Has Canada rafitied the Kyoto Accord yet?

[Big Blue Machine]

Have we? I'm 50/50 on Kyoto. It might threaten the manufacting base of Canada.

[maplesyrup]

Hansard Revise

[Big Blue Machine]

It's in French. I can't read French that well.

[maplesyrup]

Clickez on English at the top right corner.

[August1991]

Yes, we did. (Read announcement here.)

But we have never implemented it. That is, we have never presented a specific plan to achieve the goal Kyoto assigns to Canada.

The federal government has nevertheless spent money on CO2 reductions. Fraser Institute 'progress' reports are here and here.

[Big Blue Machine]

What's Mr. Martin's opinion on Kyoto?

[playfullfellow]

What's Mr. Martin's opinion on Kyoto? [/quote/)

Meh, probably about the same as his opinion on healthcare or any other promise during the election, if it will get a few votes, then he is all for it till the election is over. Then it is back to the same ol same ol.

[Cartman]

What's Mr. Martin's opinion on Kyoto? [/quote/)

Meh, probably about the same as his opinion on healthcare or any other promise during the election, if it will get a few votes, then he is all for it till the election is over. Then it is back to the same ol same ol.

Does ANYONE disagree with this? So funny.

[maplesyrup]

Awaiting Martin on Kyoto

I suppose we will have to depend on the Jack Layton New Democrats to hold PM Martin 's feet to the fire on this election promise as well.

[August1991]

From the article above:

Under legislation that could be presented to the cabinet whenever the cabinet decided it wanted to see it, these large emitters would be given permits allowing them to produce 85 per cent of their emission quota for free; after that, they would have to reduce emissions or buy the permits, either from the government or from emitters that came in under target and had permits to sell.

Ibbitson implies the legislation will go forward shortly after parliament resumes in early October. This is interesting and one to watch.

[Cartman]

We better get on board with this because our economy will suffer if we try to ignore the issue. Eventually those governments (and corporations) who invest in cleaner tech. will begin to place onerous tarrifs and other restrictions on those who do not. I suspect that many US firms already recognize this and will conform to standards regardless of what (semi) free market theorists like Bush and Harper propose. Bartering a better deal is preferable to having one inevitably foisted upon you and being a pragmatist, Chretien recognized as much.

Cry all you want about "hokey science", but the reality is that the world community believes that the market has not effectively regulated itself and consequently an interventionist program will take place whether we like it or not. While the right has demonstrated its eighteenth century belief system to be antiquated on this matter, the left has shown it is most relevant and vital to our economic well-being.

[Big Blue Machine]

I hope Mr. Martin does legisate Kyoto into Canadian law, but I don't think that will happen.

[Cartman]

It will happen one way or the other. The only questions are whether we get on board with it and when the entire world will as well. As mentioned above, some corporations are already getting prepared. Check this out.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...lta_040825.html

[August1991]

TransAlta says that under the 10-year deal, it will buy 1.75 million tonnes of greenhouse gas credits. The price was not revealed.

The interesting detail is that the price is not public.

The creation of a market in CO2 emissions is the important feature of the federal legislation. This method must be extended to other environmental problems.

The suggestion that all corporations are going to voluntarily go along with this is crazy. Although starting them at 85% makes their agreement a little easier to obtain.

We better get on board with this because our economy will suffer if we try to ignore the issue. Eventually those governments (and corporations) who invest in cleaner tech. will begin to place onerous tarrifs and other restrictions on those who do not.

*Sigh*.... where do I begin? A tax (tariff) imposes a burden on both parties to a transaction.

[Cartman]

The suggestion that all corporations are going to voluntarily go along with this is crazy.

I would agree with your critique of this absolutist statement though believe you are creating a straw man to easily tear down since I cannot find where anyone made the suggestion that ALL corporations will go along with this voluntarily. Some corporations will go along with this voluntarily (even if they do not like it). The article in question demonstrates as much.

*Sigh*.... where do I begin? A tax (tariff) imposes a burden on both parties to a transaction.

Without taxes which few people enjoy, I am unclear as to how you would provide sufficient resources for the services of state regulation. I do not believe this would be done effectively by simply requesting charitable donations. Tariffs may hurt both parties to a transaction, but benefit others negatively affected by such transactions. In the case of environmental protection, the market has not adequately regulated itself in the eyes of 123 nations (thus far) and is perceived to be in need of state intervention. Ideally, we would not need a state to protect us from ourselves, but the ideal frequently differs from the reality.

[Hugo]

Without taxes which few people enjoy, I am unclear as to how you would provide sufficient resources for the services of state regulation.

Excellent. We shall all do a lot better without the disservices of state regulation.

Regarding the Kyoto accord, it's all very amusing. I recall Plato's Critias, where he spends ages rambling on about how Athenian industry is raping the land, causing soil erosion and reducing Greece to a desolate wasteland, and then Tertullian, who in the 2nd Century campaigned against rampant over-population and the rape of Earth's resources and advocated a withdrawal to a simpler and more ecologically sound life.

