Europe firmly commited to Kyoto protocols.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


These little cut-backs would of cost thousands and thousands of jobs. It would also take money out of the economy, which is arbitrary. Rather the private sector should have benefits when investing in new technology, rather than take this money away and put it in big government.

Do you really look at anything else rather than your narrow view point?

How did you figure that one out? These things tend to adjust for themselves, besides the demand for environmentally conscious solutions and their development will provide many, many jobs too. Weigh it up Gianni, it is a change, not a restriction.

[November Adam]

Gian your point losses its integrity when you insult someone.

Provost I agree that there has to be something done, but this is going to be a burnden by the consumer done this way.

Sure there are big cars, give people incentive to buy smaller ones.

Does the Kyoto accord actually give incentives? Or is it just a hack and slash method?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


How did you figure that one out? These things tend to adjust for themselves, besides the demand for environmentally conscious solutions and their development will provide many, many jobs too. Weigh it up Gianni, it is a change, not a restriction.

No. This treaty specifically demands things from companies particularily money. If we do this and adopt this treaty, we would get stuck with coal and oil much longer than necessary. Therefore the treaty is arbitrary and contradictory. It is all restrictions.

Gian your point losses its integrity when you insult someone.

There was no insult.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
No. This treaty specifically demands things from companies particularily money. If we do this and adopt this treaty, we would get stuck with coal and oil much longer than necessary. Therefore the treaty is arbitrary and contradictory. It is all restrictions.

Only if they don't adhere to guidelines, which is fair enough. They need to adapt and keep up. Sometimes they need a push to get things done, otherwise there would be no incentive to change and be cleaner, after all, it isn't really commercially viable if we are talking about preservation of profits. These kinds of regulation gives incentives. And besides, the installation of new systems will require more people to be employed into various sectors, so the problem is nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

The only effective incentive to buy smaller cars is a more progressive tax on motor vehicles in terms of fuel usage/emissions output.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Only if they don't adhere to guidelines, which is fair enough. They need to adapt and keep up. Sometimes they need a push to get things done, otherwise there would be no incentive to change and be cleaner, after all, it isn't really commercially viable if we are talking about preservation of profits. These kinds of regulation gives incentives. And besides, the installation of new systems will require more people to be employed into various sectors, so the problem is nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

The only effective incentive to buy smaller cars is a more progressive tax on motor vehicles in terms of fuel usage/emissions output.

Alright what-ever you say, I still disagree. We agree to disagree? Actually, I don't have time to argue... all I can say is these regulations are not incentives. Rather the government should provide subsidies for businesses that adopt new technologies. Restricting it is not the way.

[rah]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
There are many kinds of pollutants, some only impact the local environment, others impact the global enviroment. How is that a delusional statement?

I didn't specify just one or the other. So I agree with you. But if someone thinks it's all just local, then they're just silly.

Hell, I drive an SUV. (a smaller one) but one that posters here whine about. I choose it for safety for my family during the winters. BUT, I also choose to buy a smaller more expensive house that is closer to work. So I probably burn less gas every year than a lot of people that have more efficient cars but Drive 5 times farther to work. Who is really helping more here. (since I am closer, there is no pratical public trans)

RAH

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Alright what-ever you say, I still disagree. We agree to disagree? Actually, I don't have time to argue... all I can say is these regulations are not incentives. Rather the government should provide subsidies for businesses that adopt new technologies. Restricting it is not the way.

The international war-judging committee will obviously see that as a victory to you

[Starchild]

Oh goody. Now we need the EU to follow up with a pan-European system of tax-and-trade exchanges for carbon and other greenhouse gases.

By-the-way, anyone else heard that Ireland is planning to build a rather massive wind power plant in the Irish sea?

[HisMajestyBOB]

Originally posted by Starchild By-the-way, anyone else heard that Ireland is planning to build a rather massive wind power plant in the Irish sea?

How will it work? I would think that storms would mess them up and the maintaince costs for going out to fix them would make them not worth it.

[Sandman]

There are huge efficiency gains to be made by cutting carbon emissions, aside from global warming.

Less dependence on unstable regions for oil.

Energy efficiency is cheaper in the long run.

Fewer respiritory ailments.

I won't have to clean soot off my windows as much.

More people can have a higher standard of living.

[Provost Harrison]

In this case, change is a good thing, it keeps us on our toes, it means we have to change and adapt to new problems. Simple fact is, we cannot just ignore them and sweep them under the carpet, because if they are real, they aren't going away!

Didn't bother to reply then Stew?

[Solly]

PH, what kind of incentive would you like to see for people to buy smaller cars? Please quantify.

[faded glory]

There is 0 evidence man is responsible.



Case in point: Do any of you know what Methane Hydrate is???? Please do not ignore me. This is significant. Pockets under the ocean spill out 1,000 x more greenhouse pollutants than we do.

[Buck Birdseed]

Is the incentive of a cleaner, less polluted environment not enough?

Thought not.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boddington's
PH, what kind of incentive would you like to see for people to buy smaller cars? Please quantify.

I've already stated that quite clearly before I am not going into it in depth again. A more progressive taxation model on vehicles depending on emissions and fuel usage.

And faded glory, I have, but there are many factors involved here. We can verify that natural sources of greenhouse emissions are generally part of an already existing equilibrium. Carbon we bring back into the carbon cycle after tens and hundreds of millions of years if not.

And if nothing else, it should demonstrate that we should not squander a scarce resource unnecessarily, forecasts state that we will run out, like it or not. If we were a little more sparing with our use of oil, it may last for longer!