![]() February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 September 2009 October 2009 December 2009 January 2010
|
Thursday, February 1 I have never called myself an environmentalist, but I also think I thought green before some (all Liberal and Conservative politicians) but long after some (Al Gore - given that he started before I was born). Still, I'm not perfect. We recycle, we don't own a car (although we keep thinking that will change soon), we use the awesome lightbulbs that use only a little energy, etc. I also double-side print at work, recycle and try and be green in the office as well as home. I also believe that global warming represents a threat to our planet. But I was not a fan of the Kyoto Protocol and still am not. But for much different reasons than most. Kyoto was designed with the United States as a signatory in mind, and without them on board, Kyoto is at risk of not actually doing what it was meant to do. Without the United States obligated to cut greenhouse emissions, and with nations like China and India left to do virtually what ever they want with their emissions, Kyoto is unlikely to stop, or even substantially curtail the greenhouse effect. As the debate in Canada restarts on greenhouse gases I hope the conversation to some degree goes towards using diplomacy to convince the United States to sign on and convince heavily polluting developing nations to cut their emissions as well. Certainly we should set ambitious goals for ourselves, and the Kyoto ones can certainly be admirable ones, but Canada is only a part of the problem. In fact, we are only 2% of the problem, meaning that cutting our emissions by say, 20%, will only solve 0.1% of the problem globally. Convincing the United States to cut emissions by 20% however will reduce global emissions by about 6%. Regardless of who sits in the Prime Minister's chair, I was always convinced that Canada's real commitment to Kyoto died when President Bush decided to thumb his nose at the protocol. Let's go change his mind, or at least encourage the United States to take action on greenhouse gases. Then again, if I had the opportunity to influence American policy, greenhouse gas emissions would only be one of many, many topics I'd want to discuss. Labels: environment posted by Duncan @ 7:31 AM© 2003-2010 Duncan Wojtaszek No reproduction whatsoever, in any form, without permission. All views expressed here are those of Duncan Wojtaszek and no other person or organization. |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home