Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
1) Global vs Per Capita: You cannot discuss one without the other. With growing populations across the globe, the ONLY way to reduce global emissions is by reducing per capita emissions. Secondly, it puts Canada's contribution to global emissions into perspective. We can have a larger impact on global emissions than any other comparably sized country. Saying Per capita doesn't matter is simply a way to abdicate responsibility.
2) the tree thing.. it's not a conservative talking points, but it's a dumb one, that I've heard a lot of conservative people use. To simplify, unless your bio mass of trees is increasing, or you are sequestering the carbon from leaves falling off trees or trees dying every year (unlikely in the coniferous boreal forrest), then the trees are not having much of an effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
We have fewer trees now than we did before we started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere, ie our trees are taking less CO2 out than the were before, and we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. That's not a net positive for us.
In the future, instead of using that argument, you can just say "I don't understand how equilibrium works"
3) Great, lets help China. How do we pay for that? I suggest some sort of tax, but I'm open to your take on it.
|
1) I disagree. Per Capita is a way to deflect the problem, smoke and mirrors. The measure that matters is a countries portion of global emissions, nothing else matters when the goal is reducing global emissions. If you want to change the problem to be that Canada's per Capita emissions need to be reduced, that is a different problem that isn't going to solve the global emissions problem, and a tax on essential fuels without providing an affordable alternative is just theft and won't fix the per Capita problem either.