It's a good thing to lower taxes, but Harper is getting it all wrong. Instead of a hundred little targetted tax cuts, or a reduction in the GST, he should have instead made broad-based cuts to the income tax (both corporate and personal). Shift taxes from income and wealth creation to consumption and pollution.
Harper letter dismissed Kyoto a money-sucking socialist scheme
- Thread starter sanctus
- Start date
What I need and I'm guessing many others do as well, is a in depth but in layman's terms the gist of"KYOTO " what it really ,really means for us
At first I thought It was really bad that Canada backed down ,but then I heard something about sending money to China --but why
So for myself I need to research this subject before I can make a educated guess --lol
Does anyone have a website(s) where I may get info ,maybe fro m both points of view
Thank you
At first I thought It was really bad that Canada backed down ,but then I heard something about sending money to China --but why
So for myself I need to research this subject before I can make a educated guess --lol
Does anyone have a website(s) where I may get info ,maybe fro m both points of view
Thank you
Wish I had a link or book to recommend that I really think is definitive. I don’t but I’m starting to look. I Googled on ‘Kyoto analysis Canada’ and ‘Kyoto economic Canada.’ The hits seemed to span the usual range of commentary, news, discussion, ads, crank and irrelevant in wildly varying degrees of quality. There were even some that might be both interesting and informative to read. Its a place to start and I’ll post links that I like, but I’ll of course what I like would reflect my own biases. Everybody should do their own research, BUT EVERYBODY DEFINITELY SHOULD ATTEND TO THIS SUBJECT AND WE SHOULD START NOW.
I haven’t sought out specific material to date because I’ve been relying on my ideology to simply the world—as everybody does to some extent. So, I start from my own ideology, and I believe (since ideology is beliefs):
First, that science of climatic change is the place to start. Start with the science, because if the warming scenario is reality and we face global disaster, what difference does it make who pays for a solution and who benefits? If global disaster is a realistic possibility, a necessary question to ask is not whether Kyoto is an adequate solution, but what are the best practices we can identify right now. Fairly conclusive science is starting to emerge and GWG is only one of the environmental problems. Deforestation is another (J. Diamond).
Second, certainly any ‘best practices.’ let alone ‘solution,’ is going to hurt Canada at least in the short term. The problem is the present dominant forms of production, and consumption. Canada definitely has made its prosperous living as part of the problem. Now we have to do something difference; start listening to different people; try to make different friends; and start taking our success models from different styles. If we don’t do that we will fail. In the face of imminent failure I plan to continue the old ways and make a fortune by manufacturing and selling DISASTER R US tee shirts using the usual irresponsible materials, manufacturing and distribution methods.
Third, the pointing of fingers at who benefit from Kyoto is usually a piece of ideology from those who benefit, and benefit massively, from the status quo. I don’t care if Kyoto sends money to China—what do we think happens now every time we make a box store purchase? I don’t care if China or developing countries benefit. International financial, monetary and trade practices have been massively one-sided to date. We’ve benefited and we’ve have largely squandered those benefits by subsidizing our own great distorters of resources and creators of monopoly profits that perpetuate our lords of life style. Our lords are those who have brought us perhaps to the brink. We have to take some hits, and we deserve them. But now my ideology is starting to predominate so I’ll stop.
Fourth, actions like cutting taxes aren’t part of the solution. Cutting taxes is part of the same tired ideology brought to us by our public and private leaders—the lords. Few if any professional economists have believed these things in decades (J. Stiglitz). Consumption in the present style is the problem. We have to change the style or consume less. Alternative resources aren’t alternatives. Taxes if anything need to increase, and especially corporate taxes. Tax payers pick up the bills now for most external costs associated with the production, distribution and consumption of most everything. The ability of producers to shift external costs onto taxpayers is subsidies to those industries. These subsidizes distort the allocations of resources and create artificially low-cost products. Low cost products pump up consumption and also production, since these products have to be replaced frequently. Broken junk and packaging is thrown into landfills (which we also pay for). Landfills, heavy-duty highways etc. are subsidies to consumption. We have to stop doing stuff like this.
Fifth: We have had our economy on the steroids and amphetamines of a radical aggressive slash and run model of continuous economic development at any cost (the more the better) for centuries. The economy is in hyper-drive, which has been the solution to the free market’s solution to the inadequacy of aggregate demand. Economic hyper-drive and its noble virtues of greed-driven profits once carved industrial economies out of wildernesses. The hyper-drive economy that once lifted us above our serfdoms may have led us to a new serfdom of futures that are not viable. We have compromised our own humanity in the process. Perhaps the hyper-drive economy is like having a tiger by the tail. Nobody knows how to let go without getting hurt. Nobody may know what will happen if we stop artificially boosting aggregate demand. We might get hurt and then find something different to do. But, we must find that thing, what ever it may be, or the hurt is likely to be much greater. With humanity we all can survive as much hurt as is required. We all should start now and in our own ways.
