Kyoto Revisited

[cybercoma]

What's everyone's current stance on Kyoto? Should we continue along with it, or should we withdraw from it and try to implement our own solutions to the environment? Do you think we should do something else entirely? Let's hear your opinions.

[politika]

What's everyone's current stance on Kyoto? Should we continue along with it, or should we withdraw from it and try to implement our own solutions to the environment? Do you think we should do something else entirely? Let's hear your opinions.

Kyoto has been rendered utterally useless. Are green house gas emissions are still higer than the United States even though we have signed on adn they havn't. Also kyoto is usless because with are neighbors to the south not on board all their pollution just comes into Canada so it is pointless. The US has got it on the right track we just need to follow them on our own path and withdrawl from the agreement and do this at our own pace. As Bush said his business's will be effected down their if they sign on and so will ours if we stay on board.

[Hicksey]

Kyoto undermined itself by allowing the buying and selling of pollution credits to begin with. I think we can do a better job ourselves.

[daniel]

I think we can do a better job ourselves.

As long as any Homegrown Solution can meet or exceed the 6% reduction of greenhouse gasses from 1990 levels by 2012, I wouldn't care.

Judging by all this talk of any Homegrown Solution doing better, looks like we can meet the Kyoto requirements anyway, so why not just keep it?

[politika]

Judging by all this talk of any Homegrown Solution doing better, looks like we can meet the Kyoto requirements anyway, so why not just keep it?

Becuase it is a waste of time and money if our counterparts to the south arn't on board and your not considering the majpr fact that it is not working.

[Hicksey]

I think we can do a better job ourselves.

As long as any Homegrown Solution can meet or exceed the 6% reduction of greenhouse gasses from 1990 levels by 2012, I wouldn't care.

Judging by all this talk of any Homegrown Solution doing better, looks like we can meet the Kyoto requirements anyway, so why not just keep it?

2 reasons.

1) Too many loopholes. Must end pollution credit buying and selling. When we use less than we expected it doesn't mean that we have clean air to sell to be dirtied.

2) Only works as a collaborative effort. Each party has to not only talk the talk, but also walk the walk. The US won't sign on, and we signed on and beyond that given it nothing but lipservice.

[Leafless]

cybercoma

Pollution is proportional to population.

The more people the more heat.

The more heat, the more water vapour which is one one of the largest gases contributing to the greenhouse effest.

Unless we halt manufacturing, stop heating our homes and or generating large quanities of BTU,s and driving vehicles that burn fossil fuels, stop polluting our rivers then we can talk Kyoto.

I don't see that time coming soon and until we can fiqure out how to exist without polluting ( in a meaningful way) then forget it and accept the fact pollution is part of the makeup that allows our existence on this planet.

Ironially the greenhouse effect with the warmer temperatures in Canada could result with fewer emmissions from heating sources due to milder winters.

I say the most practical way to begin is to limit a single vehicle per household with more reliable public transportation. But even this will run into immense resistance and doubt anything like this could ever be implemented as it would probably melt down the economy with people screaming objections based on rights and freedoms.

[Hicksey]

cybercoma

Pollution is proportional to population.

The more people the more heat.

The more heat, the more water vapour which is one one of the largest gases contributing to the greenhouse effest.

Unless we halt manufacturing, stop heating our homes and or generating large quanities of BTU,s and driving vehicles that burn fossil fuels, stop polluting our rivers then we can talk Kyoto.

I don't see that time coming soon and until we can fiqure out how to exist without polluting ( in a meaningful way) then forget it and accept the fact pollution is part of the makeup that allows our existence on this planet.

Ironially the greenhouse effect with the warmer temperatures in Canada could result with fewer emmissions from heating sources due to milder winters.

I say the most practical way to begin is to limit a single vehicle per household with more reliable public transportation. But even this will run into immense resistance and doubt anything like this could ever be implemented as it would probably melt down the economy with people screaming objections based on rights and freedoms.

How about we just start making fuel efficient cars that aren't death traps? And that someone that weighs more than 80lbs doesn't need an oversize shoe horn to enter and exit? Or how about just reduce our taxes so we only need one working parent to thrive, which in most cases negates the need for second vehicles in the first place. Not everyone can ride the bus or train. I can't. There simply isn't a between town transit system that services the two towns at the times I need to get in and out.

I keep my 1993 MPV in good shape mechanically (it is starting to rust though) and always pass emissions with emissions almost right on what they were new. And that's at 410,000kms.

