Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
The point of this thread is not whether we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or who is the cause of the emissions. I'm wondering whether this could even be accomplished to be in line with the kyoto protocol? I also wonder what the impact would be on the global situation (Canada's impact) and what the impact would be on our economy.
(None of my questions are meant to be cynical; I just don't know. I know that there are a lot of smart people on this site, and many who know this topic though, which is what I would like to read!)
|
I've done a lot of research on kyoto lately... Canada got a raw deal.
Basically, Canada has to reduce greenhouse gases by 6%. UK etc. have the same quota (australia and the US have NOT signed). The only difference is Canada's population has grown dramatically since 1990, while most other 1st world signatories have stayed stagnant or shrunk.
Russia has a 0% commitment in reduction. Russia's economy has shrunk since 1990. So has its population. This combined with new cleaner technologies gives Russia a massive suplus in credits. Basically Canada due to its population increase (more people means more gasses emmited) will be one of the few countries that probably won't make its quota, and we will end up buying credits from Russia. Basically, we are going to end up funding wars in Chechnya, by giving money directly to the Putin govt. Its called the "hot air" theory. It is aptly named.
Can we do it? yes, but at a huge economic cost. A compromise no other signatory country has to make. I have no problem with reducing green house gasses. Its clearly something we need on a global scale. The reductions should, however, be done in a fair way. The quota system as it stands is absolute garbage. It needs to be redistributed to take into account population and economic trends. Its should be based on an economic output per unit formula as opposed to the present system. Also, it does not make sense why China and India are totally off the hook. Yes parts of those countries are "developing", but hte parts of those countries that are actually goign to be emitting are anything but. Cities like Shanghai, Hong Kong, have fully developed regions and should, therefore, be subject to some sort of quota.
The current Kyoto scheme may get people thinking about green house reduction, but is totally ineffective as it stands now. As people implement new technologies (which is something they would do anyway) countries with stagnant populations should see a decrease in output. Basically the EU is doing absolutely nothing, and will end up tooting their horn about how they hit their quota. Meanwhile Canada will end up taking the brunt of criticism.