Sixth: Ideology makes us stupid. The more ideological, the more stupid. It is the responsibility of each of us to know our own particular stupidness. I’m afraid that sometimes neither ideologies nor layman’s terms are adequate—mine included.
I haven’t sought out specific material to date because I’ve been relying on my ideology to simply the world—as everybody does to some extent. So, I start from my own ideology, and I believe (since ideology is beliefs):
First, that science of climatic change is the place to start. Start with the science, because if the warming scenario is reality and we face global disaster, what difference does it make who pays for a solution and who benefits? If global disaster is a realistic possibility, a necessary question to ask is not whether Kyoto is an adequate solution, but what are the best practices we can identify right now. Fairly conclusive science is starting to emerge and GWG is only one of the environmental problems. Deforestation is another (J. Diamond).
Second, certainly any ‘best practices.’ let alone ‘solution,’ is going to hurt Canada at least in the short term. The problem is the present dominant forms of production, and consumption. Canada definitely has made its prosperous living as part of the problem. Now we have to do something difference; start listening to different people; try to make different friends; and start taking our success models from different styles. If we don’t do that we will fail. In the face of imminent failure I plan to continue the old ways and make a fortune by manufacturing and selling DISASTER R US tee shirts using the usual irresponsible materials, manufacturing and distribution methods.
Third, the pointing of fingers at who benefit from Kyoto is usually a piece of ideology from those who benefit, and benefit massively, from the status quo. I don’t care if Kyoto sends money to China—what do we think happens now every time we make a box store purchase? I don’t care if China or developing countries benefit. International financial, monetary and trade practices have been massively one-sided to date. We’ve benefited and we’ve have largely squandered those benefits by subsidizing our own great distorters of resources and creators of monopoly profits that perpetuate our lords of life style. Our lords are those who have brought us perhaps to the brink. We have to take some hits, and we deserve them. But now my ideology is starting to predominate so I’ll stop.
Fourth, actions like cutting taxes aren’t part of the solution. Cutting taxes is part of the same tired ideology brought to us by our public and private leaders—the lords. Few if any professional economists have believed these things in decades (J. Stiglitz). Consumption in the present style is the problem. We have to change the style or consume less. Alternative resources aren’t alternatives. Taxes if anything need to increase, and especially corporate taxes. Tax payers pick up the bills now for most external costs associated with the production, distribution and consumption of most everything. The ability of producers to shift external costs onto taxpayers is subsidies to those industries. These subsidizes distort the allocations of resources and create artificially low-cost products. Low cost products pump up consumption and also production, since these products have to be replaced frequently. Broken junk and packaging is thrown into landfills (which we also pay for). Landfills, heavy-duty highways etc. are subsidies to consumption. We have to stop doing stuff like this.
Fifth: We have had our economy on the steroids and amphetamines of a radical aggressive slash and run model of continuous economic development at any cost (the more the better) for centuries. The economy is in hyper-drive, which has been the solution to the free market’s solution to the inadequacy of aggregate demand. Economic hyper-drive and its noble virtues of greed-driven profits once carved industrial economies out of wildernesses. The hyper-drive economy that once lifted us above our serfdoms may have led us to a new serfdom of futures that are not viable. We have compromised our own humanity in the process. Perhaps the hyper-drive economy is like having a tiger by the tail. Nobody knows how to let go without getting hurt. Nobody may know what will happen if we stop artificially boosting aggregate demand. We might get hurt and then find something different to do. But, we must find that thing, what ever it may be, or the hurt is likely to be much greater. With humanity we all can survive as much hurt as is required. We all should start now and in our own ways.
Sixth: Ideology makes us stupid. The more ideological, the more stupid. It is the responsibility of each of us to know our own particular stupidness. I’m afraid that sometimes neither ideologies nor layman’s terms are adequate—mine included.
Last edited:
As much as I hate flip flop vote pandering, his interpretation is bang on the money.
No kidding, even I though it was weak, but hey, like all the hypocrits say about Kyoto...
At least it was a start!<--- please note all the sarcasm I could muster.
We can't dismiss the fact that Kyoto really is the starting point for global cooperation on the climate change issue. I would venture a guess that there were more skeptics in 1997 than there are now. If not a start then, when would it be necessary to do so? It does cover over 55% of GHG emissions, but as I've said before is woefully inept. It's supposed to be law, but is more like a voluntary lip service.
Here lies the problem, it will curtail nothing, as the west is forced to embrace costly technology to become complient, the Chinese will build a new coal plant every couple weeks until it surpasses the out put of GHG's of the US. Thusly nulifying the effects the west has on any change.
But why, if Kyoto is a good start, is the clean air act not?
