Kyoto now embraced by Big Business

[theloniusfleabag]

Here is the CBC version,

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/...biz-051117.html

The executives said they accept the consensus view of a UN panel that climate change elevates the risk to human health and to the environment.

"We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change," they said.

The letter is a stark contrast to earlier comments by some business leaders. In 2002, businesses banded together to fight Kyoto.

I am not sure what is behind this sudden 180 degree turn, but they must be privy to some sort of truly amazing information. Either that, or Martin promised them "no corporate taxes for 50 years" if they implement Kyoto and vote liberal...

[BHS]

There's nothing in the story that indicates a 180 degree turn - in fact, the author goes to lengths to give the general impression it's Canadian "business" acting in concert and changing it's tune, while avoiding a statement that it's the same businesses in both cases.

I don't think there's anything too amazing about this. For companies like Shell there's good reason to want the government to commit itself in writing to a plan, so they know what sort of red tape and other nastiness to expect. For companies like Bombardier it's always good business to suck up to the government, because your solvency depends on it. Bombardier would have gone out of business years ago if the feds hadn't stepped in time and again with financial assistance and tax relief. You can bet that no matter how difficult Canada's Kyoto plan is for other businesses, the government's favouritism with respect to Bombardier will see special exemptions or other assistance put in place, and Bombardier's executives know it and are unafraid.

[err]

There's nothing in the story that indicates a 180 degree turn - in fact, the author goes to lengths to give the general impression it's Canadian "business" acting in concert and changing it's tune, while avoiding a statement that it's the same businesses in both cases.

I don't think there's anything too amazing about this. For companies like Shell there's good reason to want the government to commit itself in writing to a plan, so they know what sort of red tape and other nastiness to expect. For companies like Bombardier it's always good business to suck up to the government, because your solvency depends on it. Bombardier would have gone out of business years ago if the feds hadn't stepped in time and again with financial assistance and tax relief. You can bet that no matter how difficult Canada's Kyoto plan is for other businesses, the government's favouritism with respect to Bombardier will see special exemptions or other assistance put in place, and Bombardier's executives know it and are unafraid.

It's a start... and funny how it is strongly in contrast with the Conservative position and Liberal actions. Maybe these parties can learn something from it...

[August1991]

You can read the entire statement here. I particularly liked this:

To help us do more, we need policy certainty for post-2012. We need a strategy now for the next 50 years, with short and medium-term targets to guide us. Governments must set clear markers along the way to unleash competitive market forces and allow the discovery of a long-term value for carbon emission reductions. Only then will we secure the deep reductions needed to prevent human interference with the climate system.

I am leery of business people making statements about the environment, particularly when it is made as a letter to the PM, and I'm acutely leery when the letter is released just prior to an election. I suspect that someone (ie. the PMO) has leaned hard on these guys to do this now.

----

Incidentally, this is what the Shell Canada web site says about Kyoto:

Shell people are working with federal and provincial governments, industry and environmental organizations to build the framework to implement the Kyoto Accord in a way that yields emissions reductions and strengthens Canada’s long-term competitiveness.

[Guest eureka]

This is a pre-conference on climate change move not a pre-election one. Shell, for one, has been trying to do its part for the last few years. Not all businesses have their heads in the sand and it is tome they exerted pressure on government to develop a coherent plan and strategy.

[speaker]

There's no point being pessimistic or paranoid about this, try to look on it as a natural turn of events and hope that it leads other progressive businesses to see that a little enlightened self interest in the future will be beneficial in the long run.

Perhaps next we will hear of concrete proposals to reduce their own, or their own products emissions, it's all too the good.

[BHS]

There are seven years left in Kyoto, before we're officially off the hook. Some questions to ponder:

1) Will the nations party to Kyoto pick this up again, and try to implement Kyoto Phase II? Or will they let it drop?

2) If they try to impliment Phase II, what will it look like?

3) If it's rejected, will Canada try to implement it anyway?

4) Or, will the whole think sink into the shadows of history?

5) How does any of this affect Canadian businesses that aren't on the list in this article?

[August1991]

This is a pre-conference on climate change move not a pre-election one.

Good point, eureka. But the signatories to that letter are not fools.

There's no point being pessimistic or paranoid about this, try to look on it as a natural turn of events and hope that it leads other progressive businesses to see that a little enlightened self interest in the future will be beneficial in the long run.

What is a "progressive" business?

Will the nations party to Kyoto pick this up again, and try to implement Kyoto Phase II? Or will they let it drop?

I think so. Two things must change: countries like China and India must be included and the agreement cannot be used to resolve unrelated issues of rich/poor.

Kyoto failed because the rest of the world apprpriated ownership of the world's environment and then offered to sell it the US. The US government, understandably, refused to play that game.

[Guest eureka]

I would disagree with that, August. The US had accepted Kyoto; enthustiacally so. It was only when Big Oil and Big Energy took control of the White House that it reneged on its committment.

It did that because, like the shortsighted and not very bright businessmen that the current political leaders are, they can see only the bottom line for today and live by the executive principle that they will have moved on in five years when their successors can try to fix the cracks in the program.