We needn't restrict people. I am a car guy. I want a hot rod one day. You're saying I can't have one? That doesn't work for me. I work hard and contribute my fair share, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to. Take away a man's dreams and he'll no longer have a reason to achieve.

EDIT TO ADD: That's the difference between conservatives and liberals--conservatives try to give people incentives to do the right thing while liberals think that the nanny state is the answer. A nanny state isn't just about providing. A nanny state is one that treats us all like children and as such seeks to make our decisions for us. Instead of disallowing things we need to construct a society where one benefits most from doing the right thing.

[tml12]

What's everyone's current stance on Kyoto? Should we continue along with it, or should we withdraw from it and try to implement our own solutions to the environment? Do you think we should do something else entirely? Let's hear your opinions.

Harper should withsraw from Kyoto and we should find other solutions because:

1) Kyoto was destined to fail from the start without the U.S. and China.

2) The system of credits was ridiculous.

3) Chretien never had a plan from day one and Canada has actually done worse than the U.S. under Kyoto.

[geoffrey]

What's everyone's current stance on Kyoto? Should we continue along with it, or should we withdraw from it and try to implement our own solutions to the environment? Do you think we should do something else entirely? Let's hear your opinions.

Harper should withsraw from Kyoto and we should find other solutions because:

1) Kyoto was destined to fail from the start without the U.S. and China.

2) The system of credits was ridiculous.

3) Chretien never had a plan from day one and Canada has actually done worse than the U.S. under Kyoto.

I feel Kyoto doesn't exist in Canada anyways. We need to stop pretending that we follow it because we just don't.

The real environmental issues in our country is water pollution and soil toxicity. Lets deal with those and then worry about the comparitvely small amount of air pollution we put out!

[Hicksey]

What's everyone's current stance on Kyoto? Should we continue along with it, or should we withdraw from it and try to implement our own solutions to the environment? Do you think we should do something else entirely? Let's hear your opinions.

Harper should withsraw from Kyoto and we should find other solutions because:

1) Kyoto was destined to fail from the start without the U.S. and China.

2) The system of credits was ridiculous.

3) Chretien never had a plan from day one and Canada has actually done worse than the U.S. under Kyoto.

I feel Kyoto doesn't exist in Canada anyways. We need to stop pretending that we follow it because we just don't.

The real environmental issues in our country is water pollution and soil toxicity. Lets deal with those and then worry about the comparitvely small amount of air pollution we put out!

Certainly not other than making a whole lot of noise about signing and agreement nobody planned on doing anything about.

You're right Geoffrey, we need to work on issues that affect us the most and start working our way down the list form there.

[Spike22]

Great almost everyone agrees dump Kyoto - Yeah!

I have to run and dump the anti freeze I changed from my Lincoln Navigator down the drain and then flash up my coal burning fireplace.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Great almost everyone agrees dump Kyoto - Yeah!

Dump Kyoto and don't spend the ludicrous amounts of money the Americans spent in order to keep their air pollution down to only an extra 12% compared to what it was 5 or so years ago. We haven't lifted a finger, yet our pollution went up only 13 measily percent more than theirs.

Besides ... it's all about second hand smoke anyway. As long as we keep smokers at least a mile away from nonsmokers lung deseases will plummet!

And that's a fact that both, the U.S. and Canada, swear by.

There ought to be a law! :angry:

[Leafless]

Hicksey

You wrote- " We needn't restrict people. Iam a car guy. I want a hot rod someday. Your saying I can't have one? That doesn't work for me. I work hard and contribute my fair share, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to do so."

I am a car guy to.

I used to bomb around in a 69' Ford Mustang, 428c.i. Cobra-jet, that put out around if I remember right 400 H.P and 330 lbs of torque and that was my hot rod, a real mover, 0-60 mi per hr. 5.5 sec. Even if you wanted to you can't run these cars anymore as highways are to congested.

But parts became hard to find and expensive on top of high gas cost and insurance. Nobody I know has has a high performance older vehicle anymore. Even hot rods as acquiring an older vehicle and modifying them and running them at the local drag strip is a day gone by.

Back to the point. I don't advocate or support Kyoto period. What I was suggesting if anyone really wanted to put a dent in pollution would be to start "limit one vehicle per household with more reliable public transprtation." But you reacted as I said further that you would have "people screaming objections based on rights and freedoms."

[speaker]

Great almost everyone agrees dump Kyoto - Yeah!

Dump Kyoto and don't spend the ludicrous amounts of money the Americans spent in order to keep their air pollution down to only an extra 12% compared to what it was 5 or so years ago. We haven't lifted a finger, yet our pollution went up only 13 measily percent more than theirs.