That's simple, just because we can't be responsible for 100% of the emissions doesn't mean we should feel compelled to be less than mediocre. The Clean Air Act is Harpers response to the climate problem which he himself has said is not possible. But without even trying, the Clean Air Act sets goals well outside of even trying to meet Kyoto.
Kyoto leaves jugernauts like China out of the equation. That is no reason to say we shouldn't try. Maybe Harper is more like a sheep himself than a sheppard. He has said many times he wants Canada to be a leader on the World stage, why not try on this stage? Seems reminiscent of some provinces declining programs like mandatory waste reduction through recycling and composting because they said it couldn't make a difference, but many provinces have done so, and quite successfully.
After 2012 there will be new meetings on climate change, I expect there will be technology allotments under the new program. Also, by then we could have been phasing in newer technology, cleaner technology that would be much better than simply trading credits. So we might not meet the initial targets set under Kyoto. It's like someone said to me in another thread, just because you didn't win the race doesn't mean the race isn't worthwhile.
Tonnington
There's no going back. All the oxygen and all the water that's ever existed on this planet is all we have.
Destroying the atmosphere and the soil and the oceans...species extinction at a rate never seen before ....doesn't matter.
Those species will never be replaced and there's no global Seven-Eleven or Mike's Milk to visit in the cosmos somewhere where we can pick up the stuff we need.
We can delay (perhaps) and adapt (off-set) the effects of our stupidity but in the final analysis...it's all just interesting chit chat on an Internet website...
There's no going back. All the oxygen and all the water that's ever existed on this planet is all we have.
Destroying the atmosphere and the soil and the oceans...species extinction at a rate never seen before ....doesn't matter.
Those species will never be replaced and there's no global Seven-Eleven or Mike's Milk to visit in the cosmos somewhere where we can pick up the stuff we need.
We can delay (perhaps) and adapt (off-set) the effects of our stupidity but in the final analysis...it's all just interesting chit chat on an Internet website...
And I agree with acting to effect change as you do. I do not and will not support using Kyoto as the mechanism for that change. It would bind us to unrealistic targets and excuse the mass producers of GHG's.
So what is the point of adopting a system that has already been prove to be of no use?
Lets come up with a real strategy.
Lets start with going to Sweden, buying their technology on garbage incineration, it is proven clean and effectual, it can produce electricity. And oh yes, we must do it without doing it in the old Canadian fashion, ie: Buy the technology and then try to re-invent it to make it all somehow more Canadian. Just do it!!!
Then force asshat community leaders like T dots Miller to build the damn things.
To much talk, not enough action.
I can think of a better place for politicians to put their lip service to better use, but I think the kids would wonder why their Dad had his ass pressed again the compter screen. lmao.
See that's just it, even though we've signed on to Kyoto, there is no penalties for not meeting said targets. I would be pleased if the emissions at least slowed down, regardless of what program, treaty or bill we use to do it.
That garbage incineration is cretainly a good technology to adapt. That's the type of international cooperation I'd like to see. What has been shown to work effectively by other nations should be shared.
Lol, thats an image allright, your kids might think you're off your rocker.
That garbage incineration is cretainly a good technology to adapt. That's the type of international cooperation I'd like to see. What has been shown to work effectively by other nations should be shared.
Lol, thats an image allright, your kids might think you're off your rocker.
See now, this is productive, this is what needs to be done. Drop the left right social engineering word of the day(lol, I just like the way it rolls off the tongue, lol), and get right down to what can be done!
We nee to act and act fast, not debate who will buy credits from whom, no one is exempt from suffering from the extent of the damage, so therefore no one should be exempt from ceasing to contribute to it.
Alas a concensus!!!!!!!!!!!
OK, I'll bite...Consensuses (consensi?) Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.
Someone say something controvertable.
IT'S all HOG wash!!!
That should get the ball rolling again, damn those lil divots that stops its momentum, must be global divoting!!!
A problem with Kyoto is that rich nations can buy the right to pollute. Wealth should not be able to buy rights at either at the individual or national level. Another problem is no teeth, not even dentures. Still, nothing says a nation can’t start with Kyoto and then do something better.
We probably wouldn’t be having this GWG problem if all external costs associated with the production, distribution; consumption and disposal of products were added onto purchase prices. The bills for pollution etc. then would be paid in real time; purchase prices of products would go up to reflect their true production costs, and all of us would consume less until industries changed their production methods. Of course the economy may collapse in the meantime. We might survive a collapsed economy but surviving the alternatives isn’t a known fact. Or, we also might figure out how to manage a global economy that isn’t jerked into a hyper growth mode.
