Kyoto: Can it be done?

[Slava]

The point of this thread is not whether we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or who is the cause of the emissions. I'm wondering whether this could even be accomplished to be in line with the kyoto protocol? I also wonder what the impact would be on the global situation (Canada's impact) and what the impact would be on our economy.

(None of my questions are meant to be cynical; I just don't know. I know that there are a lot of smart people on this site, and many who know this topic though, which is what I would like to read!)

[Table 5]

A single country put a man on the moon in less than a decade. That same country built a bomb that could annihilate a city off a map in less than 5. Clearly amazing stuff can be accomplished if the will (and urgency) is there.

If people truly put the effort behind it, new solutions can be discovered. Governments and companies need to stop whining and dragging their feet, and truly put their backs into it. Good news is, whoever comes up with the best solutions (and of course there can't just be one), will make some pretty good bank.

Personally, if i was Alberta, I would be putting MAJOR investment dollars (especially now that things are going good) into researching alternative energy sources. This needs to be looked at as an opportunity, not as a roadblock. If we want to be as important in 50 years as we are now, we don't have a choice but to move forward. Someone will have to step and become the center for a new energy movement, might as well be us. People can continue to stick their head in the sand, but the world will keep going forward and new technologies being discovered that will eventually outdo oil. Calgary has to be a part of that movement. If not, this city has a great shot at becoming Detroit v2.0.

[metallicat]

Canada can meet their targets, sure. They just have to ship some of their air over to Russia in the form of clean air credits.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Slava

The point of this thread is not whether we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or who is the cause of the emissions. I'm wondering whether this could even be accomplished to be in line with the kyoto protocol? I also wonder what the impact would be on the global situation (Canada's impact) and what the impact would be on our economy.

(None of my questions are meant to be cynical; I just don't know. I know that there are a lot of smart people on this site, and many who know this topic though, which is what I would like to read!)

I've done a lot of research on kyoto lately... Canada got a raw deal.

Basically, Canada has to reduce greenhouse gases by 6%. UK etc. have the same quota (australia and the US have NOT signed). The only difference is Canada's population has grown dramatically since 1990, while most other 1st world signatories have stayed stagnant or shrunk.

Russia has a 0% commitment in reduction. Russia's economy has shrunk since 1990. So has its population. This combined with new cleaner technologies gives Russia a massive suplus in credits. Basically Canada due to its population increase (more people means more gasses emmited) will be one of the few countries that probably won't make its quota, and we will end up buying credits from Russia. Basically, we are going to end up funding wars in Chechnya, by giving money directly to the Putin govt. Its called the "hot air" theory. It is aptly named.

Can we do it? yes, but at a huge economic cost. A compromise no other signatory country has to make. I have no problem with reducing green house gasses. Its clearly something we need on a global scale. The reductions should, however, be done in a fair way. The quota system as it stands is absolute garbage. It needs to be redistributed to take into account population and economic trends. Its should be based on an economic output per unit formula as opposed to the present system. Also, it does not make sense why China and India are totally off the hook. Yes parts of those countries are "developing", but hte parts of those countries that are actually goign to be emitting are anything but. Cities like Shanghai, Hong Kong, have fully developed regions and should, therefore, be subject to some sort of quota.

The current Kyoto scheme may get people thinking about green house reduction, but is totally ineffective as it stands now. As people implement new technologies (which is something they would do anyway) countries with stagnant populations should see a decrease in output. Basically the EU is doing absolutely nothing, and will end up tooting their horn about how they hit their quota. Meanwhile Canada will end up taking the brunt of criticism.

[mykalberta]

Anything is possible, what are you willing to give up for it to happen is the question.

Man on the moon as a race against the eveil Commies.

Nuke was in response to an efficiently mad Germany.

The consequences of Kyoto are simply not harsh enough to get people to act because its not "touchable" it doesnt affect their lives and likely wont strongly affect them before they die.

