Jump to content
Jambands.ca

Canada and Kyoto


DevO

Recommended Posts

These days on the road I'm chatting a lot with people from France, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, Norway, etc. When we get in to talking about politics and environment, I'm so ashamed when I have to say that Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. It really blows my mind and pisses me off to no end. Especially given the strong role that we played in bringing Kyoto together in the first place. The recent Nicholas Stern report "The Economics of Climate Change" just makes it worse. (see this thread for more on that.) I hope the Stern report sparks some action, in Canada and everywhere else.

edit to add: And props to Quebec and to their Environment minister Claude Bechard for calling the feds on their dumb-ass move.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel exactly the opposite way. If you want to drive the cloud of pollution that hangs over our heads clear across the globe to hang over the head of say someone in Kuala Lumpur, than Kyoto is your friend.

Kyoto will do nothing but shut down existing industry in profitable nations and leave capitalists with no real alternative but to pack their bags, hit the ocean freighters and open up shop in an under developed nation with fewer environmental restrictions. Industrializing the world isn't my idea of positive environmental reform. "oooh, look, the smog has cleared over Canada, but what is that ungodly sight growing and glowing over Bali?". Shifting the haze from the rich to the poor? NO THANKS.

standing by Kyoto is 'settling' for second best. it isn't true global reform, it's buying time as we fuck over another little corner of the world. it has the heart, but not the brains. why would any country support this when we could focus on creating a global climate change initiative that WOULD actually work?

no offense, but on behalf of all people who don't have smog towers in their backyards, fuck Kyoto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a little simplistic. Most greenhouse gasses are produced by the trappings of developed nations, ie. massive energy consumption per capita (home consumption, SUV's and stuff). Of course industry is a big offender, but the very worst offenders (ie. in Canada the oil sands in Alberta) are not factories you can just pick up and move to Bali. Sure, some may do that, but it's not black and white. Personally, I see the glass as half full, it's not perfect but it's better to try where there is a global consenus (160 countries for - Dubya and John Howard in Australia, and now Steve - against) and come up a little short than do nothing. Developing nations will NEVER sign on to anything like Kyoto anytime soon, and frankly they shouldn't - they are not the main offenders and produce a fraction of GG.

Oh, and FWIW your position is a carbon copy of this guys:

george%20w%20bush.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who really cares if my position is a "carbon copy" (which it's not) of Dubya's? If Dubya doesn't want to industrialize the world over, than frankly, i can wholeheartedly, without a guilty conscience say, I AGREE! There's absolutely nothing EVIL about my feelings on the Kyoto Protocol Hux!!!

(of course, i do appreciate that you take EVERY opportunity you can to paint that picture!)

To again be simplistic, what do you think is going to happen if industry switches shores to underdeveloped nations? those nations are going to GROW!! things like increased home consumption and SUVS hittin' the roads are tell tale signs of prospering nations, it's only a matter of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is going to move a coal power plant overseas and ship the energy back here.

No one is going to move the oil sands across the world.

I think this is what is being said most and you're just buying into this whole, "It's not perfect so lets do nothing" line that Harper's talking about.

And in fairness Bush's argument to me is, "There is no such thing as global warming and there is no polution".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you guys NUTS? where have you been for the last two decades? industry has been packing up shop and leaving for quite some time, and really from a purely economical standpoint, why wouldn't they? if you can get the job done for half the price in India than you can in Ohio, you'd be an idiot not to. Kyoto would just be another nail in this already half in the ground coffin.

And you're right dj, i don't want Canada involved, it's less, more like far-removed from perfect. i'd rather a Canada that seeks a better solution. I'm with Harper in that we shouldn't settle for crap, but not with him in the sheer laziness of actually being proactive and funding research to seek out a solution!

And yes, i'd agree with your analysis of Dubya's position... frankly i think he puts all issues on the backburner to get through losing this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree, the oil sands of Alberta aren't going anywhere, but industry is and will, so Kyoto, while it may be helping Alberta with the huge amounts of posion that they blast into the atmosphere everyday, certainly won't be doing wonders for the rest of the globe. Saving one to pollute another is not an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Requiring developing nations to sign on to Kyoto to reduce global warming/greenhouse gases would be like handing out condoms in a daycare to reduce STDs.