1800 years later, the Apocalypse seems to have gone out to lunch.

In the case of environmental protection, the market has not adequately regulated itself in the eyes of 123 nations (thus far) and is perceived to be in need of state intervention.

So, let me get this straight. A bunch of governments have decided that governments need to have more power and more tax money, and you don't smell a rat?

[August1991]

In the case of environmental protection, the market has not adequately regulated itself in the eyes of 123 nations (thus far) and is perceived to be in need of state intervention.

In the case of environmental protection, it's not the lack of market regulation. It's the lack of any market at all.

When the environment can be bought and sold for a profit in a market, then we'll protect the environment. The federal legislation starts us down the road to do this.

Corporations are not going to happily pay for something that they can at present use for free. One solution is to give it to them and then let them sell it for profit. This legislation partially does that.

The article in question demonstrates as much.

I suspect that Transalta is taking out a very cheap option (which it may never exercise) and getting a little PR into the bargain. What's Transalta's relationship to the Chilean firm?

Tariffs may hurt both parties to a transaction, but benefit others negatively affected by such transactions.

I would agree with that. But you have just made the State the owner of the environment. I can think of several reasons that is a bad idea.

[Cartman]

In the case of environmental protection, it's not the lack of market regulation. It's the lack of any market at all.

Agreed, but I think that the failure of corporations to generate such a market in the first place without the aid of states around the world says much about the necessity of intervention at times.

But you have just made the State the owner of the environment. I can think of several reasons that is a bad idea.

I intuitively agree with this sentiment, but I am not sure why or what the alternative might be. I would be interested in your thoughts here.

I suspect that Transalta is taking out a very cheap option (which it may never exercise) and getting a little PR into the bargain. What's Transalta's relationship to the Chilean firm?

This is a very intriguing question and I do not know the answer. I assume that they are completely separate entities (no common ownership). I would also like to know how much was paid here. I must take a closer look at the specifics, but as the credit system is the heart of the deal, there must be some provision for a degree of transparency.

[Big Blue Machine]

We should rafity it.

[August1991]

I think that the failure of corporations to generate such a market in the first place without the aid of states around the world says much about the necessity of intervention at times.

It says nothing about intervention. It says everything about property rights. And corporations aren't the problem at all.

When somebody clearly owns something, and can easily trade it, everything else will fall into place. It's when nobody owns something that problems arise.

Nobody owns the environment. [iOW, the environment is proof that socialism doesn't work.]

[kimmy]

I think the idea of having to buy pollution credits is a good one. If companies had to pay for the pollution created during the manufacture of each widget, it would promote effeciency (more widgets per ton of pollution.) Currently it costs them the same whether they produce 1000 widgets per ton of pollution, or 10000 widgets per ton of pollution, so there's no incentive. Clearly less pollution is a desirable goal, and yet there's nothing in the marketplace to put a dollar value on the environmental cost, so it's not reflected in the market. And there's nothing in the process to make consumers pay for the environmental cost of the goods they purchase. If Company A has a manufacturing process that requires them to spend $1 on pollution credits for every widget they produce, and Company B has a manufacturing process that means they need to spend $10 on pollution credits for every widget, then the consumer obviously has a $9 per widget incentive towards Company A's more efficient process. Company B would obviously have an incentive to look for a way to spent less on pollution credits. I think in principle it's an idea that should work.

What I am worried about is Canada's Kyoto implementation plan. We have already heard that they promised central Canada's automobile manufacturing plants a free pass on the emissions, so who is going to get left picking up the slack? Why should some people get a free ride? Why should the auto industry, of all people, get a free ride? Of course reducing pollution is an admirable goal. But we already know Chretien has laid the groundwork for it turn into a big fat political crap-slinging contest, and it is just a matter of time until it hits the fan.

-kimmy

[Big Blue Machine]

I don't think Paul Martin will do anything about Kyoto. I don't think that the Liberals never will rafitie Kyoto. Only the NDP will.

[August1991]

I don't think that the Liberals never will rafitie Kyoto.

They already have ratified it.

[Big Blue Machine]

not rafitie it, put it working in canada

[Cartman]

The suggestion that “socialism” or a collective response to environmental problems has been inadequate requires that such a response has occurred in the first place and has failed or alternatively that it has failed to even recognize the problem in the first place. This is akin to purporting that science is woefully inadequate because the use of this epistemology has been unsuccessful at curing SARS or killing flesh eating bacteria. How can we judge it so considering that scientists have only recently (we assume) been introduced to these phenomena? We are judging its efforts before they take place. Kyoto is the first significant collective attempt at solving global environmental problems and it has occurred despite the influence of corporations that create these problems.

Many things contain value and use value even if they are not privately owned. Most humans value sociality yet do not own friends. Some people value spiritual or religious beliefs but do not own God. Also, owning something that can be traded does not always mean one values it. Corporations that own the land they exploit do not necessarily treat it well. One can trade money for commodities but may also give $$ away to charity. How are we to explain morality if we accept that all people are by nature greedy?