how Kyoto does nothing, few of the so called "right" does anything to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emission, other than vague promises that efficiency will somehow came about and offers solutions (besides questioning the basic science behind the various warming scenarios in a sotto voce). Flawed or otherwise, is one arguing that the goals of Kyoto, which is a modest reduction of emissions as a beginning, shouldn't even be met? I cannot wait to listen to what the various "Made in Canada" solution propounded by Harper et al, sans benchmarks, will achieve.
AoD
Political vehicle it maybe, but it is also a binding treaty for the signatories. Inability to meeting the requirements are the fault of the governments in question, not the treaty itself.
That, in addition to the points afransen raised, points to the incompetence in the federal government's ability to deal with the issue. It does not however address the validity of the issue itself, however.
I've noticed that for all the talk about how Kyoto does nothing, few of the so called "right" does anything to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emission, other than vague promises that efficiency will somehow came about and offers solutions (besides questioning the basic science behind the various warming scenarios in a sotto voce). Flawed or otherwise, is one arguing that the goals of Kyoto, which is a modest reduction of emissions as a beginning, shouldn't even be met? I cannot wait to listen to what the various "Made in Canada" solution propounded by Harper et al, sans benchmarks, will achieve.
AoD
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
Until China, India and the USA decide to cut their emissions, anything Canada does or does not do is not going to affect global climate change. It's akin to a sole Canadian standing in a massive herd of Brazilian cattle, refusing to fart in order to spare the world from methane exposure, meanwhile two hundred thousands farting cattle surround you.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
That's akin to saying that unless everyone else doesn't litter, whether one litters or not doesn't make a difference to the environment, and thus justifies littering as a personal course of action. It's the quintessential in the fallacy of two wrongs - and when applied at the global level, downright suicidal.
AoD
AoD
A
afransen TO
Guest
We should do it as an example, and to demonstrate that it really isn't that hard. Besides, there are ample energy savings to be had here, which become more and more important and petroleum becomes more and more expensive.
Cutting down on GHGs need not be an entirely bad news story for the economy.
Cutting down on GHGs need not be an entirely bad news story for the economy.
C
cacruden
Guest
Higher petroleum prices will drive more research on alternatives, but there is no guarantee that oil prices will remain at this level over the long run.
The current governments do very little -- so cutting those programs is not a step backwards environmentally.
Most of the important areas of conservation/polution are at the provincial responsibility level (except for performance requirements for cars).
Small things that can be done:
- Investment in public transit for larger urban centres (the better it becomes the more people that could be attracted to public transit -- but it has it's limits because of historic development decisions).
- Flow control -- congestion pricing aimed at limiting congestion and improving flow of highways (if you spend an extra 30 minutes idling in traffic -- that is extra polution).
- Ongoing and pre-known polution requirement increases (in conjunction with California -- they tend to be the driving force here) -- this will of course hurt north american car producers more than the Japanese ones
- Investment in new Nuclear power plants (alternate sources are nice but limited)
Forget about Kyoto.
The current governments do very little -- so cutting those programs is not a step backwards environmentally.
Most of the important areas of conservation/polution are at the provincial responsibility level (except for performance requirements for cars).
Small things that can be done:
- Investment in public transit for larger urban centres (the better it becomes the more people that could be attracted to public transit -- but it has it's limits because of historic development decisions).
- Flow control -- congestion pricing aimed at limiting congestion and improving flow of highways (if you spend an extra 30 minutes idling in traffic -- that is extra polution).
- Ongoing and pre-known polution requirement increases (in conjunction with California -- they tend to be the driving force here) -- this will of course hurt north american car producers more than the Japanese ones
- Investment in new Nuclear power plants (alternate sources are nice but limited)
Forget about Kyoto.
A