Canadian parliament backs Kyoto ratification plan

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ozz


Cause we can slap tariffs on emitters (unfair trade) and maybe get some trade going with the EU, as we won't be effected by Kyoto tariffs. (if we can delouse ourselves of GM that is)

I guess you don't want a job anytime in the near to distant future...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ozz


Cause we can slap tariffs on emitters (unfair trade) and maybe get some trade going with the EU, as we won't be effected by Kyoto tariffs. (if we can delouse ourselves of GM that is)

What this means is you slap tarrifs on the US, Australia, India, China and the entire third world. They will all be "emitters." I suggest that such a move will have devastating consequence on Canada as the targeted countries will undoubtedly retaliate.

But you the point you raise is valid. The costs imposed on first world countries by Kyoto will be high. This undoubtedly will force many industries to flee to the US or to the third world.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Ned
This undoubtedly will force many industries to flee to the US or to the third world.

The whole point of the tariff is to prevent this. No benefit
to leaving if you have to paid a tariff to sell your goods.

Kyoto will divide the world into trading blocks more then NAFTA or the EU. Then GM barriers will really go into effect. For each market that retaliatation closes, counter-retaliation will open another.

Not a pleasant scenario.

[gsmoove23]

Developed countries win with Kyoto by providing environmentally friendly technologies to other countries. Whats the problem?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Seeker
If only we could seperate the good reform ideas like recall from the rest of their crap.

You should not be doing something that the overwhelming majority of your constituents oppose, it really puts the lie to representative democracy.

Let's face it, 'write a letter to your MP' is a joke. We have an elected (kinda) dictatorship.

To bad Canada elects parties and not people other wise the people's will might actually be done.

[gsmoove23]

Where is the people's will displayed in that poll you posted? Simple question, should Kyoto be ratified. There is no tag on saying in the absence of... Just yes or no. 39% strongly agree. 12% strongly disagree.
74% yes, 19% no.

2nd page offers a mythical 'other' plan not specified nothing. What does this prove? 49% of canadians are sceptical enough about Kyoto to say maybe we could create something better but where is this something? Its not detailed, the critics haven't gotten to it, its some floating fantasy. A poll of this sort would mean something if it could compare a specific plan to Kyoto. Why not the Alberta plan? Ask canadiens which they would prefer, that might mean something.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Don't even bother with your pathetic "what ifs" regarding margin of error making it a tie in some extremely unlikely circumstance.

Once again, you're on the wrong path. This is not a "what if" situation. This is about the accuracy of the poll.

The poll is accurate within plus or minus 3 per cent which means Canadians could be evenly split 46-46 (or 40-52, or anywhere in between) over this question

gsmoove23 is correct in his comments. The second question is about a hypothetical situation. The first question is specific and simple.

You need to learn about the accuracy of polls that you so fondly cite.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Once again, you're on the wrong path. This is not a "what if" situation. This is about the accuracy of the poll.

The poll is accurate within plus or minus 3 per cent which means Canadians could be evenly split 46-46 (or 40-52, or anywhere in between) over this question

Right, but the CHANCES ARE that more Canadians are in favor of a domestic solution over Kyoto to the point where it's a lie to say "most support Kyoto".

I wrote a final exam on this very thing this morning, Tingkai.

If you want to argue that it's just as likely for it to be a tie than it is to favor the domestic plan, you have to show your math on here, so I could pick it apart for you. Otherwise cut your losses and drop it.

gsmoove23 is correct in his comments. The second question is about a hypothetical situation. The first question is specific and simple.

You need to learn about the accuracy of polls that you so fondly cite.

How is the second question a hypothetical question when there has been a domestic solution proposed??

By this logic the first question is also hypothetical, since at the time Kyoto was not ratified.

Question 1 asked if they supported Kyoto, and didn't mention anything else.
Question 2 asked if they would prefer a domestic plan over Kyoto, and the results show that Kyoto is not the clear-cut solution that Tingkai has wetdreams about...

[Asher]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
2nd page offers a mythical 'other' plan not specified nothing. What does this prove? 49% of canadians are sceptical enough about Kyoto to say maybe we could create something better but where is this something?