Developing nations are not the problem when it comes to greenhouse gases.

Sure plenty of companies move where goods can be assembled more cheaply, that's nothing new - but that's not the case with the big gg polluters, and that's what Kyoto is about.

The big global polluters are you and me. Our way of life as the richest whatever percent of the world, gorging ourselves on energy and all the rest of it.

If/when developing nations become fat cats polluting the planet to the degree we do, then they would be expected to join Kyoto or whatever it is then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel exactly the opposite way. If you want to drive the cloud of pollution that hangs over our heads clear across the globe to hang over the head of say someone in Kuala Lumpur, than Kyoto is your friend.

Kyoto will do nothing but shut down existing industry in profitable nations and leave capitalists with no real alternative but to pack their bags, hit the ocean freighters and open up shop in an under developed nation with fewer environmental restrictions. Industrializing the world isn't my idea of positive environmental reform. "oooh, look, the smog has cleared over Canada, but what is that ungodly sight growing and glowing over Bali?". Shifting the haze from the rich to the poor? NO THANKS.

standing by Kyoto is 'settling' for second best. it isn't true global reform, it's buying time as we fuck over another little corner of the world. it has the heart, but not the brains. why would any country support this when we could focus on creating a global climate change initiative that WOULD actually work?

no offense, but on behalf of all people who don't have smog towers in their backyards, fuck Kyoto.

Spoken like someone who truly doesn't know the first thing about Kyoto.

Check out the Joint Implmentation and Clean Development Mechanism programmes included in Kyoto. They're designed to do EXACTLY the opposite of what you're describing by giving incentives to both Annex I (developed) and non-Annex I (developing) countries incentives to "leapfrog" old, polluting technologies in favour of less polluting ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anybody say where China and India are re. Kyoto? Besides the US, they seem to be the biggest concerns. Whatever these two do over the next 50 years will make or break the planet, I'd think.

Under the current commitment period (2005-2012) China and India need only make voluntary commitments. India has already indicated that they're willing to make binding commitments Post-2012, which is being negotiated in Nairobi right now. If you want more info check out http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop12/ . IT has the most recent updates on what's happening.

I'm sad to not be there. This is the first Climate Convention I've missed since 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way. Canada's refusal to ratify a plan we helped draft at the hands of the harper gov't is embarassing and hurts us in the world view.

Furthermore, even if industry leaves and they go somewhere else. So Fuking What! I for one would be happy to take the hit, becuase we would be taking a stand and sending a message that pollution they create is not acceptable in Canada. It would send a message. Sure they may go to other less developed nations, but then it is thier choiice to accept or reject and thier choice to do thier part to protect thier piece of the earth. If they choose not to do so, it's thier call.

We cannot worry about what other nations may or may not do, we need to woory about what Canada can and must do. We need to set an example by action as one of the bigger producers of Greenhouse gases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

looks like blane knows a little more about kyoto than i do! :)

i need to do some more research before coming out ablazin' in this one, but i do know that i'm not the only one in the world that has lifted an eyebrow to the sort of industrial redistribution that kyoto could mean.

hell, i recall reading an article calling Kyoto socialism's "TROJAN HORSE". i can't be that far off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't mean to come off as a know-it-all, it's just annoying that about 98% of kyoto critics know only what they've read of the AP articles and the slagging from other conservative pundits.

I personally doubt that Kyoto involves ANY significant redistribution of industry, especially if countries start implementing programs now. The EU is already saying that they're certain they'll meet their commitments, and that's without any doom & gloom business scenario. There's a carbon market in place to ensure that industry has a "back door" out of excess carbon they produce (albeit at a cost), and given that the biggest emitters aren't the ones that "travel well" as others have mentioned (carbon & mineral extraction, forestry, aviation, construction, etc.) I doubt there'll be much Kyoto-induced migration of business. Certainly no more than already occurs from businesses trying to evade environmental protection laws.

I think the Bush gov't has been straight forward and honest about their reasons for avoiding Kyoto. it's not pro-business (particularly pro-oil, I think)and they'd rather wait for technology to solve their problems when things become dire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...