Critical Brain Candy

Whole Foods really supports renewable energy Political Party Picker

5 Comments (+add yours?)

1. Randy Nutjob
   Jan 13, 2006 @ 15:16:31

   Fortunately, there’s no place for absolute power in the Canadian government. Unlike the Unitary Executive to the south, the Prime Minister cannot just make up laws or push through drastic changes without a solid majority of support.

   Sure, the candidates will talk big about making big changes, but that’s just a political trick to fire up their voter bases. Most politicians know that making actual change is almost always political suicide, just a certainly as not making big promises during a campaign. That’s the fundamental contradiction of politics. So don’t get too worried about it. They don’t actually intend to keep their promises.

   http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory_static.html

2. Stephen Young
   Jan 14, 2006 @ 06:10:14

   I don’t think anyone seriously believes that under Paul Martin, Canada was going to meet its Kyoto commitments. We’re supposed to be down something like 5% from our 1990 emissions levels and Canada’s UP about 20%.

   Now, this isn’t to say that one has to be on board with Kyoto to reduce greenhouse emissions – the United States has reduced greenhouse emissions more than Canada has and, of course, they’ve outright rejected Kyoto. Their own “made-in-America” solution has been more successful at reducing greenhouse emissions while Canada’s lip service to the Kyoto Protocol has been just that – nothing but lip service.

   It’s a bit of a leap of faith to hope that Stephen Harper’s made-in-Canada solution will be as or more effective at reducing greenhouse emissions as the American system, but would you rather have a national leader who cares about solving the actual, real problem of reducing CO2 emissions? Or would you rather have one who goes around telling everyone how great the Kyoto Protocol is without doing a damn thing to solve the actual problem.

3. Sarah Binion
   Jan 14, 2006 @ 18:45:59

   I would comment more, but I´m about to get on a plane…that said, I spent some time in grad school studying kyoto…there are some serious issues with it — it was poorly designed THAT´s why the U.S. didn´t sign on — incidentally a summit just occurred on how the worlds biggest polluters can do a BETTER job than that lined out in Kyoto. Here´s one article…there are others if you search…

   http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102199.html

4. Sarah Binion
   Jan 14, 2006 @ 18:49:11

   here´s another…
   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3131285.stm

5. Neil Thier
   Jan 15, 2006 @ 14:13:14

   Ok, to address some of your points and determine where we stand on some of the basics:
   a) Does anyone disagree that if a country follows Kyoto it’s emissions will be lower?
   b) Does anyone disagree that lowering emissions is a good thing?
   c) Nobody has claimed Kyoto, in itself, will stop climate change. Does that mean it’s no good for that reason? If I had cancer and a doctor told me my best option would be to take a drug that would extend my life by 50%, should I refuse because it’s not a cure?

   Sure, Kyoto has flaws, but Bush and Harpers publically stated reason for not supporting it is that it’s “bad for the economy.” I don’t believe for a second that either of them believe they can reduce emissions faster than outlined in Kyoto (without having a temporary economic impact), or else why not sign up for it? An analogy for this would be if someone bet me $100 I couldn’t run 5 miles, but I refuse because I can actually run 10. That would be ridiculous.

   We’re going to have to do some imperfect things, and quickly, in order to save this planet. Maybe I’d have some respect for Bush if his response was “Kyoto sucks. Here’s my better plan that I’m going to implement NOW and try to get others signed up to as well.” Rather, his response has not come and nothing has been implemented.