Quote:
I agree with Shawnski, frankly this is lunacy.
Canada can't be compared with the UK, period. They have 60 million people in a space smaller than Edmonton to the US border. almost 1/3 of their population within the Greater London metro area. There are luxuries to being centralized like that. They are also not a primary industry based country, and that is the source of our pollution.
|
I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Britain had these exact same characteristics BEFORE they began to reduce their pollution, no? I would argue that it should be harder for an economy like Britain to adapt being that they were already quite efficient relative to Canada.
Quote:
|
I also thought Kyoto enaction would cost $100 billion... I guess we are learning what a promise from the PCs, err I mean "Conservative Party of Canada" means. Preston Manning must be pissed, all his effort and the "united right" is still the arrogant, median vote chasing, ideal-free Progressive Conservative party of years past.
|
I'm not sure where anyone gets numbers like these. $15/tonne is the high end of what companies can reduce emissions for (I've worked on one or two projects that did it for under $10/tonne, and on top of that it reduced their consumption of energy resulting in a net saving). Even if you use $15/tonne and assume absolutely no benefits, meeting Kyoto would cost about $3 billion per year. Put in perspective, this is less impact on the Canadian economy than the excess taxation the Alberta gov't collects each and every year (as judged by the surplus).