Its the same argument as paying off the debt for future generations, but extremely difficult to get an apathetic public to get behind it.

MYK

[psicodude]

Personally, I think it will take a major event to get us to the point where real change can happen. Maybe a New Orleans type of devastation in L.A., New York, or Vancouver.

[mykalberta]

Blankall, are there no 3rd world countries that we cold use the threat of ending grain shipments etc as a carrot to sell us credits ont he cheap? Is China not another one which has extra credits that we sell oil too, why not say sell us credits on the cheap or we cut off the oil exports etc.

Canada needs to have more muscle on the world stage. We are the only first world resource powerhouse and we act like sally across the street rather than Bully Jim's best bud. I dont get it.

MYK

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The consequences of Kyoto are simply not harsh enough to get people to act because its not "touchable" it doesnt affect their lives and likely wont strongly affect them before they die.

Tell that to the people in New Orleans.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Blankall, are there no 3rd world countries that we cold use the threat of ending grain shipments etc as a carrot to sell us credits ont he cheap? Is China not another one which has extra credits that we sell oil too, why not say sell us credits on the cheap or we cut off the oil exports etc.

Buying credits that wont be used up doesnt solve the actual issue though, it just shifts the blame. The whole point of Kyoto is not to cheat on the test, but actually solve the problem!

[Table 5]

Kyoto is Canada's chance to become a leader on the world stage again, just like it did with the UN Peacekeepers half a decade ago. If we truly want more muscle and be respected on the world stage, we have to make some tough choices along the way. Nobody said saving the enviroment would be easy.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Tell that to the people in New Orleans.

You dont think there have been class 5 hurricanes before?

New Orleans built a city on a flood plain below the water line with a levy system that would should have been able to handle it (maybe maybe not) had it not had quite possibly the most corrumpt politicians/emergency workers in North America and quite frankly got what was likely long overdue.

Are you going to blame global warming if an earthquake separates the San Andreas fault?

Is the Tsunami that ravaged the terrorist haven of Indonesia Global Warmings fault or is it likely things like that have happened before except we just never had the media coverage cover it like a pack of wild dogs before?

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Buying credits that wont be used up doesnt solve the actual issue though, it just shifts the blame. The whole point of Kyoto is not to cheat on the test, but actually solve the problem!

If it were to solve the problem then there wouldnt be a credit system to bankroll lazy 3rd world countries - it would be a financial penalty enforced by UN membership.

MYK

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

You dont think there have been class 5 hurricanes before?

myk, i really really want to order you a subscription to the science magazine i used to work for. I want you to read it from a scientific perspective, as then i think you will truly understand why new orleans was not just a random act that can only be blamed on poor infrastructure (although that was an issue as well of course).

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

If it were to solve the problem then there wouldnt be a credit system to bankroll lazy 3rd world countries - it would be a financial penalty enforced by UN membership.

MYK

3rd world countries are having trouble feeding their population, never mind having the power to take the lead on these issues. People here clamor for more international power and respect, but countries like Canada need to take on more responsibilities if they truly want to lead.

Yes it's not completely fair, but what hell in life is? Yes will take the risks, but we have the chance to come out of it on top in terms of investments, research and reputation. If we take the initiative, we can become the Silicon Valley of the sustainable energy movement. Then we become the top dogs of the industry and cash in.

Man, sometimes I feel like we Canadians are the biggest pussies around. All we do is whine that nobody respects us and nobody pays attention, but refuse to take initiatives when the opportunities arise. No wonder people leave the country to find places that will allow them to fulfill their dreams. It's an amazing country, I just wish we had a pair to take on a challenge.

[Table 5]

Besides, if the US doesnt want to be involved, screw em. They are not a country to mimick these days anyway. America of late has lost the drive and entrepreneurial that truly made it a great place....now it just seems to coast on it's past accomplishments. They have become a reactionary country instead of one that initiates positive change....that is not the sign of a world leader.

