Originally posted by StarhawkNo, we should abandon the Kyoto Accord because it doesn't work. Since you ignored the part about Alberta I'll assume that you are from Eastern Canada doing the ole segregation of the West trick. Alberta alone makes the Kyoto Accord infeasible. I very strongly believe in the need for environmental reform, but Kyoto is definitely not the way to do it.
I smell a conservative. Whats unreasonable is letting the environment crash and burn in order to make the country richer. There are things we can do to absorb the cost. Reduce government salaries, cut expense accounts to politicians. Increase the taxes to the super rich and cut out the loopholes that allow them to avoid paying taxes.
We should do most of the things you mentioned anyways, however, that will be far from enough money to do anything with.
And just for fun I'm going to call you a communist because you believe the super rich should get taxed more simply for being more successful. Commy.
I have to agree with Canada here, as long as it isn't proven that humans actually have an impact it would be a waste to destroy the economy...
The only reason country's take measures now is because of the mass hysteria the public created about the environment, I seriously doubt any politician really knows what it is humans are doing and how much damage it does...
Originally posted by NellinatorJust for fun.
No, we should abandon the Kyoto Accord because it doesn't work. Since you ignored the part about Alberta I'll assume that you are from Eastern Canada doing the ole segregation of the West trick. Alberta alone makes the Kyoto Accord infeasible. I very strongly believe in the need for environmental reform, but Kyoto is definitely not the way to do it.We should do most of the things you mentioned anyways, however, that will be far from enough money to do anything with.
And just for fun I'm going to call you a communist because you believe the super rich should get taxed more simply for being more successful. Commy.
Bardock has it right. People seem to think that 'not wanting to take a hit to the economy' is all about a tiny minority in big mansions sitting on big piles of money saying "BWAHAHAHA! I am glad the planet is dying because I have all the money!"
It's not. A hit to the economy is something that buggers up the lives of many, many people- it;s not the rich, it's often the poor that get hit the hardest by this kind of thinbg. It's manual labour jobs that get hit, and lost employment opportunities that result, and then that's people not being able to afford to feed their families, or living on the street. People seem to forget just how damn important the economy actually is.
Kyoto is a pile of crap. Entirely aside from the unproven nature of the environmental issues (panic about which does indeed border on the hysterical), it's rubbish precisely because it's not inclusive. Any environmental initiative of this sort has to be TRULY gllobal and Kyoto is not.
Fact of the matter is, nothing we say or do is going to stop China and India (who will become, by far, the largest contributors to environemental issues) going through a process of mass industrialisation. Oh, they can sign Kyoto know all they want- because we've put in a clause saying that 'developing' countries don't actually have to do anything. So signing it is an entirely empty gesture from such countries. As soon as the rich, comfortable west tries to tell these countries to cut back on such development just to please our environmental tastes at their expense, they'll tell us to piss off.
We need a treaty that a. works and b. that everyone can work with. THEN we can start to talk about whether it is worth the cosr or not.
Right now, Kyoto is like the Emperor's New Clothes. No-one dare point out that, basically, there's bugger all to it, but they seem to want to shell out the money for it all the same, even though it's the person in the street that ends up paying.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus at Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton University, in an email interview:
"Climate change is a real problem, partly caused by human activities, but its importance has been grossly exaggerated.
It is far less important than other social problems such as poverty, infectious diseases, deforestation, extinction of species on land and in the sea, not to mention war, nuclear weapons and biological weapons.
We do not know whether the observed climate changes are on balance good or bad for the health of the biosphere. And the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a fertilizer of plant growth are at least as important as its effects on climate."
I remember reading an article in the Economist a year back or whatever, talking about estimating costs associated with plans like kyoto vs the costs of not doing anything. Not to beat a dead horse, but obviously they found kyoto to be abysmally expensive. The interesting finding is that Canada may stand to gain money economically with a little bit of global warming. Certain trends may make for better living/farming conditions.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
We need a treaty that a. works and b. that everyone can work with. THEN we can start to talk about whether it is worth the cosr or not.
Firstly, the Kyoto Protocol is not going to "kill" the economy. Everything it is asking is doable and not really going to just hurt anyone too much economically. We can produce the same amount of exports even after cutting back emissions but it cost money to do so which means the industrialized nations who emit the most (U.S., Australia, and now Canada) do not want to. There are ways to all but stop ALL emissions but it cost corporations money and so you know how that goes.
Hell, they do not even mind killing Native Americans on the basis of "risk assessments" (which basically is an equation to see how much you are affecting the environment i.e. how many Native Americans you are killing.)
You did bring up a very good point though - the poor normally get hit the hardest because of the industrialization of many manual labor jobs, but consider this: if you had to cut back emissions, manual labor would be necessary (easiest example being the coal industry). Of course, corporations do not want to bother the easiest part of profit to control is labor (which normally also includes health packages, unions and so on) which is why globalization is such a big deal.
I personally think the Kyoto Protocol is a shitty idea but for a reason other than money. It is a paradox. It encourages industrialization (and tells all "non developed" nations that can emit all that want with no penalty, but those who stay under a certain level get some sort of money bonus) and even if ALL countries sign the treaty and abide by it, at some point the "non developed" nation-states will end up emitting just as much, if not more, hazardous elements as we have floating around now. It is a dumb idea to try and solve the problem this way.