So instead of exploring an option that the Canadian people have shown a clear interest in, Chretien literally rushes ratification before the end of the year.
Either way, I fail to see the point you're making -- the polls illustrate that the Canadian people want to cut back on pollution. When they're only given the option of supporting Kyoto or not, they support it.

When they're given the option (page 2) of working out our own domestic plan, the majority do not support Kyoto.

Tingkai loves to cover his eyes and pretend that a domestic plan is impossible and that the Canadian people all want Kyoto, when in fact they've shown a domestic plan is more favorable than Kyoto...

A poll of this sort would mean something if it could compare a specific plan to Kyoto. Why not the Alberta plan? Ask canadiens which they would prefer, that might mean something.

99% of the Canadians wouldn't know what the f*ck the Alberta plan is, because Chretien & Co have been telling people the only way we can cut pollution is with Kyoto.

[Giancarlo]

Embracing Kyoto, is like cutting incomes for no good damn reason. Stupidity at its best there.

And Canada ratifying this plan will do a number on their economy, probably setting the stage for increasing unemployment. In the US Kyoto would of cut millions upon millions of jobs... probably no different in Canada.

Who came up with a flawed treaty like kyoto anyways? Who in their right mind could think of such crap? "save the environment"... I hate it when these leftists supporting kyoto have poopooed when they don't realize the economic repercussions.

[Spiffor]

Does everybody forget what Kyoto is about ? I've just heard today the ice caps will have be 3 millions km² this winter, instead of 4 millions. Vhen NL and Bangladesh will have sunk, will we start to discuss about pollution, or will we continue to bicker on tariffs ?

[Asher]

That's a wonderful argument, Spiffor, I wonder why people don't use it.

Oh, that's right, I just remembered why.

1) Even in 1990 people were complaining the pollution was too high, cutting to 1990 levels doesn't solve anything
2) The implementation plans shoulder the burden mostly on the large industries. In order to cut back pollution, we'll need some magic device to do so in a modern nation like Canada. Those devices don't exist. So what do we do? We cut down production. Oil companies interested in investing in Canada's oilfields are now exploring Australia and Africa.

The pollution is still there, it's just not coming from Canada anymore. Whupty-****ing-do.

Kyoto is fundamentally flawed in that it tries to remedy a global problem by getting a minority of the countries in the world to reduce the pollution. And unless EVERYONE, 100% of the world, does it all that happens is the source of pollution moves from Kyoto countries to non-Kyoto countries.

Global pollution levels stay the same, but the Kyoto countries get a kick in the nuts economy-wise.

[Spiffor]

This is precisely the point of an international agreement. The more countries participate, the more effect it will have.

Edit : either I missed something when answering, or Asher edited when I was replying.
Global pollution will actually not decrease if most major economies / polluters don't agree with Kyoto. And it's a sure thing the US refusal really helped Kyoto to be refused by plenty of other countries. If the biggest actors had agreed (US, EU and Japan), the world pollution would have been reduced.

Believe it or not, but to reduce pollution, you don't need a magic device, or you don't need to reduce pollution. You need to implement reasonable resource allocation, and to prevent abuses.
How come the US uses 4 times more oil per capita the Europe (with similar develoment levels ?). Wouldn't the creation of efficient mass transits help solve this ? The recycling of plastics ? The import of hydroelectricity from Canada ?
Same thing with water : the US (esp. California) might fear a water shortage, yet they have a waaaaay superior consumption per capita than Europe.
Sure, struggling against pollution does cost money, but it is doable without a magic device, or without reducing production.

The problem is clearly a problem of some countries' egoism (mainly the US, but aren't the only ones to blame), which defend their short term interests rather than defend the long term interest of the whole planet, including themselves (mind you, I'm French, hence I belong to the only country with Canada which won't fear any water shortage in the next century)

[Asher]

But what good is that when only a handful of countries support it??

[notyoueither]

btw Spiffor, floating ice does not raise water levels when it melts. Much of the melt will be floating ice, just as it has been in the past when the globe warmed up.