Kyoto is awesome

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The "pro environmental" as they were called tend to belch out their propaganda and expect big business and government to pay for the cost yet we see the urban sprawl of most Canadian cities while everyones driving around in their SUV. More would be done if the average Joe and Mary six pack decided to make some personal changes.

Anyone who does that (preach greeniness and also drive a Suburban to buy a carton of milk) is a hypocrite no doubt. Is that really all that common though? I don't think so. There can't be that many dummies around.

I agree, Joe and Mary have to make personal changes or we'll never get anywhere.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

Methane gas, coming mostly from cows is also a big producer of greenhouse gases.

Ban Beef!!

I get that you are only joking, but rumunants actually only account for about 50% of the methane indirectly associated with humans.

The other 50% come from mining natural gas, landfills, and burning biomass.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/017.htm

[MacDougalbry]

Originally Posted by Azure

Methane gas, coming mostly from cows is also a big producer of greenhouse gases.

Ban Beef!!

There is this thing called the "Conservation of Mass." The gasses produced by beef production are a zero sum gain from the gasses consumed by the growing of feed. Last time I checked, cows are not fed fossil fuels... but then again, who can keep track of what they feed cows these days. Maybe we should start feeding them people.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I don't think that the average "environmentalist" (to paint them with an extremely wide and unfair brush) has a good grasp about how much these solutions actually take. I hear "solve the solution no matter what", without even asking how much. They don't care about the cost, as it's coming out of the gov'ts pockets (without realizing it comes out of theirs too).

That is a pretty wide and unfair brush to paint the average "environmentalist" with. I'd consider myself an "average environmentalist" and I'm not that stupid.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I get that you are only joking, but rumunants actually only account for about 50% of the methane indirectly associated with humans.

The other 50% come from mining natural gas, landfills, and burning biomass.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/017.htm

Indeed I was joking. I agree with what you're saying.

Reason I brought it up? Couple days ago I was in debate about global warming and was researching on the internet. I found this site that thought global warming was going to kill us, and that we had to outlaw cows. Everyone was supposed to become a vegatarian.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The "pro environmental" as they were called tend to belch out their propaganda and expect big business and government to pay for the cost yet we see the urban sprawl of most Canadian cities while everyones driving around in their SUV. More would be done if the average Joe and Mary six pack decided to make some personal changes.

Exactly, that was what the one tonne challenge was all about. Now, don't get me wrong, I wasn't a big fan of the Liberals, but at least the one tonne challenge got people talking about the effects of pollution.

The problem with making the evil "pro-environmentalists" look bad, especially compared to big businesses, is that the environmentalists have absolutely, positively, nothing to gain from cutting down emissions or ratifying Kyoto - either than making the planet healthier and cleaner. It is probably one of the most unselfish social movements in history. These people, myself included, want a healthy environment for everybody, not just stockholders. And I know this sounds cheese, but I would hate my children and grandchildren to be brought up in a world without polar bears or clean air - but that's just me.

On the other hand, you have big business which have A LOT more money to counteract, a lot more influence of policy, and A LOT more money at stake by environmental movements. They have a selfish agenda where Kyoto will directly affect their profits. It isn't like environmentalists inheritantly hate cars or want people to lose their jobs in the oil industry and the economy to plummit just because we have nothing else to do.

It isn't an all or nothing deal. We aren't asking people to go back to the stone-age... well, maybe some tree-huggers are... I understand there has to be a balance between resources, industry, the environment and the economy. This is the base of Kyoto, cutting down, not cutting out.

Big business is starting to realize how efficient alternative sources of energy is. Wal Mart, for example, is starting to put solar panels on their stores and using a unique way of heating their stores by restructuring the heat that radiates from the back of those huge refrigeration units. Big business is starting to understand the economic benefits of a more sustainable lifestyle. A strong economy and a cleaner planet do not have to be opposites.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Anyone who does that (preach greeniness and also drive a Suburban to buy a carton of milk) is a hypocrite no doubt. Is that really all that common though? I don't think so. There can't be that many dummies around.

I agree, Joe and Mary have to make personal changes or we'll never get anywhere.

Well said.

Damnit, I hate Joe and Mary! It's all their fault!

