Canada disgraces itself on the enviroment.

Originally posted by Fishy
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.

That is funny, more because its ludicrous. Believe me, we will have ample supply of politician's regardless if we reduce their wages or not. And the rich are not going to abandon the country if they are taxed slightly more. You think Canada has the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world? If the only thing keeping them here was low tax rates they would've left already.

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.

First of all, I never said 'kill' the economy, but it definitely WILL hurt it, and it will be the average person that suffers, not the corporations- and this is for two reasons.

a. All these enivironmental initiatives stifle the job market

b. Corporation costs get passed onto consumers

The idea that politicians should take the entire hit is utterly ludicrous in so many ways... I can't believe anyone would float such an idea.

You are living in a fantasy land if you think cutting back on emissions will CREATE jobs. It will cost jobs, and for that reason alone, people will oppose it once consequences become clear.

As for the rest, I agree. Kyoto just does not work. It is not practical, it harms economies, and it does not even achieve what it purports to do.

Originally posted by Starhawk
That is funny, more because its ludicrous. Believe me, we will have ample supply of politician's regardless if we reduce their wages or not. And the rich are not going to abandon the country if they are taxed slightly more. You think Canada has the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world? If the only thing keeping them here was low tax rates they would've left already.

You think that the best politicians in Canada will stay in politics if their salary goes down, sure a few idealistic politicians might, the most won't.

As for taxing the rich, it's a simple fact that rich people like places with less taxes more then they like places with high taxes. It's why a lot of rich people go over the border, it saves them a lot of money. Happens here all the time, could just as easily happen in Canada. Probably already does.

If they pass it onto the consumer, the consumer wont be able to pay it. In my city last year they tried to increase the hydro rates and people protested to such an extent that they scrapped the idea.

Originally posted by Starhawk
If they pass it onto the consumer, the consumer wont be able to pay it. In my city last year they tried to increase the hydro rates and people protested to such an extent that they scrapped the idea.

So now you are arguing against yourself?

Originally posted by Fishy
You think that the best politicians in Canada will stay in politics if their salary goes down, sure a few idealistic politicians might, the most won't.

As for taxing the rich, it's a simple fact that rich people like places with less taxes more then they like places with high taxes. It's why a lot of rich people go over the border, it saves them a lot of money. Happens here all the time, could just as easily happen in Canada. Probably already does.

Yes they will stay in politics, due to the fact that even if we reduce their salaries, they will still be making more then enough to make it worth while, plus, many people are just drawn to power. And whats wrong with having idealistic politicians?

No places in Europe have much lower tax rates then Canada and I've yet to see this great exodus of rich people.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
First of all, I never said 'kill' the economy, but it definitely WILL hurt it, and it will be the average person that suffers, not the corporations- and this is for two reasons.

a. All these enivironmental initiatives stifle the job market

b. Corporation costs get passed onto consumers

The idea that politicians should take the entire hit is utterly ludicrous in so many ways... I can't believe anyone would float such an idea.

You are living in a fantasy land if you think cutting back on emissions will CREATE jobs. It will cost jobs, and for that reason alone, people will oppose it once consequences become clear.

As for the rest, I agree. Kyoto just does not work. It is not practical, it harms economies, and it does not even achieve what it purports to do.

By kill, I did not mean destroy. It was a hyperbole and I don't feel like using my vocabulary at all because I am still studying for finals so my bad.

The cost (at least on my outlook) are about environmental injustices that need to be righted. There are a bunch of reasons this makes sense even just in terms of harming people. Native American reserves are the easiest example with the PCBs that spill out in the water, soil, and air.

Yes, corporation costs get passed onto consumers but their should be a ceiling for it similar to real estate (not imposed a lot of places, I know but just work with me). The government could do something about that but there are kickbacks everywhere.

I'm not saying that it will be that simple to return jobs. This is just saying the act would do it, but notice I also mentioned that corporations are all about controlling the amount they spend on labor which is why globalization is in full swing and we get so much stuff made in Malaysia, Taiwan, China, etc. There are two options in regardless to cutting emissions:

1) go back to manual labor which has offers little to no emissions(not going to happen)

2) add more machines (cost a hell of a lot more initially) and technical professionals and cut the rest of the laborers

I noticed #2 and mentioned it but I didn't want to write another essay on that.

Originally posted by Islamic_Cleric
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 chithappens
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

Linking the Kyoto protocol, based on uncertain premise that human behaviour is the principal factor in global warming and that global warming has a relatively tenuous link to ozone depletion, to cancer rates due to UV exposure is erroneous. Stating that Canada not adopting Kyoto protocol will be a burden to it's healthcare system by a massive increase in UV related melanoma, when it contributes less than 2% of CO2 emissions while already non-compliant countries the U.S., Australia, India and China contribute 45%, is erroneous.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It's nice you take such a keen interest in me I suppose.

You have always been one of the few posters here with a level of intelligence that would eventually allow you to see that the real fun of forums like this is the stupidity of them.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

Linking the Kyoto protocol, based on uncertain premise that human behaviour is the principal factor in global warming and that global warming has a relatively tenuous link to ozone depletion, to cancer rates due to UV exposure is erroneous. Stating that Canada not adopting Kyoto protocol will be a burden to it's healthcare system by a massive increase in UV related melanoma, when it contributes less than 2% of CO2 emissions while already non-compliant countries the U.S., Australia, India and China contribute 45%, is erroneous.

In all of this you still never answer me... what other factors are their other than any sort of human activity?

Originally posted by chithappens
In all of this you still never answer me... what other factors are their other than any sort of human activity?

Temperature fluctuations are common throughout history ****tard do some research instead of asking all the time.

Its not just temperature fluctuations and even Bush and the Republicans have admitted global warming is real.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Its not just temperature fluctuations and even Bush and the Republicans have admitted global warming is real.

I wanna c that quote 😆. Never seen them say that and would surprise me

Ill find it for you. LOL I wonder what it will take for everyone to accept it Chit, is it goona get to the point where they walk outside and start smelling like bacon before they grasp that its real?

I suppose so. I feel sorry for the kids. I really do

Originally posted by chithappens
In all of this you still never answer me... what other factors are their other than any sort of human activity?

carbon emissions and gases make up about 2% of the greenhouse gases

human contribution to that I believe is less than 50%

so humans contribute less than 1% of the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming

the most common greenhouse gas is water vapor, which comes from, you guessed it, NATURAL WATER SOURCES.

Originally posted by chithappens
I wanna c that quote 😆. Never seen them say that and would surprise me

They did admit it if I remember correctly it was because of the near extinction of polar bears.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
They did admit it if I remember correctly it was because of the near extinction of polar bears.

Which isn't going to hurt us anywhere near as bad as the near extinction of bees.

I'm actually amazed no-one's brought up the statistic that says even if we obliterate the industrial world tomorrow, it would take 100 years or so for all that we've put up there to come back down.

Since February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost US$ 329,787,380,712 while potentially saving an undetectable 0.003420017 °C by the year 2050.

Malaria cost US$ 288,940,905,099 in lost GDP and 5,936,172 lives over the same period.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html

sure its a little biased, but still