Kyoto? your opinion

[Tiger]

I was wondering what everyones opinion on Kyoto is? I do not want anybody to argue anybodys points I just want to hear what people think and why.

For myself I agree with the reasoning behind it, we do need to stop/control pollution. But I don't believe CO2 is the problem we should be concentrating on. I Believe there are a whole lot of environmental issues we should be concentrating on that should get some attention first. And for the record I do not believe Globel Warming is as big of an issue as everyone thinks, but at least people are thinking about the environment (at least until the next round of elections are over). And I do believe that the increase in CO2 in are atmosphere is more than just caused by humans (but I do agree that humans have to reduce all there pollution including which does include CO2)

Again I just want to hear people opinions and why?

[Incinerator]

I could write a 5000 word essay on it, (wait, I did, back in my undergrad years...) but in here I'm just going to sum it up as: NEP II, Internatioal edition.

[metallicat]

As long as the accord allows Canada to buy air credits from Russia, and figuratively ship their pollution half way across the world, it seems useless to me. And with the US and China not signing on, again, what's the point!?

[Kerplunk]

I think, although the hearts in the right place, it doesn't seem like the best way to do it.

First, just targeting CO2 emissions will probably do more harm than good, since there are other contributing gases that probably should go with it (don't remember which though).

Second, some of the biggest emitters didn't sign on, so it's largely ineffective anyway.

Third, setting targets instead of having an actual plan tends to fail. Leaving it up to individual countries only hinders progress towards the goal.

It doesn't help that the Liberals sign the thing, waffle over an actual plan for a few years, then turn around and try to tell the current government to come up with a plan. If you commit to it, they should have gotten a plan together right away.

EDIT: Oh ya, and the idea of CO2 credits sounds wrong. If your gonna reduce the pollution, reduce it, don't pass it around...Sounds like a new currency.

[Devils'Advocate]

#1 - Kyoto does not go anywhere near far enough. The cuts being asked for in Kyoto will have only a negligible effect on climate change. Kyoto asked for a 5% cut in CO2 when that needed to have an extra zero on the end. (http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/21261/)

#2 - I agree with everyone here that says that international trading of credits is wrong. You shouldn't be able to buy yourself out of your responsibilities.

#3 - The lack of controls on the developing world make the whole thing moot. If China and India increases their CO2 production at the same rate that the developed world drop theirs, we are no better off. There needs to be a stronger, stricter agreement that addresses all countries.

#4 - We shouldn't need Kyoto. We shouldn't need governments agreeing to come back and tell their countries what to do. People, as individuals, should do the right thing. Businesses should do the right thing. Given that 90% of climatologists agree that humans are influencing the climate via the greenhouse effect, the prudent move would be for people to evaluate their lives and find ways to cut their CO2 production. Buy a hybrid car, or better yet, use public transportation. Wear a sweater instead of turning up the heat. Use alternative energy whenever possible. We shouldn't need agreements like Kyoto to tell us to be good environmental citizens. We should be doing it because it's the right thing to do.

[blankall]

umm didnt we have a topic on this yesterday?

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=37963

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

First, just targeting CO2 emissions will probably do more harm than good, since there are other contributing gases that probably should go with it (don't remember which though).

Quite true. Methane is barely given a mention during the global warming debate even though methane is 25% more powerful than CO2 at trapping gasses.

The sources of methane are (by order of magnitude):
- organics decaying at landfills (1/4 of methane produced) - solution: mass composting programs similar to Halifax. No organics should be going to the landfill; they should all be composted and recycled back into the soil. At the very least, the methane should be collected off the landfills and burned for energy. Yes, it creates CO2, but as stated above, methane is far worse.
- Natural gas (1/5th of methane produced) - solution: Reduce use of natural gas. Same as reducing gas and oil use to reduce CO2, we need to find alternative energy sources.
- Enteric Fermentation (cow farts - 1/5th of methane produced) - solution: less cows. Cows have multiple stomaches and a complex digestive system built for hard-to-digest matter like grass.. but the byproduct of his digestive system is a lot of gas. I became a vegetarian over 15 years ago, not for health reasons, not for animal rights reasons, but because I knew methane was a greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. The data was clear then. It's much clearer now. A reduction in beef consumption is very important to fighting global warming.
- Coal mining, animal manure decomposition, wastewater treatment produce most of the rest.