Let's just kill them

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Exactly, that was what the one tonne challenge was all about. Now, don't get me wrong, I wasn't a big fan of the Liberals, but at least the one tonne challenge got people talking about the effects of pollution.

The problem with making the evil "pro-environmentalists" look bad, especially compared to big businesses, is that the environmentalists have absolutely, positively, nothing to gain from cutting down emissions or ratifying Kyoto - either than making the planet healthier and cleaner. It is probably one of the most unselfish social movements in history. These people, myself included, want a healthy environment for everybody, not just stockholders. And I know this sounds cheese, but I would hate my children and grandchildren to be brought up in a world without polar bears or clean air - but that's just me.

On the other hand, you have big business which have A LOT more money to counteract, a lot more influence of policy, and A LOT more money at stake by environmental movements. They have a selfish agenda where Kyoto will directly affect their profits. It isn't like environmentalists inheritantly hate cars or want people to lose their jobs in the oil industry and the economy to plummit just because we have nothing else to do.

It isn't an all or nothing deal. We aren't asking people to go back to the stone-age... well, maybe some tree-huggers are... I understand there has to be a balance between resources, industry, the environment and the economy. This is the base of Kyoto, cutting down, not cutting out.

Big business is starting to realize how efficient alternative sources of energy is. Wal Mart, for example, is starting to put solar panels on their stores and using a unique way of heating their stores by restructuring the heat that radiates from the back of those huge refrigeration units. Big business is starting to understand the economic benefits of a more sustainable lifestyle. A strong economy and a cleaner planet do not have to be opposites.

Agreed, but there are a lot of people out there that dont understand that there is a lot more to it than just changing. Big business is bound by what its clients want. Thats you and me. There hasnt been the push from the people for this kind of change and until there is they will be less likely to jump on.

The SUV was the most popular vehicle in the late 90's and early 00's. Car companies had hybrid SUV's but people wouldnt buy them because they didnt have enough power. Now that the price of gas is so high people are thinking twice. Some for environmental purposes, most because of their pocket book. The fact is unless people are willing to pay higher prices for new tech then it wont happen.

Its just like all these cloths factories in third world countries. people bitch and complain that home grown companies are getting outsourced but they are not willing to pay 10 bucks an hour for a Canadian or American to make the product. That would mean their $15 shirt would cost them $45.

Its really up to the people.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

In your ideal dream world, what would you do? What would be your plan?

Well, I'd prefer to stick in the real world. I would enact Kyoto, barring any other environmental strategic alternatives. Were others to pop up, I'd take a serious look at them and judge which is best.

Who says this has to be a mutually exclusive situation?

Well... it shouldn't. I'm using personal experience (hence; "I"), and it seems to me that more people I debate this stuff with are interested in retracting Kyoto than researching a new alternative.

Have you heard of any new alternatives? Cause I've certainly heard a lot of bashing Kyoto... It certainly should not be a mutually exclusive situation, but my personal experience points that way.

Essentially what you're saying is that "something is better than nothing". That is true. What a lot of others (including me) are saying is that something IS better than nothing, unfortunately Kyoto is not that something.

You even admit that Kyoto is not perfect, yet you do not want to put your ideas on the table and make another proposal. Others are doing the same thing and you are calling them on it. I'm going to call you on the same thing. Try coming up with your own solution instead of piggy-backing on someone else's. You'll find it's not as easy as you think.

I hear ya. I pick Kyoto. Its not perfect, but its the best we have. I don't think anyone in this thread is actually capable of, on their own, thinking of a new comprehensive environmental strategy. In fact a huge meeting was already conducted to try and create a strategy... Kyoto.

? 'Piggybacking' an existing strategy is better, as far as I'm concerned, than 'piggybacking' the 'lets do nothing' or 'lets trash Kyoto... and replace it with...' crowds. Like I've said ad nauseum, something has to be done, if not Kyoto, what? I seriously and eagerly await any other bodies out there to put forth an international solution. I have a job (as I'm sure the rest of you do), and can't spend the time/effort to do these things myself. Thats why I've chosen from the options in front of me (very minimal). When there are more options, maybe I'll change my tune.