[mykalberta]

You said alot in few posts so here you go:

(1) I am no mind reader so I didnt search for the science magazine "You used to work for"

But a quick google search finds what normally is found on similar websites:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp

Are Category 4 and 5 hurricanes increasing in number?

All the websites that seem to have any credibility are all the same, they say there has been an increase yet how do they know? I doubt in the 1940s when cars were first being invented that we could differentiate between a class 3 and class 4 etc so how do these scientists hold any credibility?

Unless someone can say that there has been a stark increase in Class 5 hurricanse since lets say the industrial revolution then they dont hold water.

Also, one question I do have is since you "used to work for a science magazine" I am thinking you might be able to answer 2 questions?

(1) Why is there a hole over the Antarctic (not alot of GHG emitted there even if you take wind currents into effect.
(2) Have scientists ever taken into account the reflection of the suns rays of the ice caps at both poles as to why those are where the holes are located. Example, why are there no holes above Europe (combined pollution is likely greater over Euorpe than NA given more mature population etc)

(2) My asking about 3rd world country pollution credits is merely to figure out ways around Kyoto. It has always been my believe that it was introduced by the largely Euro controlled UN as a way to distribute wealth from the US/Canada/Australia to the poorer countries.

I have never once disputed the fact that carbon emissions arent bad, I believe they along with other factors at play in Global Warming.

(3) If you do a search through similar minded posts you will see that I am not against an agressive Environmental Policy.

(a) Enforcing a E85 or bettger fuel standard by 2012
(b) Enforcing a cap on ALL INDUSTRIES carbon emissions with a influx of approx 10bil over 3 years to assist with technologies

Now my thinking has been more Alberta based as to what they can do since quite frankly I dont give 2 #####s what other provinces do. I would also like to do it just to say for once and for all to QC, ON, SK, MN etc to p!ss off with all your high and mighty Suzuki esque rethtoric. Its really hypocritical for Provicnes who have gained through dirty emissions to now come down on Alberta when it is growing.

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Besides, if the US doesnt want to be involved, screw em. They are not a country to mimick these days anyway. America of late has lost the drive and entrepreneurial that truly made it a great place....now it just seems to coast on it's past accomplishments. They have become a reactionary country instead of one that initiates positive change....that is not the sign of a world leader.

Why would they want to lead a world dominated by a German-Franco-Belgium pact of steel alliance in which all 3 ruiling parties got their by campainging negatively against the US.

Sometimes when your kids are of age and are still brats, you send them out on their own with no help say see yah lata, come back when you grow up.

MYK

[Thunderball]

Can Canada adhere to Kyoto? Yes.

Should they? No. It'll cripple the economy and put thousands of people out of work.

Does that mean we should say screw the environment? Nope. There's cheaper and more effective ways to reduce emissions as well as more tangible pollutants on a less aggressive and mindless way. To me, Kyoto was/is a scheme to extract wealth from North America and Australia to the third world, which would also serve the purpose of strengthening the European Union relative to the US, under the guise of environmentalism. The law of diminishing returns means little when some of the best educated nations are struggling to make ends meet, let alone invest in green technologies. (Oh, except Europe, since it is much easier and cheaper for them to reach their targets... and they'll just happen to hold all the patents too... hmm...)

[wpgflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Can Canada adhere to Kyoto? Yes.

Should they? No. It'll cripple the economy and put thousands of people out of work.

Does that mean we should say screw the environment? Nope. There's cheaper and more effective ways to reduce emissions as well as more tangible pollutants on a less aggressive and mindless way. To me, Kyoto was/is a scheme to extract wealth from North America and Australia to the third world, which would also serve the purpose of strengthening the European Union relative to the US, under the guise of environmentalism. The law of diminishing returns means little when some of the best educated nations are struggling to make ends meet, let alone invest in green technologies. (Oh, except Europe, since it is much easier and cheaper for them to reach their targets... and they'll just happen to hold all the patents too... hmm...)

Well Said

[Shazam]

I blame Gary Bettman.