Besides ... it's all about second hand smoke anyway. As long as we keep smokers at least a mile away from nonsmokers lung deseases will plummet!

And that's a fact that both, the U.S. and Canada, swear by.

There ought to be a law! :angry:

Lawless said as well "I don't see that time coming soon and until we can fiqure out how to exist without polluting ( in a meaningful way) then forget it and accept the fact pollution is part of the makeup that allows our existence on this planet."

It would be my suggestion that the anger that is turned toward the Liberals not be directed to throwing out the good with the bad. We might as well keep Kyoto and try and improve on it. Starting fresh, especially with a made in Canada solution for a global problem, would likely initiate massive laughter from anyone who can read.

The trouble with accepting the present level of damage that we do to the environment as what allows our existence on the planet is that the present level is what is going to make our continued existence questionable. This is why a pile of very concerned people have discussed over years some compromise that came to be known as Kyoto. I've been accused if having my head in the sand on a few things over the years but this is getting ridiculous.

Biblio Bibuli, what ludicrous amounts have the Americans spent, and what Americans have spent it?

[crazymf]

I came from the farm. I still burn my garbage and heat my home and business with coal.

I didn't see an option on the poll that says:

-to heck with Kyoto.

...so I didn't vote. I'm a greenhouse gas offender and don't give a hoot whether New York floods when the ice cap melts. It's a cesspool anyway.

[margrace]

I came from the farm. I still burn my garbage and heat my home and business with coal.

I didn't see an option on the poll that says:

-to heck with Kyoto.

...so I didn't vote. I'm a greenhouse gas offender and don't give a hoot whether New York floods when the ice cap melts. It's a cesspool anyway.

Easy to read that you don't have a husband and a son with asthma

[Biblio Bibuli]

Biblio Bibuli, what ludicrous amounts have the Americans spent, and what Americans have spent it?

What Americans have spent it ?????????????????

The fact is that the Americans ... as a group of about 290 million people or so ... have spent more on cleaninig up the air in the past five or so years than ALL of the Kyoto participants put together.

Wanna bet!

[speaker]

What I was looking for was a number that you seem to feel is valid. I'd be willing to bet but who do we get to give an unbiased examination of each sides figures ? If you can figure a way around all the figuring i'm willing to bet. in the mean time how have the Americans as a people spent ludicrous amounts, let alone more than the kyoto signers.

[Spike22]

I came from the farm. I still burn my garbage and heat my home and business with coal.

I didn't see an option on the poll that says:

-to heck with Kyoto.

...so I didn't vote. I'm a greenhouse gas offender and don't give a hoot whether New York floods when the ice cap melts. It's a cesspool anyway.

Easy to read that you don't have a husband and a son with asthma

Guess there is no weekly bean supper night at your house huh?

[geoffrey]

I came from the farm. I still burn my garbage and heat my home and business with coal.

I didn't see an option on the poll that says:

-to heck with Kyoto.

...so I didn't vote. I'm a greenhouse gas offender and don't give a hoot whether New York floods when the ice cap melts. It's a cesspool anyway.

Easy to read that you don't have a husband and a son with asthma

Guess there is no weekly bean supper night at your house huh?

That was rather insensitive.

Kyoto hasn't done anything for anyone so sorry to say but it will never help you out... if we all want to live in megacities with two hour commutes to work, then thats just what happens, sadly. And there isn't a proven link between asthma and CO2 emissions. I know its worse when its smoggy, and more people have it now, but its probably due to all the other crap in the air! Lets eliminate all these poisons and carcinogens.

There are realistic solutions that punish irresponsible business and reward those that are respectful of their surrounding communities. This isn't Kyoto, or anything to do with CO2. It's water pollution controls, regulations on what can be dumped (toxic waste and the such) and unneccessary poisionous emissions. All of this Kyoto stuff is meant to get votes from people like yourself that need clean air in order to have a normal life, but sadly, it will never help you!

[Hicksey]

Hicksey

You wrote- " We needn't restrict people. Iam a car guy. I want a hot rod someday. Your saying I can't have one? That doesn't work for me. I work hard and contribute my fair share, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to do so."

I am a car guy to.

I used to bomb around in a 69' Ford Mustang, 428c.i. Cobra-jet, that put out around if I remember right 400 H.P and 330 lbs of torque and that was my hot rod, a real mover, 0-60 mi per hr. 5.5 sec. Even if you wanted to you can't run these cars anymore as highways are to congested.

