Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch
Howso? Both are developed, both have seen economic growth, both are comparable economically and politically to Canada structurally, etc. What is the fundamental difference that allowed these countries to accomplish reductions without economic chaos which would not be possible here?
|
3 fundamental differences, - economy, geography, and weather.
Their economies do not require emissions growth to prosper. As you said, they disconnected previously, and good on them. We have not. Our economies are still built around emissions intensive energy. Nothing we need be proud of, but it's a fact.
These countries also have the benefit of much higher population densities and smaller geography. Auto use, transit, logisitics...all of these are huge emissions drivers and their ability to control them without changing their lifestyles or economies is much greater.
Finally, most of them do not need to heat their homes and buildings, or at least nowhere near the way we do.
Quote:
|
The part where the comparison breaks down is where we signed the same agreement they did, they took action and will likely meet their commitments while we crapped the bed (and atmosphere by extension). At least the US had the courtesy to actually drop out of the agreement before it proceeded to do little to nothing, whereas we have gone down the same path as this message board - i.e. no actual progress. It is acceptable and normal for this type of medium, but at a national level it is pitiful (across 3 different governments now - Chretien, Martin and Harper).
|
This I'd agree with. For image and ego reasons we wanted to hang with the cool kids promising lower emissions, but unlike them we had no hope of getting there without massive change.