I don't mean to throw this thread off-topic, but you are correct that methane and nitrous oxide are being given a free ride from Kyoto. But that doesn't stop each of us from doing our part to reduce these other gases. I helped groups like the "It's Not Garbage" coallition push the municipal government to start the composting program in Halifax.

It's funny how all these things seem to go hand in hand to solve themselves. Where does nitrous oxide come from? Fertilizers used for agriculture. If we composted our organics rather than sending them to landfills what is produced? Fertilizers for agriculture.

[guzzy]

The idea behind Kyoto is a good one but the economic impact is devastating. When energy producing countries like the US and AUstralia don't sign an agreement like this, Canada should have walked as well. The gov't needs to start offering tax breaks and incentives to BIG OIL to reduce the CO2. There are engineered alternatives to reducing CO2 for the major CO2 producers but the cost is unreal. If the Canadian govt was smart they would dump a tonne of money into supporting the large EPCs and oil and gas producers and work with them to create a cost effective reduction option and sell the technology to the rest of the world. It is not that much different than the coal to oil program GE created. They created technology that turns coal into oil but it costs $35 US/BBL. Any company can put up the infrastructure to build a plant but they have to pay GE to use the technology. That is brilliant. We as Canadians need to focus our attention in that direction and sell technology that reduces emissions to the rest of the world.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

#1 - Kyoto does not go anywhere near far enough. The cuts being asked for in Kyoto will have only a negligible effect on climate change. Kyoto asked for a 5% cut in CO2 when that needed to have an extra zero on the end. (http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/21261/)

#2 - I agree with everyone here that says that international trading of credits is wrong. You shouldn't be able to buy yourself out of your responsibilities.

#3 - The lack of controls on the developing world make the whole thing moot. If China and India increases their CO2 production at the same rate that the developed world drop theirs, we are no better off. There needs to be a stronger, stricter agreement that addresses all countries.

#4 - We shouldn't need Kyoto. We shouldn't need governments agreeing to come back and tell their countries what to do. People, as individuals, should do the right thing. Businesses should do the right thing. Given that 90% of climatologists agree that humans are influencing the climate via the greenhouse effect, the prudent move would be for people to evaluate their lives and find ways to cut their CO2 production. Buy a hybrid car, or better yet, use public transportation. Wear a sweater instead of turning up the heat. Use alternative energy whenever possible. We shouldn't need agreements like Kyoto to tell us to be good environmental citizens. We should be doing it because it's the right thing to do.

I agree with all of this--and this is what makes me a bit of a pessimist about the problem in general. Kyoto was always a bit like building a fence around half your property--and with the U.S. unwilling to play along, it's even worse.

The problem is, if they won't even agree to half a fence, how will we get anybody to sign on to a whole one?

[Calgaryborn]

Lets just work on cleaner air and water. Our reliance on fossil fuels
will diminish because of supply and demand factors. How many people
quit smoking because they didn't like the rising expense. Health concerns
should be enough but ask a few ex-smokers if price wasn't a large factor.

I see this whole global warming issue as an excuse for governments to
tax and for big companies to get tax breaks and funding to re-tool. A re-tooling which supply factors would have forced anyways.

O for the record: I quit smoking when you still could get a pack(25) for
$2.10 at the Mohawk. Most places were $2.25.

[Flames in 07]

Air emmissions is a global problem, not a national problem.

The result of Kyoto will not decrease global emissions on a global scale. It will however run the gas of gasoline to a point where $1.00 will be the good ole days as these silly credit costs get passed on down.

[Resolute 14]

Kyoto is not an environmental treaty, but a wealth redistibution treaty. The idea is to guilt the wealthy nations into cutting back (noble cause, no doubt), but the targets are such that their economies will either be slowed or put into recession, while developing nations get to pollute all they want while they catch up.

Canada needs to take a stronger stance on the environment, but it does not need Kyoto to do it. All Canada needs to do to meet its Kyoto requirements is write a $50 billion cheque to China.