Grits' Kyoto Plan Would Have Worked!

[MMMike]

Re: RE: Grits' Kyoto Plan Would Have Worked!

Why are you so eager to ship our money off to foreign countries MMMike and make our lives more expensive? It’s like the units are a new product they just invented and now we have to purchase them.

It's a welfare scheme, and I’m surprised your supporting this, especially since the evidence isn't as squeeky clean as it should be.

Did you see the link I provided in the other thread?

I'm not eager to ship our money off to foreign countries at all, Jay. I am eager to see (at long last) some action on reducing ghg emissions and Kyoto is an important step. If we would stop fecking around and get down to work there is no reason we have to buy credits abroad at all. The solutions and the technology are already here. What is lacking is the political will from our so-called leaders.

 

[I think not]

What's lacking MMMike is the economic feasibility to implement green technologies on a broader scale. Last year I was debating as to whether or not to install solar panels for providing power. Despite the credits, tax breaks, state funding it still would have cost me $15K to install it, with a return on investment of 8 years. That's not happening. When return on investment is 3 to 4 years more and more people will jump on it.

 

[bluealberta]

MMMike, please explain to me how buying credits from another country is first of all an investment, and secondly how it will reduce emissions in Canada? And third, is there any kind of follow up on what the country we give the money to, does with with money we give them.

I remain fully convinced that to reduce Canadian emissions, we need to develop Canadian solutions and develop technology which we can then either sell or give to other countries, but I remain totally opposed to blindly giving money to other countries to buy these magical credits. If we buy enough credits, will emissions be eliminated? Didn't think so. Hell, if buying credits would eliminate emissions, lets just give all our money to a country with credits for one year, and then we will have solved the problem, right? Again, didn't think so.

Anyway, I have made my point, I disagree with the New World Order equalization program that a bunch of elistist small-l liberals around the world came up with. Lets see some real and positive alternatives to resolve this, if in fact this is actually a problem. Sure would be funny if we were going through all this agony and thought process just to find out that this is just a natural occurence that we could not have done a damn thing about anyway.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: Grits' Kyoto Plan Would Have Worked!

Jay... that was a super post. Typically intellectuals are reluctant to challenge activist because they pretty much travel in the same circles.

IMO Kyoto was a ploy to rob money from western nations. Just like a previous poster said "A wealth sharing" agreement. Meaning nations like Canada, in all its good will would shell out money to developing countries.

When a nation like China gets a pass because it is a developing country shows that the whole agreement was a farce. China has one of the largest and fastest growing economies in the world. China knew this agreement would fail and they would not be asked in 2010 to sign on as they promised. Even if Kyoto is still around they will never sign on.

That's just plain stupid. China has ratified the Kyoto Accord. And why are you targetting China anyway when Canada produces an order of magnitude more ghg emmissions per capita than does China?

No no no MMMike... China is NOT a full signator on Kyoto. They have been given a "developing nation" status so they do not have to abide by the same rules as nations like Canada who has signed the treaty. They (China) have agreed to review the treaty agin in I believe 2010.

But as it stands it is business as usual in China.

Edit:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/17/content_416947.htm

Here is a simple link... China has signed but as a "developing nation" and has no obligations to reduce emmissions under the accord. So when they review the treaty in 5 years the Chinese will say

"So Sorry... we are still developing." :lol:

How did one of the biggest, most successful, and fast growing economies get a "developing nation" status?

 

[Chake99]

"This policy approach will fail dramatically to meet national objectives and yet will entail a substantial cost," says the report, whose lead author is Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University.

I stopped reading when it said Simon Fraser. Everything they publish is always pushing a right-wing agenda, regardless of what issue it is on.

 

[bluealberta]

"This policy approach will fail dramatically to meet national objectives and yet will entail a substantial cost," says the report, whose lead author is Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University.

I stopped reading when it said Simon Fraser. Everything they publish is always pushing a right-wing agenda, regardless of what issue it is on.

So anything from a right wing viewpoint is, in your opinion, wrong and to be totally ignored? Sure limits your options, doesn't it.

 

[FiveParadox]

bluealberta[/i]]So anything from a right wing viewpoint is, in your opinion, wrong and to be totally ignored? Sure limits your options, doesn't it.

I think that, perhaps, Chake99 was suggesting that situations such as climate change may require compromises between the left-wing and right-wing positions, to ensure that one can put forth an initiative which could be made in the interests of the entire population of Canada (how's that for practicing for a future in the Commons, haha).

 

[EagleSmack]

"This policy approach will fail dramatically to meet national objectives and yet will entail a substantial cost," says the report, whose lead author is Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University.

I stopped reading when it said Simon Fraser. Everything they publish is always pushing a right-wing agenda, regardless of what issue it is on.

So anything from a right wing viewpoint is, in your opinion, wrong and to be totally ignored? Sure limits your options, doesn't it.

Are you surprised?

 

[Chake99]

"This policy approach will fail dramatically to meet national objectives and yet will entail a substantial cost," says the report, whose lead author is Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University.

I stopped reading when it said Simon Fraser. Everything they publish is always pushing a right-wing agenda, regardless of what issue it is on.

So anything from a right wing viewpoint is, in your opinion, wrong and to be totally ignored? Sure limits your options, doesn't it.

Any organization that finds all research they do to completely corroborate all their pre-composed theories over a period of decades is, in my mind, worthy of a little bit of doubt.

There was a time when I actually took what they said seriously, but now that I've realized that on any topic a conservative can cite a study they've done as proof, I've grown a bit jaded to their claims.

I don't believe that everything from a right-wing viewpoint should be ignored, in fact in the time I've spent lurking here I've taken many of your comments quite seriously, BlueAlberta (regardless of whether I agreed with them or not), but when it is Simon Fraser that is being dealt with, what they say seems no longer a scientific claim, so much as a statement of their opinion on an issue, at least to me.

 

[bluealberta]

"This policy approach will fail dramatically to meet national objectives and yet will entail a substantial cost," says the report, whose lead author is Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University.

I stopped reading when it said Simon Fraser. Everything they publish is always pushing a right-wing agenda, regardless of what issue it is on.

So anything from a right wing viewpoint is, in your opinion, wrong and to be totally ignored? Sure limits your options, doesn't it.

Any organization that finds all research they do to completely corroborate all their pre-composed theories over a period of decades is, in my mind, worthy of a little bit of doubt.

There was a time when I actually took what they said seriously, but now that I've realized that on any topic a conservative can cite a study they've done as proof, I've grown a bit jaded to their claims.

I don't believe that everything from a right-wing viewpoint should be ignored, in fact in the time I've spent lurking here I've taken many of your comments quite seriously, BlueAlberta (regardless of whether I agreed with them or not), but when it is Simon Fraser that is being dealt with, what they say seems no longer a scientific claim, so much as a statement of their opinion on an issue, at least to me.

Fair enough, Chake, I just wanted to make sure you were not dismissing right wing viewpoints out of hand. AFter all, and IMO, the right wing was largely responsible for the end of the cold war, the end of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, but those are just minor points in history, after all. :wink: