Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
I'm saying that our impact is understandable, not negligble. We are a gigantic country, which is intrinsically inefficient. We are a frigid climate, requiring an extreme amount of heating. Our main industries are dirty - manufacturing, oil and gas, mining and forestry. It is completely expected that our per capita emissions are higher.
On a personal level, I guarantee that I have a smaller footprint than most people. I live in a highrise, walk to work, and drive about 3000km a year. I care a lot personally and have adjusted my lifestyle to minimize my carbon. The oil and gas industry (and the other dirty industries), from what I've seen, also work extremely hard from both a regulatory and mandated from pmanagement to minimize emissions. We are intrinsically inefficient on the emissions front and I don't think we should have to sacrifice even more.
|
Agreed. I would like to know what the targets are that the article was mentioning. It's easy to shame Harper on not endorsing it. But if the targets end up putting us at a large disadvantage to other countries due to our size, population, and industries, is it worthwhile? There needs to be better info on what the targets are and how this is going to affect us before we start just signing agreements to placate the rest of the G7.