But parts became hard to find and expensive on top of high gas cost and insurance. Nobody I know has has a high performance older vehicle anymore. Even hot rods as acquiring an older vehicle and modifying them and running them at the local drag strip is a day gone by.

Back to the point. I don't advocate or support Kyoto period. What I was suggesting if anyone really wanted to put a dent in pollution would be to start "limit one vehicle per household with more reliable public transprtation." But you reacted as I said further that you would have "people screaming objections based on rights and freedoms."

The market for hotrodding may not be there where you are, but here in southwestern ontario it is here and booming.

My buddy and I just built a 1982 Camaro with a 350 with about 400hp and 450 lbs ft of torque that is completely emissions legal. It actually tested better for emissions than the new model did in 1982. I know thats not saying much but it is a step forward considering because of the year we didn't even have to put emissions on it. We're talking more about weekend tinker-toys that we take out for cruise night, to car shows, and occasionally to the strip for fun.

If we really wanted to put a dent in polution we would engineer taxation so that the lowest emission producers, and the lowest energy consumers and the lowest waste producers paid the least taxation. We would exempt all vehicles that get 50mpg or more from taxes at the time of initial purchase. We would give tax credits for using alternative fuels like biodiesel.

We will only change the ways that people do things by making it a financially sound decision to pursue. We like to say we're environmentally responsible but most of us really are not until we can justify it financially. Right now a lot of these avenues to keep down waste, consumption and emissions are simply unjustifiable economically because the prices are steep. However, if you create demand by encouraging their use by environmentally responsible taxation we can integrate these technologies into our everyday lives much faster.

Its the ultimate in leadership toward a greener future. Get us to do what you want because we want to. Force it upon people and they will resist you every inch of the way. Its human nature.

People think most conservatives are anti environment. That's simply not true. We just think that there's a better way than to force it upon people.

Give people the will to change and they will--especially Canadians. And then all the government has to do is stand there waiting with the plans for the infrastructure to support it. Once Canadians see the benefits, its won't be such a hard sell.

[cybercoma]

Speaking of environmentally friendly alternatives, do you know what I find absolutely ironic?

Those compact fluorescent bulbs people are putting into light fixtures now. You know the spiral ones that save almost 75% of the energy costs of incandescent lighting?

They use less energy, but the irony is that they have mercury in them. Most people will probably just toss them in the garbage when they're dead, so we're putting more mercury into the environment by using these things.

Oh the sweet irony.

LED technology is there and ready to be used in residential lighting, but the major manufacturers aren't willing to put the product out yet. LEDs last almost 25 years and people won't pay the price of 25 years worth of bulbs to buy a single LED. It's not "economically viable" for the manufacturers to produce and sell these things.

No one cares about being environmentally friendly, everyone cares solely for their money.

[Hicksey]

Speaking of environmentally friendly alternatives, do you know what I find absolutely ironic?

Those compact fluorescent bulbs people are putting into light fixtures now. You know the spiral ones that save almost 75% of the energy costs of incandescent lighting?

They use less energy, but the irony is that they have mercury in them. Most people will probably just toss them in the garbage when they're dead, so we're putting more mercury into the environment by using these things.

Oh the sweet irony.

LED technology is there and ready to be used in residential lighting, but the major manufacturers aren't willing to put the product out yet. LEDs last almost 25 years and people won't pay the price of 25 years worth of bulbs to buy a single LED. It's not "economically viable" for the manufacturers to produce and sell these things.

No one cares about being environmentally friendly, everyone cares solely for their money.

Exactly my point. So what we need to do is incentive people financially to be more green. If I could find LED lights for my home, I'd give them a shot. They're far superior to all others in every other use they've found for them, and I suspect they'd be no less impressive in the home.

We need to speak to people in a language they'll respond to. Sadly enough that language is going to have to be cold hard cash.

[Spike22]

Speaking of environmentally friendly alternatives, do you know what I find absolutely ironic?

Those compact fluorescent bulbs people are putting into light fixtures now. You know the spiral ones that save almost 75% of the energy costs of incandescent lighting?

They use less energy, but the irony is that they have mercury in them. Most people will probably just toss them in the garbage when they're dead, so we're putting more mercury into the environment by using these things.

Oh the sweet irony.

LED technology is there and ready to be used in residential lighting, but the major manufacturers aren't willing to put the product out yet. LEDs last almost 25 years and people won't pay the price of 25 years worth of bulbs to buy a single LED. It's not "economically viable" for the manufacturers to produce and sell these things.

No one cares about being environmentally friendly, everyone cares solely for their money.

Yes that is what we care about. Now does anyone know if and where I can bury some old car batteries?