Cicero highlights other people's rants
Christopher Hitchens on the Iraq surge and why he thinks it's silliness.
Andrew Coyne on The Conservatives and the environment file. As I've said before, Kyoto isn't a plan. It's a religion. Worship it or thou art (painted as) a blasphemer!!
2 comments:
Am I to believe that you honestly think that Kyoto is not an answer to the serious issues of climate change?
Mercer-
Kyoto is a framework- without the third world's direct participation and the involvement of the worlds largest GHG source (the US) Kyoto is merely am mechanism to provide haphazard and arbitrary targets for the reduction of anthropogenic releases for signatory nations.
The supposition in your question that I reject is that Kyoto was meant to solve anything during the first phase of its implementation.
As I mentioned above, it is a mechanism for future reductions. The (ironically) token reductions negotiated (in the case of Canada, poorly) were not supposed to have an impact. They were supposed to create the habit of engineering policy to take into consideration the need to reduce emissions. Few countries have successfully done this- with Canada being the best - worst - example.
Most importantly, when the agreement was negotiated it was specifically intended to provide a mechanism through which countries could participate under the protocol to ensure that in the future technology transfer could happen in an international market so that as a planet the best methods for the use of carbon energy sources could be exploited by all signatories.
At the time, the Saudi's demanded compensation for an agreement that would bankrupt them.
Most importantly, at the time of the agreement, the United States was an active participant- led by US VP Al Gore. That is no longer the case. It might be again, but certainly not before the 2012 targets are required to be met.
The only way Canada can meet its Kyoto targets in the current timeframe is to "export" five billion dollars a year (according to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association) in purchasing clean-credits. These credits, mostly in Russia, account for countries who have CLOSED facilities - not improved them - and as such, the actual impact on the environment will be negliable. Then, someone has to pay the five billion a year.
You? What is your ecological footprint?
Post a Comment