Kyoto: Can it be done?

[Burninator]

How is Kyoto going to cost Alberta thousands of jobs?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

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

Actually, the levees were built to withstand force 3s, cause they didn't think it was worth it on the offchance a force 4 or 5 would hit it.

Human factors sure did create New Orleans... ineptitude and cheapness.

[WestEndFlamesFan]

If anyone is interested, here is David Suzuki's take:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_C...Kyoto/FAQs.asp

I found it interesting. Although, some of the viewpoints might be a bit suspect, the way that he says it, it sounds as if there are no downsides to joining, which I don't really agree with. But, Suzuki is way smarter than me.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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).

So if global warming was the cause of Katrina, please explain the previous hurricanes that have hit the area (with roughly the same stregnth) as Katrina.

2005 august 29th Hurricane Katrina hits just east with 125mph.
1915 press 28.11measured at Tulane university, 124mph gusts to 140mph 275 killed. By the time it reached New Orleans winds were around cat 2 status. A storm surge of 13 ft reported in lake Pontchatrain,near the city it was closer to 9ft.
1909 a hurricane just west kills 353 in louisiana sept causes 5 million in damage 110mph wind gusts.

These are just a few, the rest are found here:
http://www.hurricanecity.com/city/neworleans.htm

The last major Hurricane to hit the area was Betsy in 1965, 40 years ago.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The whole point of Kyoto is not to cheat on the test, but actually solve the problem!

I disagree.

I think the point of Kyoto is to "reward" those that are under their targets and "punish" those that are above the targets. This means redistribution of wealth.

If the point of Kyoto was to solve the problem, the credits would not be going towards another country but towards a technology fund to further the development of new and better technology.

[Winsor_Pilates]

No chance. Kyoto is sadly a dead issue IMO.

Kyoto has gone from being a step in the right direction to being nothing more then an excuse for the people who don't want to do anything.

It's now brought up as an example of why people don't want change, and the people who do want change should move past , because it's a non starter and actually pushes their cause backwards.

Kyoto has become a reason to do nothing.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Tell that to the people in New Orleans.

You're using one bad hurricane to support an argument? And then you're telling people to look at from a "scientific perspective"? Global warming is an issue that needs to be delt with, but supporting it like that is hardly scientific.

New Orleans was mostly due to poor infrastructure. Katrina didn't even directly hit it. If it had New Orleans would be under 30 ft more water that it already is.

On topic: Kyoto will be about as effective as a fix as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[blankall]

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.

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

This is part of the problem with Kyoto. Developing countries (3rd world is no loger used) do not have to comply with Kyoto, hence they do not have any credits to buy. So the only countries we can buy them from are eastern block countries (most notably Russia) who meet the requirements of development and have experienced an economic downturn leading to an excess of credits.

The closest we can come to buying developing nations credits is to earn credits by funding sustainability projects in developing nations. For instance, if Canada were to fund a green energy project in nigeria that would reduce nigeria's output by X tones, Canada would then recieve X tonnes as a credit.

I have no problem with helping developing nations develop green industries, I just do not see why Canada should bear the brunt of the cost. Meanwhile countries in Europe that have spent the last few centuries colonizing and pillaging the world have to do nothing. China, which counts as a developing nation and will soon have the largest green house gas output in the world, has to do nothing. The US who has not signed Kyoto has to do nothing. Canada is left with the task of both funding the Russian govt and disproportionately aiding the developing world.

I think Canada should abandon Kyoto all together, and look for ways of increasing sustainability on its own. It would be much more effective to put money into green technologies within our own borders, than to give the money to Russia and Putin.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Burninator

How is Kyoto going to cost Alberta thousands of jobs?

think about this statement for two seconds....

1) money will have to leave the economy to pay off Russia when Canada does not meet its targets

2) carbon emission levels are directly tied to industry. More specifically, in Alberta the oil industry is the greatest emitter of carbon gasses. In order to decrease level of emissions, we would have to do one of two things. 1) scale back the industry or 2) be lest cost effective with oil exploratoin. When companies are less cost effective that leads to less profits. When large companies have less profits, who goes first?

Both of these situations will involve a loss of thousands of jobs. I think it is a sacrifice Canada may have to make at some point. However, it is totally unfair that Canada should have to make the sacrifice while everyone else does nothing. Also, I do not want to see one hard earned dollar go to Putin and his government.