Originally posted by chithappens
Firstly, the Kyoto Protocol is not going to "kill" the economy. Everything it is asking is doable and not really going to just hurt anyone too much economically. We can produce the same amount of exports even after cutting back emissions but it cost money to do so which means the industrialized nations who emit the most (U.S., Australia, and now Canada) do not want to. There are ways to all but stop ALL emissions but it cost corporations money and so you know how that goes.Hell, they do not even mind killing Native Americans on the basis of "risk assessments" (which basically is an equation to see how much you are affecting the environment i.e. how many Native Americans you are killing.)
You did bring up a very good point though - the poor normally get hit the hardest because of the industrialization of many manual labor jobs, but consider this: if you had to cut back emissions, manual labor would be necessary (easiest example being the coal industry). Of course, corporations do not want to bother the easiest part of profit to control is labor (which normally also includes health packages, unions and so on) which is why globalization is such a big deal.
I personally think the Kyoto Protocol is a shitty idea but for a reason other than money. It is a paradox. It encourages industrialization (and tells all "non developed" nations that can emit all that want with no penalty, but those who stay under a certain level get some sort of money bonus) and even if ALL countries sign the treaty and abide by it, at some point the "non developed" nation-states will end up emitting just as much, if not more, hazardous elements as we have floating around now. It is a dumb idea to try and solve the problem this way.
For once I find myself mostly agreeing with Chitthappens here. It would not kill the economy if the politicians were willing to do their part to help pay for it. I.E roll back MP and MPP wages instead of increasing them. Dalton McGunity, the less then honorable premier of Ontario, has raised up MPP wages twice in about a span of a year. Cut back on expense accounts which most of them abuse anyways. And raise taxes on those wages above a million. We CAN pay for this.
People need to stop pretending the environment is a non-issue, scientists across the world agree that our environment is collapsing. One example, in North America, bees seem to be steadily reducing in numbers. Why is this important? Bees pollinate the plants, without bees we lose plants and then animals that feed on plants. I'm not a science whiz, but even I understand how a food chain works.
If it was as simple as raising prices, Harper would've done so, but he knows if they tried to raise up prices that high, the majority of Canadians couldn't pay them and would protest and his Government would be held to blame in the polls.
And if you want to talk about cost, reports from health Canada state that cancer will soon overtake heart disease as the number one killer in our country. Imagine when more and more people are developing it due to UV exposure, I wonder what the cost burden to our healthcare system is.
Originally posted by Starhawk
For once I find myself mostly agreeing with Chitthappens here. It would not kill the economy if the politicians were willing to do their part to help pay for it. I.E roll back MP and MPP wages instead of increasing them. Dalton McGunity, the less then honorable premier of Ontario, has raised up MPP wages twice in about a span of a year. Cut back on expense accounts which most of them abuse anyways. And raise taxes on those wages above a million. We CAN pay for this.
http://theburningbiscuit.com/WeeklyExplanation.htm
Read that, it's a funny example. And actually quite true. Taxing the richer people more and reducing a few salaries will just end up hurting you in the end.
People need to stop pretending the environment is a non-issue, scientists across the world agree that our environment is collapsing. One example, in North America, bees seem to be steadily reducing in numbers. Why is this important? Bees pollinate the plants, without bees we lose plants and then animals that feed on plants. I'm not a science whiz, but even I understand how a food chain works.
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle
Watch that... It isn't as black and white as people might think
If it was as simple as raising prices, Harper would've done so, but he knows if they tried to raise up prices that high, the majority of Canadians couldn't pay them and would protest and his Government would be held to blame in the polls.And if you want to talk about cost, reports from health Canada state that cancer will soon overtake heart disease as the number one killer in our country. Imagine when more and more people are developing it due to UV exposure, I wonder what the cost burden to our healthcare system is.
The money being invested in stopping global warming, a theory which hasn't even been proven true yet, could easily be enough to find cures for Aids, cancer and come closer to a real alternative for oil.
All of Africa could probably get schools, electricity and a growing economy from the money now invested in a theory...
That's what the money should be used for, helping country's in Africa or investing in your own economy, not in an unproven theory.
Originally posted by chithappensI'm not sure exactly what you just said. Whether there is a global warming effect is clear, and whether human behaviour is a factor in it is relatively clear iirc, but whether human industrialization is the principal factor in global warming is the uncertain thing.
No one has directly said global warming. Regardless of believing global warming or not, humans ARE the cause of it one way or another and I am certain you can attribute that to pollution.
"Global warming causes cancer" is news to me.
Originally posted by chithappens
No one has directly said global warming. Regardless of believing global warming or not, humans ARE the cause of it one way or another and I am certain you can attribute that to pollution.
Watch the video I posted, if you don't believe it then please post some prove as to why not...
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Having fun I see. It's a rarity we agree. No reason not to be cordial I suppose. Hope all is well.
I am always having fun X. All is reasonble. When have we really disagreed since you started to understand little you say matters on a forum. I have noticed you have started looking for others reactions more and more.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
but whether human industrialization is the principal factor in global warming is the uncertain thing."Global warming causes cancer" is news to me.
What other factors are there in ozone depletion since human industrialization is not the "principal" one?
That quote did not say global warming causes cancer... radiation exposure from holes in the ozone is the problem. Nice reading comprehension