[err]

I would disagree with that, August. The US had accepted Kyoto; enthustiacally so. It was only when Big Oil and Big Energy took control of the White House that it reneged on its committment.

It did that because, like the shortsighted and not very bright businessmen that the current political leaders are, they can see only the bottom line for today and live by the executive principle that they will have moved on in five years when their successors can try to fix the cracks in the program.

Under Clinton, the USA embraced Kyoto.... I'm doing this from memory, so excuse the lack of names and dates. The scientist who spearheaded the global campaign on ozone depletion had done such a good job in organizing that effort, they put him in charge of running the studies on CO2 emissions and the plan to alleviate the problem... Clinton gave him an office in the Whitehouse... Then, shortly after Bush was elected, Raymond (Whatshisname) from Exxon faxed George Bush with a demand to get rid of the head scientist who was organizing the whole thing... And Bush was only too happy to respond...

The guy had been doing such a good job, that all the oil companies (except Exxon) had agreed with the science, and that steps needed to be taken. After Bush got rid of the head scientist, BP and other oil companies re-joined Exxon in their denial of the facts....

(It's been a long time since I read Linda McQuaig's "It's the Crude Dude", but there was at least a chapter dedicated to this topic.... I wholeheartedly recommend this enlightening book)

[Toro]

The US Senate voted 96-0 not to ratify Kyoto when Clinton was President. That's a long way from "embracing" or "enthusiastically accepting" Kyoto.

[Guest eureka]

The Kyoto Convention was never submitted to the Senate for ratification, Toro. I believe you are thinking of the Byrd/Hagel Resolution.

That resolution opposed the Convention on two grounds:

1. That it did not include Developing countries in the first round, and

2. That it would harm the US economy.

The Resolution did not explicitly reject Kyoto but called for a new approach.

Bush and co. are the villains who have done nothing to further agreement.

[Toro]

When the Senate votes 96-0 against for whatever reason, it is not "embracing" or "enthusiastically accepting" under any circumstances. Its ridiculous to single out Bush. He just stated the obvious that the US was not going to sign the agreement without changes. Sorry for dousing everyone with cold reality.

I'll make you a bet that the majority of countries are not in compliance when Kyoto kicks in.

[BHS]

Just jumping in to add to Toro's post, that Clinton knew that the Senate wouldn't ratify Kyoto, but signed it anyway. It's easy to be a hero when you're in a position to make lavish promises that you know you won't have to keep. One of the prime examples of the cynical hucksterism that defines the Clinton administration's legacy.

[speaker]

There's no point being pessimistic or paranoid about this, try to look on it as a natural turn of events and hope that it leads other progressive businesses to see that a little enlightened self interest in the future will be beneficial in the long run.

What is a "progressive" business?

Will the nations party to Kyoto pick this up again, and try to implement Kyoto Phase II? Or will they let it drop?

I think so. Two things must change: countries like China and India must be included and the agreement cannot be used to resolve unrelated issues of rich/poor.

Kyoto failed because the rest of the world apprpriated ownership of the world's environment and then offered to sell it the US. The US government, understandably, refused to play that game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One sees so few progressive businesses that it's understandable that people don't know they exist. rather than give examples of companies that fit the description I think the idea of enlightened self interest in the future describes them. Companies that can see where we're headed if we don't improve our efforts for the environment and the population of the planet.

The issue turns out to be one of equaliztaion between the rich and the poor, there is a news story, I saw it on the CBC website, saying that poor nations are suffering an unequal number of deaths because of global warming while being the people who contribute the least to the problem. In this small small world every opportunity should be taken to minimize the negative impact our actions have, especially when those impacts are distant from us

[Riverwind]

I'll make you a bet that the majority of countries are not in compliance when Kyoto kicks in.

LOL - The EU countries signed a treaty limiting their ability to run deficits yet all of the big players have broken that treaty as soon as it got too painful to comply.

[Leafless]

Kyoto is a joke and unless all the world's major pollutors sign on a lot of Canadian tax dollars are going to be going down the drain.

Jean Chretien pursued Kyoto for nothing more than a legacy and did this on "a gut feeling".

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8330

[err]

Just jumping in to add to Toro's post, that Clinton knew that the Senate wouldn't ratify Kyoto, but signed it anyway. It's easy to be a hero when you're in a position to make lavish promises that you know you won't have to keep. One of the prime examples of the cynical hucksterism that defines the Clinton administration's legacy.

Even if that were the case, don't you think that Clinton embracing Kyoto, and stating that the USA has to participate is a step in the right direction. Pushing for a vote to endorse Kyoto, even though the Senate is stacked against it isn't a bad thing.

When compared to "it's not true", "that's bad science", and other statements refuting the existance of global warming that come from Bush, I'd take Clinton's side any day.

Bush is controlled by Big Oil.... not what is best for his people. He has shown on many occasions that he is not afraid to boldfaced lie to the public....