As far as I'm concerned, we all have the same 3 choices on the table. Follow Kyoto, follow another strategy, or do nothing. So far I feel like I'm picking the first, and many others the last. I don't feel like I'm copping out by picking the 'best available' strategy presented to me. I'm just questioning those who blindly refute it, yakking about $ and hippies and cows.

[Agamemnon]

Yes, environmentalists are the propagandists and manipulators of the world... poor big business! Woe to the downtrodden wealthy industrialist!

[Resolute 14]

Some of the goals of Kyoto themselves are worthwhile, as is the benifit given by making an issue out of environmental change. Helping to change our habits - both buisness and consumer - is a good thing.

However, if we wish to achieve Kyoto's true aim, the only thing Canada needs to do is write a $50 billion cheque to China. Kyoto is more about wealth redistribution than it is the environment.

Kyoto may be the "best we have", but that doesnt mean it is a good or useful plan. Hell, it isn't even a plan in the first place, merely a set of rules and goals whos enforcement is dictated by how big your economy is.

Forget Kyoto, but dont forget the environment. We do not need Kyoto to come up with things like the one ton challenge.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Some of the goals of Kyoto themselves are worthwhile, as is the benifit given by making an issue out of environmental change. Helping to change our habits - both buisness and consumer - is a good thing.

However, if we wish to achieve Kyoto's true aim, the only thing Canada needs to do is write a $50 billion cheque to China. Kyoto is more about wealth redistribution than it is the environment.

Kyoto may be the "best we have", but that doesnt mean it is a good or useful plan. Hell, it isn't even a plan in the first place, merely a set of rules and goals whos enforcement is dictated by how big your economy is.

Forget Kyoto, but dont forget the environment. We do not need Kyoto to come up with things like the one ton challenge.

Exactly! Alot of that 12billion just goes to the environental lobbyists' anyways. I think Red mile stated that environmentalists have nothing to gain from Kyoto? have some more kool-aid. There is HUGE money to be had from government contracts etc.

My biggest problem with Kyoto/Global warming is that we are diverting environmental funds to a benign gas instead of worrying things that are alot more toublesome in my opinion: habitat conservation, toxic pollutants in our air, land and water. Clean water. forestry conservation, especiialy in the tropics.. etc etc.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That is a pretty wide and unfair brush to paint the average "environmentalist" with. I'd consider myself an "average environmentalist" and I'm not that stupid.

You're also one of the smarter ones. You appear to have the intelligence to equate the two. So many people are "Big business and governments need to fix it! I'm just one person, so what I do doesn't impact anything" (like your Joe and Mary example above).

This is a world where intelligence and common sense are a premium trait. It's a sad statement on reality, really.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well, I'd prefer to stick in the real world. I would enact Kyoto, barring any other environmental strategic alternatives. Were others to pop up, I'd take a serious look at them and judge which is best.

Well... it shouldn't. I'm using personal experience (hence; "I"), and it seems to me that more people I debate this stuff with are interested in retracting Kyoto than researching a new alternative.

So, once again, instead of freely thinking of a solution (which you are challenging others to do) you are relying on the intelligence and thought of somebody else.

Can't you see the problem there? You're more interested in promoting/adopting/justifying Kyoto than researching a new alternative. You've even agreed that it's not the best solution!

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Have you heard of any new alternatives? Cause I've certainly heard a lot of bashing Kyoto... It certainly should not be a mutually exclusive situation, but my personal experience points that way.

I haven't heard any, no.... but I haven't looked either. I am using my own intelligence to come up with a plan. It may not be the best plan, and would no doubtedly need tweaking if it were to come into the public light and be criticized (which it would). I'm not afraid of having my own ideas and ideals being examined/criticized. You appear to not want to take the time and effort to even think about it.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I hear ya. I pick Kyoto. Its not perfect, but its the best we have. I don't think anyone in this thread is actually capable of, on their own, thinking of a new comprehensive environmental strategy. In fact a huge meeting was already conducted to try and create a strategy... Kyoto.

Kyoto. Remind me again. Was this a government thing or a scientist thing?

