Kyoto is awesome

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Azure

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.

Wasn't there something about Smart cars being safer in major accidents?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Wasn't there something about Smart cars being safer in major accidents?

I cant see that. If I ran my bike into a smart car it would probably crumble.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Wasn't there something about Smart cars being safer in major accidents?

Huh? The SMART car i'm thinking about is 3 feet long. Looks like a cube. How come it possibly be safer in an accident?

I searched Google and came up with the automated car, with an automated highway. We might not be talking about the same thing.



Heres a picture. Can you imagine someone ramming into the front of that?

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Azure

Huh? The SMART car i'm thinking about is 3 feet long. Looks like a cube. How come it possibly be safer in an accident?

I searched Google and came up with the automated car, with an automated highway. We might not be talking about the same thing.



Heres a picture. Can you imagine someone ramming into the front of that?

I was told that they were (safer) as well. Something about airbags all over the place????

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I was told that they were (safer) as well. Something about airbags all over the place????

Sounds really wierd. Even with airbags all over the place, in a major accident you'd have no chance.

[habernac]

I've seen a video of a 60 mph crash test (they drove it remotely into a concrete wall.) It was suprisingly intact. The interior wasn't crushed, one of the doors actually still opened. I'll see if I can find the video.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sounds really wierd. Even with airbags all over the place, in a major accident you'd have no chance.

It is made by Mercedes, and I'd guess that they have some decent engineers there. They wouldn't be selling death traps or dangerous cars.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It is made by Mercedes, and I'd guess that they have some decent engineers there. They wouldn't be selling death traps or dangerous cars.

Beside the point. Many people, myself included would never buy the car, based strictly on its size.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Beside the point. Many people, myself included would never buy the car, based strictly on its size.

Can you even fit golf clubs in it?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by habernac

I've seen a video of a 60 mph crash test (they drove it remotely into a concrete wall.) It was suprisingly intact. The interior wasn't crushed, one of the doors actually still opened. I'll see if I can find the video.

http://www.mercedes-benz.ca/mbccusto...vent_clips.cfm

Couple video's here.

Wow. I never would have imagined that. I have been proved wrong.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I am pretty sure those cars were not traveling 60 mph.

[Bobblehead]

Here is a link where it talks about safety as it was being introduced to Canada (dated Sept, 2004)

[habernac]

here's the one I was thinking of:

http://www.craveonline.com/video/pop...showVideo=1687

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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.

I see 2 choices too. Kyoto and a better option to Kyoto (whether it currently exists or not is irrelevant). I choose the better option. It must be nice to not want to strive for improvements and just choose the "best available". I'm really glad that the whole world isn't like you, as we would not have computers as fast as we have (or at all), cars as efficient as they are (with improvement yet to come), etc.

Experts, while having an increased knowledge base to work from, should not get a free pass from questioning. While they can address most issues that the common person would question, they are not immune to overlooks or to focussing too much on one aspect and ignoring the rest. They are not the end-all be-all. If you think they are, you'd better not ever question anybody - including Flames management or players.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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.

The best inventions in the world do not come from experts. They come from someone who came up with an idea and then found experts to help bring that idea to fruition.

I'm definitely getting the sense that instead of coming up with better ideas, you're happy with letting others do ALL the work instead.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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.

It's the only plan available, so it's the best plan? WOW!

I'm not saying that you have to come up with an entire solution. Just give the 15,000 ft version. Give an overview. Surely you can even do that. How would you improve on Kyoto?

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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.

so... "If we don't have to do it today, why not do it tomorrow" is a bad attitude... but "The first idea is the best idea and how dare you criticize it" isn't?

Believe it or not, there is something worse than spending more time to come up with alternate solutions... it's jumping in with both feet to a bad and obviously flawed solution. Sure it's a solution, and in an ideal world it might get to the same end point.. but the chances of it getting there are slim and the expenses incurred along the way are great. Give people time to come up with another solution, instead of hammering them on not believing in the only current proposal.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by habernac

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.

Agreed!

Plus there wouldn't be as many overweight people and cardiac arrests.

The U.S. already gives out subsidies to people who buy hybrid vehicles. This is probably a different option, compared to Kyoto - the made in U.S. solution...

However, it is interesting to note that the "Made in Canada solution" term was actually coined by the CEO of an oil company... I can't remember which one... Exxon perhaps. So right there, I am a little skeptical of the motives of the Canadian government.

It's also interesting to note that on the same day that Harper denounced Kyoto during the campaign, all the nonsigning countries of Kyoto (along with the major oil companies) met in Australia - without any press acknowledgement. So, regardless of Kyoto, there must be another option out there, right?

But what about the political and diplomatic repercussions of not fufilling our Kyoto mandates? I mean, look at all the slack the U.S. gets for not following UN resolutions (Iraq...). Obviously the global community is behind Kyoto, or else it never would have been ratified. Plus, since Ambrose is the chair of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change this year (which is the over-looking body of the Kyoto protocol), it looks even worse for Canada in international proceedings to pull out.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

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.

Wrong, that would never happen. China never signed on to Kyoto.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

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.

I do not disagree. However, this is the problem:

Canada has too much emissions. We have to buy credits for them. Who has extra credits to sell? Oh, hey, look, China does! Nevermind that China pollutes way more than we do. Ok, so we buy credits from China. The environment isnt helped, becuase pollution levels have not changed. Meanwhile, we are supporting a communist and oppressive government because their economy hasnt caught up to ours yet, so they not only get a free pass on their levels of pollution, they also get rewarded.

Great system.

I fully agree that there needs to be costs associated with polluting, but this should not be done on an international level between nations. The Canadian government itself should be taxing the hell out of "dirty" companies, and using the proceeds to offer breaks and subsidies to "clean" companies.

And like White Doors states, it has to go way beyond CO2. There are other environmental problems that are of a far greater immediate concern to humanity.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Wrong, that would never happen. China never signed on to Kyoto.

Even so, they were not one of the required nations to curb their emissions. They actually had credits to sell. The underlying point remains valid: Kyoto is broken down on economic lines, not environmental.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Wrong, that would never happen. China never signed on to Kyoto.

yes they did, they just don't have to make any targets.

Didn't they? India too?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by White Doors

yes they did, they just don't have to make any targets.

Didn't they? India too?

They both did indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_p..._the_agreement