The Rants of Issachar
Friday, May 25, 2007
Greenhouse Gases Part 2 - Kyoto
I cut short my earlier post on Greenhouse gas emissions because it was turning into an incoherent post on an overly broad subject. But Major John and Caleb both brought up issues that pointed me at the next part. My apologies if I'm misrepresenting them, but they both pointed out that higher gas taxes would hurt the working and middle class more than the rich.
Of course they're right, but I'm mostly motivated by an irritation at people who delude themselves about costs.
Case in point: Canada's commitment to the Kyoto protocol. The Canadian government signed the protocol in 1998 and finally got around to ratifying in the House in 2002. Kyoto committed us to reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels during 2008-2012. After signing the protocol, the government did sweet nothing about it. (I wonder if that's because talking green gets more votes than actually making people pay for the costs of being green).
By 2004 emissions were 27% above 1990 levels. (Source via Wikipedia). Two years later we got a new government that said we weren't going to be able to meet the targets so they were coming up with a new plan. The problem is that meeting the protocol would require measures that would flush our economy.
The response of the opposition parties has been to insist that we can meet the targets and to ignore the financial data.
That's what's irritating me. People who ignore or deny information that they don't like like.
I believe in responsible stewardship of creation. That means using sustainable resources. That's why I'm proud to work in the forest sector. But we need to be honest about the costs of making changes and recognize that those costs are going to be paid by everyone.
Of course they're right, but I'm mostly motivated by an irritation at people who delude themselves about costs.
Case in point: Canada's commitment to the Kyoto protocol. The Canadian government signed the protocol in 1998 and finally got around to ratifying in the House in 2002. Kyoto committed us to reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels during 2008-2012. After signing the protocol, the government did sweet nothing about it. (I wonder if that's because talking green gets more votes than actually making people pay for the costs of being green).
By 2004 emissions were 27% above 1990 levels. (Source via Wikipedia). Two years later we got a new government that said we weren't going to be able to meet the targets so they were coming up with a new plan. The problem is that meeting the protocol would require measures that would flush our economy.
The response of the opposition parties has been to insist that we can meet the targets and to ignore the financial data.
That's what's irritating me. People who ignore or deny information that they don't like like.
I believe in responsible stewardship of creation. That means using sustainable resources. That's why I'm proud to work in the forest sector. But we need to be honest about the costs of making changes and recognize that those costs are going to be paid by everyone.
5 Comments:
Posted by: 
Major John"I wonder if that's because talking green gets more votes than actually making people pay for the costs of being green"
In a word, yes.
Talk is cheap - action, as you have pointed out, is not.
Major John"I wonder if that's because talking green gets more votes than actually making people pay for the costs of being green"In a word, yes.
Talk is cheap - action, as you have pointed out, is not.
Posted by: MarcoAs was acknowledged in the last post and its comments, raising the price of gas ALONE won't really provide a satisfying solution. It'll hurt the working class most.
The way I know North America, the price of bus fares would rise as well if the price of gas rises. And your public transit system outside of the downtown metro areas frankly sucks (especially as one moves further West).
So how 'bout introducing a tax on gasoline and using the revenue from that tax to create alternatives? Cheaper, further-reaching, faster and more efficient commuter transportation? Bike lanes? That sort of thing. People can still have their precious cars, but maybe they would drive them less if the alternatives were cheaper and more viable, and if driving would be more expensive.
How has the HOV lane been working out? That's one idea in which North America is actually ahead of most of the world. You'd think it's only a matter of time before people start saying, "well here I am, stuck in traffic, paying full price for the fuel I'm using and the parking, when I could be coasting past everyone on the HOV lane with a couple of buddies, paying one-fourth the price. And I do this because I'm too lazy or too individualistic to find someone in my area who has the same basic commute as me."
MarcoAs was acknowledged in the last post and its comments, raising the price of gas ALONE won't really provide a satisfying solution. It'll hurt the working class most.The way I know North America, the price of bus fares would rise as well if the price of gas rises. And your public transit system outside of the downtown metro areas frankly sucks (especially as one moves further West).
So how 'bout introducing a tax on gasoline and using the revenue from that tax to create alternatives? Cheaper, further-reaching, faster and more efficient commuter transportation? Bike lanes? That sort of thing. People can still have their precious cars, but maybe they would drive them less if the alternatives were cheaper and more viable, and if driving would be more expensive.
How has the HOV lane been working out? That's one idea in which North America is actually ahead of most of the world. You'd think it's only a matter of time before people start saying, "well here I am, stuck in traffic, paying full price for the fuel I'm using and the parking, when I could be coasting past everyone on the HOV lane with a couple of buddies, paying one-fourth the price. And I do this because I'm too lazy or too individualistic to find someone in my area who has the same basic commute as me."
Posted by: <b>Claire Colvin</b>Poor, sad, neglected blog. Don't take it too hard, it's pracically impossible to compete with that lake.
<b>Claire Colvin</b>Poor, sad, neglected blog. Don't take it too hard, it's pracically impossible to compete with that lake.
Posted by: KatinkaGorman, you've succumed to Facebook haven't you?! That seems to be where previously active bloggers disappear to. *g*
KatinkaGorman, you've succumed to Facebook haven't you?! That seems to be where previously active bloggers disappear to. *g*