I don't see why anyone in this thread CAN'T come up with an environmental strategy. I just see that most people don't WANT to, yourself included. "I"m not the expert". Wah wah wah.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

? 'Piggybacking' an existing strategy is better, as far as I'm concerned, than 'piggybacking' the 'lets do nothing' or 'lets trash Kyoto... and replace it with...' crowds. Like I've said ad nauseum, something has to be done, if not Kyoto, what? I seriously and eagerly await any other bodies out there to put forth an international solution. I have a job (as I'm sure the rest of you do), and can't spend the time/effort to do these things myself. Thats why I've chosen from the options in front of me (very minimal). When there are more options, maybe I'll change my tune.

And yet you spend the time/effort on this very board debating (ad nauseum) what should be done.

Come up with your own proposal. It doesn't have to be comprehensive. Look at what you want to happen, look at what is proposed, look at the flaws. Propose something.

If not? What right do you have to criticize others who are doing the same thing (Kyoto is all we have and it sucks, but I"m too lazy to put my pen to paper)?

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

As far as I'm concerned, we all have the same 3 choices on the table. Follow Kyoto, follow another strategy, or do nothing. So far I feel like I'm picking the first, and many others the last. I don't feel like I'm copping out by picking the 'best available' strategy presented to me. I'm just questioning those who blindly refute it, yakking about $ and hippies and cows.

I'm just questioning those who blindly accept/promote it. It's clearly not the best thing available.... and yet "it's the best we have" is acceptable to you? If a decade is a drop in the bucket as far as time is concerned, why does this have to be implemented RIGHT NOW?

[CaramonLS]

What they need to do is goverment subsidize cars which are better for the environment (in the form of tax credit, or direct discount), as well, encourage companies to mainstream them to look like real cars.

I mean, have you even looked at the Honda Insight, the SMART car? What a complete pile, it is no wonder why people aren't buying these cars.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

So, once again, instead of freely thinking of a solution (which you are challenging others to do) you are relying on the intelligence and thought of somebody else.

As far as I'm concerned I'm a Kyoto supporter. There are those in this thread who believe Kyoto is not the way to go. How am _I_ responsible for finding other people's phantom 'third ways'?

I see two choices on the table and I picked one. Many have picked the other, but are apparently so embarrased by it that attacking Kyoto is their best defense.

Can't you see the problem there? You're more interested in promoting/adopting/justifying Kyoto than researching a new alternative. You've even agreed that it's not the best solution!

Yeah, I am. Because no new alternative has been presented to me. As I said, I've got a job, and my resources don't quite equal several nations and multinational organizations around the world. Thats basically why I 'have' to pick from the options in front of me. I'm as incapable as devising a new solution as you, so I've chosen from the available.

Apparently choosing from the options available is hypocritical? Why is it my responsibility to find an alternative to Kyoto when I support it as the best current strategy? Shouldn't that the be the responsibility of those who believe there are better ways than Kyoto?

I haven't heard any, no.... but I haven't looked either. I am using my own intelligence to come up with a plan. It may not be the best plan, and would no doubtedly need tweaking if it were to come into the public light and be criticized (which it would). I'm not afraid of having my own ideas and ideals being examined/criticized. You appear to not want to take the time and effort to even think about it.

I'm pretty sure a comprehensive global environmental strategy is beyond your or my ability to 'use our own intelligence to come up with a plan'. I am not nearly intelligent or knowledgable enough to come up with my own global environmental strategy. Thats why I have to pick from the available... or not, apparently.

I don't see why anyone in this thread CAN'T come up with an environmental strategy. I just see that most people don't WANT to, yourself included. "I"m not the expert". Wah wah wah.

I think you underrate 'expertise'.

And yet you spend the time/effort on this very board debating (ad nauseum) what should be done.

Come up with your own proposal. It doesn't have to be comprehensive. Look at what you want to happen, look at what is proposed, look at the flaws. Propose something.

Why? I'm supporting Kyoto. 'You guys' are the ones refuting it as the best way to go. I'm asking for a better solution from Kyoto nay-sayers, and then I'm being told to come up with it? Wacky...

If not? What right do you have to criticize others who are doing the same thing (Kyoto is all we have and it sucks, but I"m too lazy to put my pen to paper)?

I'm criticizing those who believe that 'doing nothing' when it comes to a comprehensive global environmental strategy is better than adapting Kyoto. If there's a third way, present it. Otherwise I figure anti-Kyoto (currently) = pro-nothing. If they espoused a different idea then they're contributing to the solution as opposed to vascillating and delaying.