[Toro]

Kyoto comes into effect

By Alex Singleton | 16 February 2005

The Kyoto Protocol comes into effect today. It is a hollow victory for environmentalists. Over 150 of the world's countries are not participating in Kyoto cuts of greenhouse emissions. Only 35 countries have pledged to make greenhouse cuts. Only two of the EU15 countries are on track to meet their Kyoto commitments. Italy, a signatory to the treaty, says it won't seek further greenhouse gas emissions reductions after 2012.

The European Union is now calling for taxes to be increased on motorists to help Kyoto have a chance. But, as protests in France and Britain have shown, the European public is unlikely to find this acceptable. As a result of the British protest, the Fuel Duty Escalator - where the tax on petrol is increased yearly - was ended by Britain's finance minister Gordon Brown for fear of electoral disaster. So the EU is unlikely to meet Kyoto's requirements - despite the sanctimonious speeches of European leaders.

But the worst part of Kyoto is that it is, quite literally, a waste of money. It will have almost no effect, environmentally-speaking. The result of Kyoto's cuts will be that Europe will be poorer in the future. That will harm Europe's ability to invest in new technologies that will help improve quality of life and the environment. Kyoto gets religious-style worship, but it is bad news for the planet.

Link

[speaker]

I think that these right wing stink tanks, like the globalization institute quoted above have done enough damage with their fantasy type apologies for the market place. It is the direction the market place has led us that has brought on urban problems, global warming, disappearing fish stocks, forests, etc. Sure the marketplace can lead us out of this mess as well but not so long as it is so tenaciously explained and defended by institutes that are funded by the people who make their money causing injury to the planet.

There is no, read no, credibility arising in the Economist, or the Globalization institute.

[August1991]

I think that these right wing stink tanks, like the globalization institute quoted above have done enough damage with their fantasy type apologies for the market place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is unfortunate, Speaker, that you take such a view of markets. It is as if, seeing the O. J. Simpson verdict, you argued in favour of getting rid of juries.

It is the direction the market place has led us that has brought on urban problems,  global warming, disappearing fish stocks, forests, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is the lack of markets that has brought on these problems.

Sure the marketplace can lead us out of this mess as well but not so long as it is so tenaciously explained and defended by institutes that are funded by the people who make their money causing injury to the planet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh?

[err]

I think that these right wing stink tanks, like the globalization institute quoted above have done enough damage with their fantasy type apologies for the market place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is unfortunate, Speaker, that you take such a view of markets. It is as if, seeing the O. J. Simpson verdict, you argued in favour of getting rid of juries.

I have to agree with speaker, and try to deal in realities.

It is the direction the market place has led us that has brought on urban problems,  global warming, disappearing fish stocks, forests, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is the lack of markets that has brought on these problems.

I believe it is the lack of reality that lead you to the position you've chosen. When markets and stockholders profits supercede responsibility to ones self, neighbours, children, and environment, and planet, we have to wonder if the motive is just greed or greed mixed with stupidity.

Sure the marketplace can lead us out of this mess as well but not so long as it is so tenaciously explained and defended by institutes that are funded by the people who make their money causing injury to the planet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh?

Was it the word tenaciously that you didn't understand ???

tenaciously 

A adverb

1  doggedly, tenaciously

  with obstinate determination; "he pursued her doggedly" 

[Toro]

I think that these right wing stink tanks, like the globalization institute quoted above have done enough damage with their fantasy type apologies for the market place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is unfortunate, Speaker, that you take such a view of markets. It is as if, seeing the O. J. Simpson verdict, you argued in favour of getting rid of juries.

I have to agree with speaker, and try to deal in realities.

So do I. That's why I read the Economist and The Globalization Institute, to deal with realities, not some fantasy utopia.

[speaker]

So do I. That's why I read the Economist and The Globalization Institute, to deal with realities, not some fantasy utopia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well there you go, getting rid of juries because of the OJ verdict might be somebodies idea of a fantasy but it's not mine. I think the economist and other reactionary political bodies like the Fraser Institute for example, have a feeling that money makes the world go round,mostly because money makes them go around. The reality is that the world is more complex and money cannot solve all problems. Of course it causes more than it solves, but who's counting.

Utopias on the other hand are unattainable almost by definition. I think the only resolution is for each of us to come to a realization that "sustainable" is not a development issue, a money making opportunity, or a political catchall to justify political expediency, but literally a problem of life and death. So all those reactions to sustainability have their place in achieving it. Grand shemes like Kyoto which have the ability to sweep people up and make them understand the seriousness of the situation are a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

[Toro]

well there you go, getting rid of juries because of the OJ verdict might be somebodies idea of a fantasy but it's not mine.  I think the economist and other reactionary political bodies like the Fraser Institute for example,  have a feeling that money makes the world go round,mostly because money makes them go around. The reality is that the world is more complex and money cannot solve all problems.  Of course it causes more than it solves, but who's counting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh right. Sure it does. Its only given us unprecedented living standards, an ease of life unheard of at any other time in history, breakthroughs in medicines and other health technology, etc., etc., etc. Life would be so much easier on the fantasy utopian commune, where everybody was happy and we could eat unicorn every day.