E
EnviroTO
Guest
The fact that only 56 of the 156 countries that signed on are obliged to reduce emissions. All the others (including China/India) fall under the 'Developing Nations' category so they don't have to do anything anyway. China and India are two of the fastest growing nations, and will soon pass most Western Nations in term of pollution generated. Most of the "developing nations" have already alluded to the fact that once they fall under "developed nation" status they will ditch Kyoto. I recall one top Chinesse official saying this already, and a few smaller nations officials saying this too.
What the rest of the planet does will not diminish the results accoplished here. CO2 emissions are additive, not black or white. If Europe and Canada reduce their emissions the environment will be better off than if we did nothing. Maybe it won't be better than now because other countries don't care enough but it will be better than if everyone didn't care.
What do you mean by "reduce waste"?
Accepting Kyoto and working towards meeting it's objectives ultimately results in less waste because the only way to reduce CO2 emissions (besides creating a huge forest or a huge increase in the plant life within the country) is to reduce the oil, gas, coal, and other burned fuel energy sources consumed, or for man and animals alike to breathe less. By removing oil, gas, and coal as fuels people will adjust to using less energy to accomlish similar tasks.
The Kyoto Protocol does have flaws and its minimal effect on CO2 emissions even if completely implemented is one of them.
I think if a plan was put in place to significantly alter CO2 emissions was put in place it would go further than Kyoto. It makes no sense to use the excuse Kyoto will only have a minimal impact as a reason not to follow the plan and actually deliver less than Kyoto as a result. That is like saying "that turkey sandwich won't fill me up so I may as well not eat it." It's better than nothing and its certainly better than less.
Those against it saying that it would represent a huge cost with minimal impact have a point.
What is the total cost of recovering from the fallout of animals not being able to breath, climate change, desertification, melting of the polar icecaps, etc. Will the cost of replacing low lying cities like New York be more or less than switching to wind or solar power now, buying a hybrid for $8k more, etc. There is value in the R&D required for Canada to meet the targets of Kyoto... value that can be sold elsewhere and make an impact elsewhere. As an oil producing Canada has much more to loose by not developing alternatives to the oil economy... if the oil dries up in 50 years we are toast considering the number of auto manufacturers, oil companies, and related support companies that exist in Ontario and Quebec. What happens when they are gone... do we suffer really bad then or do we make some sacrifices now and be prepared?