Baird: Kyoto would lead to economic collapse

[calculoso]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

Environment Minister John Baird attacked the Kyoto accord on Thursday as a costly measure that would lead to economic collapse.

"I think that we must strike a balance in order to act responsibly, we must take bold measures for the environment and we must let our economy go forward so Canadians can keep their jobs and build a promising future," Baird told a Senate Committee in French on Thursday.

....

Baird told the committee that analysis from economists shows implementing the Kyoto Protocol would mean:

* Gasoline will cost more than $1.60 a litre over the 2008-to-2012 period
* 275,000 Canadians working today will lose their jobs by 2009
* Job loss will cause unemployment rates to rise 25 per cent by 2009
* The decline of economic activity in the range of $51 billion

....

However, a study released in late February by the group Friends of the Earth and Corporate Knights magazine put the cost of Kyoto compliance at $100 billion over four years, which they said would be about $20 per week for a family of four.

$100 billion over four years as an estimate from an environmental group? That's insane!

[Winsor_Pilates]

Fear mongering about economic doom. I'm not willing to give Kyoto the blame.
Econmies have colapsed in the past too, and there was no Kyoto then, so I'm not willing to blame any financial problems on Kyoto now. Gas prices have gone up before, and so has unemployment. How can he even proof that Kyoto has anything to do with economics? There's just too many variables that could be causing these economic price changes. Just because some "experts" say it, isn't enough for me to stop driving my SUV err... I mean turn my back on Kyoto

[jolinar of malkshor]

I dont want to comment on the numbers provided because I am not an economist. Having said that, thinking that implementing Kyoto will have little or no economic impact is just folly.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I dont want to comment on the numbers provided because I am not an economist. Having said that, thinking that implementing Kyoto will have little or no economic impact is just folly.

I know. I was being sarcastic and acting like those folly people who say the same things about global warming.

[killer_carlson]

well after undergrad and before law school I had a job as a junior/assistant/in-training/slave for a firm doing economic modelling of the costs of implementing Kyoto. This was in 2000. It was too expensive to do then so no one did anything about it.

To do it now, under this time frame? From my experience Baird is bang on.

The Liberals will be all over him about this because Alberta is seen to be the biggest polluter. The response though is this: What if we put similar Kyoto emission requirements on those industries or processes that pollute water. What would the response be to that?

Kyoto isn't the end all and be all of our environmental problems. It is a short term solution to a long term problem. Whether you are an environmentalist or a denier, the middle ground is that we should all demand from our governments and business we support or invest in, that they all strive to be more efficient.

Efficiency means less waste and a better use of the resources invested into the process. That means less input costs (you use less to get the same outcome) and less waste (whatever that is - CO2, Smog, landfill, water, noise, etc).

Interestingly, that idea came from a session I watch Dr. David Suzuki speak at. He's bang on that point. It makes sense for everyone.

[Ironhorse]

However, a study released in late February by the group Friends of the Earth and Corporate Knights magazine put the cost of Kyoto compliance at $100 billion over four years, which they said would be about $20 per week for a family of four.

$20 / week is all? $80 / month? What a bargain!

[ernie]

It may not be complete economic collapse but it also certainly isn't "only" $100 billion dollars either. It's probably somewhere in the middle:

A significant number of jobs would be lost, the economy would definitely take a signficant substantial hit, and it will cost billions and billions and billions of dollars.

All to implement a plan that really doesn't really guarantee the removal of one iota of pollution from the world.

The conservatives may take a bit of a beating on this short term, but I think an underlying message that a persons job may be in danger from the Kyoto plan counters it quite nicely. Especially if at the same time they do pass environmental measures. People have these views of an ideal world. However, most of those same people still put themselves first over anyone else let alone the environment. And really, any environmental improvement bills the conservatives table should in the end pass because the I can't imagine the Liberals or NDP voting against improvement measuers even if it isn't to the extent they want. I think they'd be foolish to campaign on the environment as in the end no matter what voters say is important to them during the campaign the large majority vote for who they think will leave the most money in their pockets.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

$20 / week is all? $80 / month? What a bargain!

Yeah... $1000 a year for a family of 4.... hopefully they're still working and can afford it.

Thats a pretty big hit to our economy... especially since Canada only produces about 2% of global greenhouse gasses.

China produces about 15% (and it's increasing dramatically every day as there country moves more and more into heavy manufacturing) and they're doing nothing! China's a cesspit compared to Canada.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Yeah... $1000 a year for a family of 4.... hopefully they're still working and can afford it.

Thats a pretty big hit to our economy... especially since Canada only produces about 2% of global greenhouse gasses.

China produces about 15% (and it's increasing dramatically every day as there country moves more and more into heavy manufacturing) and they're doing nothing! China's a cesspit compared to Canada.

Not entirely fair. When you look at a per capita basis, Canadians are one of the worst.

I just wrote a massive paper on Kyoto, and I think the problem is the focus people are taking. Everyone is obsessed w/ strangling the oil industry which only accounts for less than 10% of emissions. One of the biggest contributors is public transportation and driving at just below 40%.

Everyone is sitting on their hands waiting for the government to do something and destroy industry when we could accomplish the same things in our homes and by buying more fuel efficient cars/riding transit more often.

[Slava]

I'm just glad that John Baird has reached this conclusion after 6 months on the job...all the scientists studying this for the past 20 years can hardly agree on whether it exists or what causes it, but a junior minister can tell us this....

[Joe Nieuwendyk]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm just glad that John Baird has reached this conclusion after 6 months on the job...all the scientists studying this for the past 20 years can hardly agree on whether it exists or what causes it, but a junior minister can tell us this....

I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement that Kyoto does, in fact, exist.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Joe Nieuwendyk

I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement that Kyoto does, in fact, exist.

Nah, it's an urban myth that springs from a typo in an old newspaper where Tokyo was misspelled, but readers thought this was another, previously unknown Japanese city. Astute readers realized that it was too much a coincidence for two cities in the same country to have all the same letters, but still the myth endures. Sad, really.

[Mike F]

A bit of a follow up on Baird's announcement in the Globe and Mail:

"There would be just one way to make this happen: The government would need to manufacture a recession," Mr. Baird told the Senate environment committee.

But the report he presented also states that its calculations do not take into account the benefits of green technology infrastructure, or the jobs created by new investments in that technology. Neither does it consider the impact of monetary policies the government could implement to diminish losses.

And, when pressed by senators, Mr. Baird was unable to present the figures the government used to forecast its bleak predictions.

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

$20 / week is all? $80 / month? What a bargain!

Yeah, to bad it's not averaged out among every Canadian and instead would be spread out to whoever gets laid off.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by Wookie

Yeah, to bad it's not averaged out among every Canadian and instead would be spread out to whoever gets laid off.

Like me.

Plus, as an added / ironic bonus, some university know-it-alls won't have jobs when they graduate as the industry they we going to work for has gone all 1929 (when they are laying people off, generally they don't make new hires). So they can join me at the unemployment office (or behind the counter at Taco Bell, where I can politely say, "told ya so".

But hey, at least we'll have colder winters. And more expensive gas.