gc1765

Here you go

For some reason I thought there was a provision in Kyoto that developing countries could sell credits to developed countries, but I could be wrong on that. (Incidentally, what happens if every country exceeds their cap...who is left to buy credits from?) Ok, so the fact that developed countries can invest to reduce emissions in developing countries means that developing countries have no incentive to reduce their own emissions....but what incentives would they otherwise have? Seems to me, Kyoto or not Kyoto, developing countries have no incentive to reduce their emissions.

What? Canadians emit a lot more carbon dioxide than the Chinese.

Developing countries still have an incentive to reduce their emissions. They can sell "credits' to developed countries and make money. If their emissions increase, they have less credits to sell and they get less money. If their emissions decrease, they make more money.

No it doesn't. The more they pollute, the less money (through credits) they receieve. Therefore, they are going to want to pollute less so that they get more money. They will. Again, the final consumer always pays in the end through higher prices (provided there is a level playing field so that the U.S. doesn't buy their oil elsewhere. IOW, if every oil company raises their prices, the consumer pays in the end.)

In Kyoto, no, but Kyoto is not perfect. An international carbon tax, which you seemed to be somewhat agreeable to, would not make it more expensive to produce goods in developed countries. I suppose though, that even under Kyoto it is in the best interest of developing countries to keep their emissions low. In that case, it would be up to the individual country to decide how to tax producers and if they decide not to tax them they are in effect subsidizing them. Agreed. I think Kyoto is meant to allow the individual countries to decide how to reduce their emissions, as it is more practical than trying to regulate emissions per person on an international level. Kyoto is meant to regulate emissions by country, and it is up to the individual countries to regulate on a per person basis. In your example above, it is in Canada's best interest to reduce their emissions. They might, for example, implement a "carbon tax" (or something else) in which case the person polluting more would pay. It is also in China's best interest to emit less, so they would have some sort of carbon tax in which case the rich chinese would still have to pay. Again, it's not perfect, but that is the purpose of it.

If producers raise prices, consumers are going to pay from another company, it's competition. If every company has to pay higher prices to produce their goods, then they will all raise prices and the consumer will pay more (or decrase consumption). I think that is part of the goal here, to reduce the consumption of energy.

I think it's basic economics that the more you have to pay for something, the less you will buy of it. But even if that's not true, even if some sort of "carbon tax" did not reduce greenhouse gases, at least it would be raising money which could go towards dealing with the problems associated with global warming.

Would you consider Canada or the U.S. to be a communist country? Would you call anyone who supports the tax system in Canada a communist? In Canada, everyone is allowed a "basic personal exemption" on paying income taxes. Allowing people to pollute x amount before paying is no different. That's like saying your a communist because you think someone who earns less than $9,000 a year should not have to do their part in paying income tax. Does it really matter? The consumer is going to pay in the end, regardless of where it is produced. If it costs more to produce something, it is going to be sold for a higher price. Now, the only final question is should there be some sort of personal exemption like there is with income tax, or should you have to pay tax on everything you pollute?

First off, I never said anything like this. I am simply saying that those who create harm (ie global warming) should pay those who are harmed (by global warming). If I were to burn down someone's house, I would have to pay for it. If I contribute to global warming, and that causes someone's house to be underwater, I should pay for it as well. How would you feel about an international carbon tax, where everyone pays proportional to what they pollute? You wouldn't have to worry about who is allowed to pollute what, you pay what you pollute. The only real difference between this and a system with caps is that in the system with caps, everyone is allowed a "basic personal exemption" (kind of like income tax).

No, the biggest pile of stupidity would be trying to pass that off as some sort of intelligent argument...

We just went over this. If anything, developing countries should be allowed to pollute more since they will be affected more (but I'll settle for the same). People in developed countries are the ones who allowed to pollute (or "take") more while people in developing countries are the ones suffering (or "giving"). Do you have an answer for the question I posed earlier, about whether an only child should be allowed to pollute more than someone who has 9 siblings?

Higher gas prices wouldn't affect the truck driver, the costs would be passed on to the final consumer. They could either reduce their consumption, buy things locally, or not change their behaviour at all. Even if they don't change their behaviour, at least they are paying for it. That money could go towards dealing with problems associated with global warming (which I believe we have discussed before in other threads). That's why we need some sort of international system. Kyoto is not perfect, but the intent is there.

And the rich economies benefit from the money that they receive for the goods & knowledge. That is the beauty of the free market, if BOTH sides weren't benefitting, no exchange of goods would be taking place.

It is equal in the sense that we get what we give (see post above). The harder we work/more we give to society, the more money we get and more we can purchase. The difference is polluting is not give and take. Polluting is like "taking", but without giving. If we had a carbon tax for everyone, then the rich would be able to pollute more because they are "giving" more. Which brings up a good point, certain people (depending on where you live) will be affected more (and it's not us in Canada). Those people are "giving" in a sense, so if anything they should be allowed to pollute more than us.

Because in order to have the money to buy a house/car, they must have provided a service to someone else. In return for the services they provide, they get rewarded with being able to purchase a house. What has a big polluter done that entitles them to pollute more?

you mean oil to be pumped, that is the purpose of war isn't it

You didn't answer the question. Also, why shouldn't they be allowed to pollute the same? What makes one person more entitled than another?

Yes, that is probably true. Then again, I don't think anyone can say for certain.

Too bad they didn't think of that BEFORE 9/11, huh? If you're going to blame Clinton, you've gotta blame Bush too.

First of all, China is controlling their population... Secondly, I have a question for you: Let's say hypothetically that you are one of 10 children, and one of 100 grandchildren, and I am an only child, and only grandchild. Does that mean I should be allowed to pollute 10 times, or 100 times more than you? Or should we still be allowed to pollute the same?

Yeah...and they weren't too busy on 9/11...what is your point?

None that I know of, why?

You were the one who seemed to be implying that it was Clinton's "restrained" response that allowed 9/11 to happen...unless I am misinterpreting you.

I'm not sure either one benefitted or lost a whole lot. I think some people might be drawn to the Liberals because of an endorsement from the Green Party on the environment issue. The greens won't gain much, unless May wins, but that is unlikely. If the Liberals don't do anything about the environment after that endorsement, the credibility of the greens will go down. And what poll are you talking about? I must have a poor memory cause I don't remember saying anything about not liking a poll recently.