Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch
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.
|
yes thanks to nuclear power which countries like France (80%), Japan etc get most of their energy and have been prior to kyoto, so it's no suprise it has had little effect on their ecomomy...a country like the US gets about 20% of its energy from nuclear sources.....but hey the same people protesting about cutting emissions are protesting against nuclear power
some images from live earth
