gc1765

The point of paying Russia would be to provide the incentive to reduce the harm that it would do to countries that would be harmed by global warming. Both Canada and Russia emit greenhouse gases and thus "harm" other countries. Paying Russia to reduce it's emissions would thus reduce the "harm" to other countires. Using my "punching" analogy again, I could either punch you and then pay you reparations, or I could pay Russia not to punch you. Either way, you come out neutral. This is a whole different issue/debate. Unfortunately, it's not practical to pay individual people as it would be difficult for us in Canada to determine who is emitting and who isn't in countries that overall emit little. It's up to the government of those countries to use the money for the benefit of their citizens. Governments don't always do what is best for thier people, but there's not much we can do about that. All we can hope for is that citizens will choose the government that works best for them (even if it means some sort of revolution), even if that is not always the case. I'd be interested in hearing solutions to this problem. Perhaps we could withhold "carbon credit" money from governments unless it could be determined that the money was actually making it's way to the citizens. In the case of countries that aren't affected by global warming (eg Russia) it wouldn't matter, as the incentive for the government to reduce it's emissions would already be there (even if the money was going to bribes ) That's a great idea.

The money Canadians pay for their energy does not go to the people who it causes harm, nor does it provide incentive to other people (eg Russia) to reduce the amount of harm they do. For example, hypothetically speaking of course, if I were to punch you in the face I would have to pay you money for doing "harm" to you. It wouldn't make sense for me to give money to the owner of Petro Canada, or John Doe, when it was you that I "harmed". Why should I be entitled to "harm" you just because I gave money to someone else?

I vote for a "Miscellaneous" or "Off-Topic" forum.

No, but they should have to pay more. Kyoto is not about forbiding people from emitting carbon dioxide, it is about making those who do pay, and rewarding those who don't. It comes down to what is the cost of global warming in terms of dollars. (This is nearly impossible to put an exact figure on, and thus any number would necessarily be arbitrary. The debate over how much carbon credits should cost is one that I would like to stay out of, because like I said it's almost impossible to put a dollar figure on. I will, however, say that it is greater than $0. ). The "cost" of global warming would thus be paid by those who contribute to it. It is (or should be) in every contry's interest to reduce emissions. The reason why targets are set per country is because there would be no way to enforce it, through a carbon tax for example, on a global level. Thus, it is up to each individual government (country) to reach it's targets, and those governments are held accountable through the exchange of carbon credits. Thus, it is China's obligation to find incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their own country, but they are encourage to do so through the exchange of carbon credits. So, really it would be up to China to determine what to do with rich people in China emitting high levels of carbon dioxide, presumably through some type of carbon tax (or other method) but Kyoto provides incentive for them to do so.

Because setting the limit per person is saying "you, as a person living in Canada, are entitled to emit x amount of carbon dioxide. Another person living in China (or anywhere else) is also entitled to emit x amount of carbon dioxide." Measuring in square meter of land, for example, is saying that "you own x amount of land, therefore you are entitled to emit x amount of carbon dioxide. Since that other person over there only owns a small amount of land, they are not entitled to emit as much as you do." or "you have x amount of money, therefore you are entitled to emit x amount of carbon dioxide...." etc...Thus, in this case one person is entitled to emit more than another person, just as I have been saying all along. In that case, the question becomes why should one person be entitled to pollute more than someone else? The fact that it is not per capita only shows that it favours industrialized nations at the expense of less developed nations. I imagine that a treaty specifying that each country is allowed to emit x amount of carbon dioxide per person would not be politcally popular in the countries where people are emitting the most. For example, the U.S. is opposed to Kyoto despite the fact that they are entitled to pollute more than almost anyone. Imagine how unpopular a treaty would be if it specified that the U.S. was only allowed to pollute the same (per capita) as everyone else.

I think that was Riverwind's point. Russia's emissions in 1995 were lower. Thus, if the target year was 1995 they would have to achieve those much lower targets, which would be more difficult. As my post above demonstrates, however, this is irrelevant.

Credits that they only qualify for because the Kyoto agreement arbitrarily set 1991 as the target year. If they set a different year - 1995 for example - Canada would be in better shape and Russia would have a lot more work to do. Were Russia's emissions higher in 1991 than ours were in 1991? If the answer is yes, you may have a point. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. Everyone should be striving for the same per capita emissions, unless you believe that someone in one country is more entitled to pollute than someone in another country.

Kyoto does no such thing since Canada is the only major energy exporter that is affected by the limits (the Russians have zero incentive to do anything because they got a free pass due to the timing of the Kyoto agreement). Russia has lower (per capita) emissions than us, so it makes sense that they should not have to pay for credits. They can, however, sell credits (I believe), and this is the incentive I was talking about. (If I am mistaken and that's not the case, that is only an argument that Kyoto doesn't go far enough).

Energy producers have no control over the price they can charge for the product. Any tax imposed on the Canadian industry would simply make many producers uneconomic and force them to shutdown production. This might increase prices but it would not actually lead to any more efficient production. Not if every country did the same. That is the whole point of Kyoto, it is in every country's interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The price of energy would go up worldwide. If history is any indication, consumption won't change much and production will still be profitable. Efficient energy production will be even more profitable because they don't have to pay the extra charges for emissions. The other option is that due to high prices, consumption decreases and thus greenhouse gas emissions decrease.

