Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I don't think it takes much proof to look at a country's annual expenditure on things like Kyoto versus their reduction point in carbon emissions.
Money is being spent, and results are not being seen.
But other than that I agree, I'm certainly not in favour of doing nothing regardless of how much water the science holds. But pass the buck down to the consumers, the people with choices that put money back in the wheel.
Move up the light bulb ban, weight fees on garbage, Fotze's instant water value meter in your house ... these effect change. The macro stuff simply has not to this point.
|
I think two things are incorrect here. First, many countries have achieved substantial cuts. Most of Europe, Japan, etc. are on target to meet or very nearly meet Kyoto. They seem to have done it with little real impact on their economies, which is rather soundly ignored. Second, how exactly do you measure emission reductions when it is relative to a business as usual case that never actually happened, i.e. how much has Canada reduced emissions relative to if the Gov't had never spent a $ on Kyoto?
As for the rest, I think the way to address emissions is to price pollution for everyone. If GHG costs $30/tonne and every energy product consumed was charged this fee, the economy would adapt. Further, if these taxes collected were used to directly and proportionately offset personal and corporate income tax rather than put into a gov't run fund that pees money away by choosing which projects to support, the economy would quickly adapt. If $30/tonne does not meet the target, up the price to $45. The price that achieves the reduction goal is the most efficient way to actually get emissions down, rather than voluntary feel good moves and support for technologies that may or may not pan out.