Many economists say that external costs should be paid to efficiently allocate resources. If we don’t, and we haven’t been, we may end up with a soviet type of economy that is prone to collapse, and the country along with it. So, how to charge for the costs of clean up etc.? Corporate taxes are a blunt instrument was but one that that would work. Companies would increase their prices and governments could use the tax revenue for clean up etc. Remember that using monetary policy to control inflation was also is a blunt instrument that most of us experienced. Licensing, standards and permits also work, but all these methods require the dreaded government intervention into the market place. But we should just do it. There is no evidence that free enterprise capitalism has ever been sustainable in absence of government intervention. So say many economists. It’s time to step away from denials of many kinds. We are all guilty and we all have to start being part of the solution.
Deniers may say that the methods of production in other countries can’t be controlled by us—at least that’s a widely held attitude in Canada. However, such a reality does not doom attempts to discipline global economic production to failure. We could tax imports an amount to compensate for international external costs. We could probably think of something worthy and international to do with the tax revenue if we tried. Production would be disciplined if major importing countries acted together.
There are plenty of things that might improve our allocation of resources, but most of them require the dreaded government intervention. Government intervention seems inevitable. We experience intervention into our individual lives big time, now it’s time for the legal persons known as corporations to become responsible or experience intervention big time. We need to get used to intervention because corporations can’t do discipline themselves easily. Corporations are overly simplistic legal persons that exist only to generate profit for their investors and income for their employees. Corporations are fairly blind to other considerations. Big return on investment is good business and corporate officers that produce it are rewarded. Bad environment policies could be made into bad business, but at present only government seems capable of turning poor environmental practices into bad business. In the future perhaps our societal values will render us responsible and self-regulating and there will be little need for intervention. Perhaps even our idiot legal person corporations will come to have a grasp of the world beyond profit. Perhaps we don’t have the time to wait and see. What a wonder world might be waiting if we all started being responsible now. Very belatedly I’m reading Stevie Cameron’s Book ‘On the Take.’ We’ve all been on the take and well beyond the capacity to give for a long time now. It’s time to stop.
We probably wouldn’t be having this GWG problem if all external costs associated with the production, distribution; consumption and disposal of products were added onto purchase prices. The bills for pollution etc. then would be paid in real time; purchase prices of products would go up to reflect their true production costs, and all of us would consume less until industries changed their production methods. Of course the economy may collapse in the meantime. We might survive a collapsed economy but surviving the alternatives isn’t a known fact. Or, we also might figure out how to manage a global economy that isn’t jerked into a hyper growth mode.
Many economists say that external costs should be paid to efficiently allocate resources. If we don’t, and we haven’t been, we may end up with a soviet type of economy that is prone to collapse, and the country along with it. So, how to charge for the costs of clean up etc.? Corporate taxes are a blunt instrument was but one that that would work. Companies would increase their prices and governments could use the tax revenue for clean up etc. Remember that using monetary policy to control inflation was also is a blunt instrument that most of us experienced. Licensing, standards and permits also work, but all these methods require the dreaded government intervention into the market place. But we should just do it. There is no evidence that free enterprise capitalism has ever been sustainable in absence of government intervention. So say many economists. It’s time to step away from denials of many kinds. We are all guilty and we all have to start being part of the solution.
Deniers may say that the methods of production in other countries can’t be controlled by us—at least that’s a widely held attitude in Canada. However, such a reality does not doom attempts to discipline global economic production to failure. We could tax imports an amount to compensate for international external costs. We could probably think of something worthy and international to do with the tax revenue if we tried. Production would be disciplined if major importing countries acted together.
There are plenty of things that might improve our allocation of resources, but most of them require the dreaded government intervention. Government intervention seems inevitable. We experience intervention into our individual lives big time, now it’s time for the legal persons known as corporations to become responsible or experience intervention big time. We need to get used to intervention because corporations can’t do discipline themselves easily. Corporations are overly simplistic legal persons that exist only to generate profit for their investors and income for their employees. Corporations are fairly blind to other considerations. Big return on investment is good business and corporate officers that produce it are rewarded. Bad environment policies could be made into bad business, but at present only government seems capable of turning poor environmental practices into bad business. In the future perhaps our societal values will render us responsible and self-regulating and there will be little need for intervention. Perhaps even our idiot legal person corporations will come to have a grasp of the world beyond profit. Perhaps we don’t have the time to wait and see. What a wonder world might be waiting if we all started being responsible now. Very belatedly I’m reading Stevie Cameron’s Book ‘On the Take.’ We’ve all been on the take and well beyond the capacity to give for a long time now. It’s time to stop.
I suspect that the majority of climate change skeptics are not educated to understand the details of climate change. Hence the dinosaurs didn't drive comment I just read in an ignorant response to this thread. It's like a non-mechanic declaring that s/he went "wubba-wubba" and the car started, so really, it doesn't need the fixing the mechanic is suggesting. Why is it that the types who seem the least bit concerned about climate change are the ones who would drive their snowmobile out on the frozen lake to check if it's frozen?