Quote:
Originally posted by Bingo@May 3 2005, 05:35 PM
I think regardless of what side you sit on when it comes to man's affect, and global warming I think we can all agree that a country shouldn't just rush into ratifying an accord with questionable data driving it.
That was the issue with Chretien. I'm all for protecting the environment even if it does effect industry but you had better make sure ..
a) the data is correct - the study that formed the basis of Kyoto has since been proven to be in error a fact admitted by the authors
b) the giant just south is on board (a great deal of Canadian air pollution is coming across the border)
c) your implemention will result in more than just buying credits from countries that don't need them.
Very messy attempt at "legacy" by our former Prime Minister, especially since Adscam has pretty much wiped out any other memories most will have of the man.
|
Fair enough.
But you've got to understand that the 'side' that needs action taken on this issue is probably becoming pretty exasperated, and throwing their weight behind Kyoto for no other reason than 'its something'.
Its got to be gosh darn difficult to get most of the countries in the world on the same page for a plan, and when one comes along, inconsistencies kaibosh it (or might). Kyoto may not be the absolute best way to solve the problem, but I've got a hunch its better than if we did nothing at all.
I'm all for those who believe Kyoto is an economic death-knell to come out with a better, effective resolution (it would help if it was also ratified by a few dozen important countries) to solve this problem. Seeing how hard it was to get Kyoto approved (and, again, it seems its not nearly comprehensively approved), I'm not sure if there will be a better treaty in the next 2-3 years. I haven't heard of any grand summits planned...