Harper says 'no' to Kyoto, 'maybe' to missile defense

[EnviroTO]

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?

 

[afransen TO]

"or for man and animals alike to breathe less."

Well, virtually all of what humans/animal eat is biomass that would otherwise decompose, leading to a more or less equivalent release of CO_2. So, breathing is more or less atmospheric CO_2-neutral.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

I agree with Enviro. There is no reason we should be pulling out of Kyoto. The reason the Conservatives want out is simple, Alberta, and oil and natural gas. Here are some numbers, taken from a recent article in L'actualite.

Bien qu'elle soit quatre fois moins populeuse que l'Ontario, l'Alberta a projeté 221 millions de tonnes de gaz àeffet de serre (GES) dans l'atmosphère en 2002; l'Ontario, 203 millions; le Québec, 91 millions.

Mais leur production pétrolière cause 40% des gaz àeffet de serre du Canada.

So Alberta produces 4 times more greenhouse gases per capita than Ontario. And as a whole, greenhouse gases from oil production account for 40% of all of Canada's greenhouse gases.

Now factor in that Alberta wants to triple its production levels in the tar sands and take a guess how much greenhouse gas levels are going skyrocket. Of course if Canada has signed on too Kyoto, this looks bad on us. But if we have our own version, none of it matters and Alberta can pollute as much as it wants. It would be interesting to find out just how much of that 24% increase in greenhouse gases since 1990, the number that Mr Harper likes to flaunt so much, came as a result of Alberta.

The same misidirection can be seen in his policy announcement on increasing autonomy for the provinces. Where did he make the announcement, Quebec City, so that it would appear as though it was largely about being the party that would offer the federalist party who would best serve the provinces interest and desires. But at the end of the day, who actually benefits from having less federal government overseeing it. Alberta, who will then be able distance itself from financial obligations and federal policies as to ensure that it can continue developing its tar sands without any oversight from the federal government.

These policies are made with only one region in mind, the west. There is no rational reason for pulling out of Kyoto other than it allows Alberta to further exploit its resources and make a ton of money without having to worry about pesky little things such as pollution.

 

[afransen TO]

I agree that the pro-West agenda is still prevalent in the Conservative platform. I'm surprised that the Conservatives have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of so many Canadians.

It's rather said to comtemplate what a Bloq-Conservative 'coalition' could and likely would do in terms of devolving powers even over the course of only one mandate. If that happens, Canadians will have gotten what they deserved by blindly electing an Alberta nationalist to the Prime Minister's Office.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

It's rather said to comtemplate what a Bloq-Conservative 'coalition' could and likely would do in terms of devolving powers even over the course of only one mandate. If that happens, Canadians will have gotten what they deserved by blindly electing an Alberta nationalist to the Prime Minister's Office.

If the Conservatives end up with a minority, I cant see them working too closely with the Bloc. While it might be the best option for the Conservatives in terms of pushing forward their agenda, the public opinion they may face from having to work with a seperatist party may restrict just how closely they will work with them. I also think, in terms of what sort of autonomy Quebec and Alberta are looking for, the ideas that both provinces have may be very different and create a lot of friction during any process that might be undertaken to try to reach an agreement. I think the underlying ideology behind each of their own motivations (cultural versus financial) would probably have an impact in limiting anything from getting done.

At this point I think the best (worst) outcome would be a Conservative majority. Let them run the country for 5 years and see what happens. I dont like the idea. But I think Canadians need a splash of water on their face to wake them up. I think the most dissapointing aspect of this election is not that the outcome will not be what I had hoped, but rather watching the mediocre and lame political discourse that has taken place during it. Lots of promises, lots of rhetoric, with almost no thought or analysis going into what is being said and proposed. Canadians are getting what they deserve. Politics is not about voting once ever 4 years and assuming everything runs on auto pilot. Its about participation at all times. And if Canadians are going to take such a lazy approach to electing their governments, well, at least it should be interesting to see where this country heads over the next 5 years.