That energy is being exported for profit. If someone is profiting from something that pollutes, why shouldn't they pay more? Of course, that would only drive up prices and the end user would end up paying the increase in cost anyways.

I asked you to post proof. Please post proof that China is emitting more greenhouse gases per capita (including CH4). Simply saying so doesn't make it true. Please try and prove me wrong. Sorry, China already pollutes more than us. The fact that their per capita emissions are lower is irrelevant because it is to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere what makes the difference. So what? Because you or I live in a less populated country we are entitled to pollute more than a person living in China? If it's geographic area we are talking about, does that mean we should be able to pollute ten times more than someone living in the U.S.? Afterall, our country is larger geographically even though we have 1/10th the population.

We are talking about global warming and carbon dioxide emissions, and you want to change the subject to sulfur and nitrogen emissions and acid rain? Way to avoid the topic. If you want to debate China's greenhouse gas emissions, as we have been doing, I'd be more than happy to. If you want to change the subject and talk about acid rain, please post proof that China's emissions of substances that cause acid rain are equal or higher to ours, and I'll be the first to join in condemning them for acid rain, but not for global warming.

Tell you what....if, when China reaches our per capita emissions, they don't want to cooperate, I'll be the first to join you in criticizing them and insisting they join or else withdraw from Kyoto. Yes my example was extreme, but I did that to illustrate a point (and the person in my example would emit carbon dioxide everytime they purchase any goods or services). If it were 30 people driving 30 smart cars, versus 30 people driving 8 SUVs then it would be similar. But that's not the case. A better comparison would be 8 people driving 8 SUVs versus 30 people driving 30 smart cars. In that case, it would be the 8 people driving SUVs (Canada) who are polluting more. Your assumption that China will not go along with Kyoto once they reach our per capita emissions (probably a long way off from that anyhow) is just that, an assumption. I'll make you the same offer that I made to "punked"....once China starts polluting as much as us, then I will start criticizing them just as much.

I'm arguing hypotheticals here, pay attention. That is the purpose of the word "if".

The whole purpose of Kyoto is to provide countires with an incentive to reduce emissions. If China is being paid money because of their low emissions (or paying money if someday they start polluting as much as us) that will provide them an incentive to stop corporations from polluting there. Whether they choose a carbon tax, or regulations, it is in their best interest to stop people from "polluting receklessly"

That doesn't make much sense. It's like telling someone who rides a bike & uses solar power for energy that they have to cut their emissions by a certain percentage while the person down the street driving an SUV and leaving every appliance in their home on that they have to cut theirs by the same percentage (which probably means keeping the SUV and turning off their appliances once in a while). If anything that's more of an incetive to reduce our emissions. Industrialized nations contribute a lot more than 5% of CO2 emissions (in reference to your example above). Once we reduce our emissions to the level of China's (per capita) then China can reduce it's CO2 emissions as well. To do otherwise would be to suggest that as Canadians we are somehow entitled to emit more than someone in China. There's no way around that...either we strive for the same per capita emissions as China or we are saying that a person living in Canada is more entitled to pollute than a person in China.

But the point is that we DO emit more. The average Canadian emits several times as much carbon dioxide as the average person from China. Until they reach the same per capita emissions as us, yes. It doesn't make much sense to measure emissions by country. If I were to start my own country, should I be allowed to emit as much carbon dioxide as Canada even though I'm only 1/30 millionth of the population?

The title of the thread should have said "Christmas tree banned from courthouse lobby" which is the title of This CBC article . I don't even know if it's possible to edit the title of a thread without notifying the moderator (which I think is an unnecessary hassle for such a small matter). Why do you think this thread was meant to "arouse people emotionally based on a false premise" rather than a simple mistake? Do you have anything to back up such a suggestion?

So, if someone lives in China, they should only be allowed to emit a small amount of carbon dioxide. But if somoene lives in Canada, they are entitled to emit much, much more carbon dioxide? Why the difference? That would be us (and by us I mean industrialized nations).

I don't understand all this criticism of China. Do people not realize that China emits a fraction of what the U.S. or Canada emit per capita?

He's obviously not that quick. A monkey probably could have beaten GW in the 2004 election....but Kerry couldn't. Even I could have outdebated GW in the debates...and Kerry is supposed to be a good debater I'd have to see everyone's platform before I pass judgement. Howard Dean seems like a good choice, it's too bad some people are so superficial as to criticize somone for a passionate "scream" rather than the actual issues that matter.

If intolerance includes wanting us dead or in servitude, they are intolerant. Where in the article does it say they "want us dead"?

I responded to this statement you made: How? Exactly. Just as I've been saying all along. Science can disprove the idea of an omnipotent, all knowing God, but has not (yet) disproven the idea of a God (especially since there are so many possible definitions). In other words, God (however you define it) may or may not exist, but He is certainly not "all-knowing". That's what I've been trying to say all along.

They don't have by-elections for senators. The Governor appoints one until the next scheduled election. I know, what I am saying is that they should. Too late to change that now I guess.

Or that the future Liberal leadership is genuinely interested in being a national party again. How about this for a deal...Kennedy runs in Calgary next election, and Harper runs in Toronto