I'm just questioning those who blindly accept/promote it. It's clearly not the best thing available.... and yet "it's the best we have" is acceptable to you?

I'm questioning those who blindly reject/refute it. Obviously it _is_ the best plan available; its the only plan available (again, excluding doing nothing). I feel like I'm being hammered for selecting the only decent option I see available. I didn't create that option, and I won't be creating the next one; I don't have the resources or time.

If a decade is a drop in the bucket as far as time is concerned, why does this have to be implemented RIGHT NOW?

Well... I suppose I just consider that a bad attitude. "If we don't _have_ to do it today, why not do it tomorrow?". Seems like putting off an issue that should be dealt with today. 'Time' came into this because you claimed that environmental incentive legislation 'takes time'... I figure a decade isn't that long when it comes to legislation/industrial adoption.

But you're right, we could just keep pushing it back, decade after decade, doing nothing. I figure this is probably what will actually happen anyway...

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Some of the goals of Kyoto themselves are worthwhile, as is the benifit given by making an issue out of environmental change. Helping to change our habits - both buisness and consumer - is a good thing.

However, if we wish to achieve Kyoto's true aim, the only thing Canada needs to do is write a $50 billion cheque to China. Kyoto is more about wealth redistribution than it is the environment.

Yeah, but what that does is it starts to put a cost on pollution.

Go back to when there were no pollution controls. The market requires to minimize costs. Business won't care about pollution because it won't affect their bottom line. But if you start putting a cost per unit of pollution (whatever form you consider - CO2, NO2, ...) now that cost shows up on the balance sheet.

That was the idea of the credits (to intenalize the externalities for ECON people). Once a balance had been reached, decrease the number of credits by a set percentage. Yeah, companies that still want to pollute can still buy the additional credits that they need, btu those credits are more expensive, so, at some point, it will become cheaper to cut down on pollution than buy credits. Or, on the other side of the coin, for some business it will become more profitable to cut pollution ans sell the extra credits.

Business does what it can to satisfy its shareholders. In many/most cases that means increasing profits. Unless you come up with a way of integrating pollution into the profit equation (be it credits, or fines, or licenses or something else) then pollution will be something that everyone would like to do something about but won't.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

What they need to do is goverment subsidize cars which are better for the environment (in the form of tax credit, or direct discount), as well, encourage companies to mainstream them to look like real cars.

I mean, have you even looked at the Honda Insight, the SMART car? What a complete pile, it is no wonder why people aren't buying these cars.

Agreed with the subsidy thing. The hybrids are too expensive for the average joe to buy (I don't think they're that ugly myself, but that's just me).

Everyone just needs to bike to work, then the air quality would be better.

[Tron_fdc]

I remember talking to some sales guy at Toyota about hybrids, and he said that in order for car manufacturers to realize maximum gains on environmental incentives they had to come out with the most environmentally sound designs possible. This meant light weight, aerodynamic, and unfortunately.....ugly. This was why they wouldn't simply drop a a hybrid diesel V-8 into an F-350....it's not efficient enough, and wouldn't qualify for tax credits of some sort. Add in the cost of R&D to your purchase price, and why would people pay extra? Not everyone walks around in sandals munching granola smelling like pachuli. Some people just don't give a sh*t, and unless something is in it for them they'll buy the biggest, loudest, smokiest vehicle possible. How else do you turn 38" super swampers on Deerfoot?

Would I buy an F-350 hybrid that was the same price (or cheaper) than a regular F-350? Sure I would. Half the people driving diesel V-8's aren't pulling backhoes on a daily basis, and could very well get away with it. Is it as good as a Prius? No, but it has to be better than running straight diesel. Unfortunately, you either need to change the way people think by appealing to their conscience, or make it worth their while.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

What they need to do is goverment subsidize cars which are better for the environment (in the form of tax credit, or direct discount), as well, encourage companies to mainstream them to look like real cars.

I mean, have you even looked at the Honda Insight, the SMART car? What a complete pile, it is no wonder why people aren't buying these cars.

Not to mention the safety rating of a smart car. Fender-benders happen daily, I would rather be in a big SUV then a SMART car when that happens.