NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's set aside the discussion about what causes global warming and just look at the greenhouse emission targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. The motivation for mentioning this is an article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_sc/canada_climate_change_2)on Yahoo! about the Canadian EPA and the reductions in levels that the Canadians have achieved, relative to 1990 levels.


"The current government has announced that Canada cannot realistically meet its Kyoto target. If so, then new targets should take its place."

Under the terms of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Canada is committed to a 6 percent cut in greenhouse emissions from 1990 levels by 2012. Canada's emissions are now 30 percent above 1990 levels.


Canada is a willing and, I assume, enthusiastic participant in the Treaty. However, Canada can't meet the goals. The Conservative government is fairly new, so I don't think you can blame them. Are the goals realistic for Canada? For the rest of the signatory nations? Or is this just a pipe-dream by some wacko-environmentalists?

Canada is a willing and, I assume, enthusiastic participant in the Treaty. However, Canada can't meet the goals. The Conservative government is fairly new, so I don't think you can blame them. Are the goals realistic for Canada? For the rest of the signatory nations? Or is this just a pipe-dream by some wacko-environmentalists?

The goals are very realistic and easy to obtain. People are just not motivated enough to change.

However, if the goals are useful is another question. Kyoto is a political compromise designed by politicians - not by scientists. Or environmentalists for that matter.

The goals are very realistic and easy to obtain. People are just not motivated enough to change.

However, if the goals are useful is another question. Kyoto is a political compromise designed by politicians - not by scientists. Or environmentalists for that matter.
Realistic and easy to achieve is what the claim is. This seems to indicate otherwise. I'm assuming that Canada signed the treaty because they meant to keep it, not just as a matter of convenience.

Sure they are in the soon to come age of decling world oil production. We cannot burn what we cannot produce. Luckily, the most likely replacement for burning oil will be coal to fuel conversion and the devolpment of that is being engineered alongside carbon sequestration technology. All teh new prototype plants for Fishcer Troph are being built with carbon sequestration or recovery technology.

Sure they are in the soon to come age of decling world oil production. We cannot burn what we cannot produce. Luckily, the most likely replacement for burning oil will be coal to fuel conversion and the devolpment of that is being engineered alongside carbon sequestration technology. All teh new prototype plants for Fishcer Troph are being built with carbon sequestration or recovery technology.
So we'll all conform eventually. But by necessity, rather than desire, right?

I think a lot of things have to be changed about the Kyoto Protocol but it is still basically the first step. I think Canada should keep the goal and then it should be determined how to deal with the situation if and probably when they do not meet the goal. Its a difficult issue, especially with the trading going on with carbon credits. It is some people's opinions that if one country cannot meet its goals, it essentially will make it more expensive for all the other countries involved. The only thing I do know is that there are definitely some kinks to be worked out.

Canada is a willing and, I assume, enthusiastic participant in the Treaty. However, Canada can't meet the goals. The Conservative government is fairly new, so I don't think you can blame them. Are the goals realistic for Canada? For the rest of the signatory nations? Or is this just a pipe-dream by some wacko-environmentalists?

Your assumption is incorrect. Canada is unable to reach the goals in the Treaty because it hasn't taken any concrete action to implement them.

Our former Liberal government's plan of action basically consisted of:
1) more research
2) "the one tonne challenge"
More research is obviously needed, but does not itself solve the problem. It only teaches us more about the nature of the problem, and how we might go about solving it. As for their "One tonne challenge" it was a voluntary request to all Canadians to reduce their emissions by one tonne, with some suggestions as to how to do so. Totally unrealistic ... anyone who is going to voluntarily reduce their emissions out of the goodness of their heart has already done so.

The Liberals failed to implement a carbon tax, or an emissions trading system, or any of the other steps that would have been required to meet our Kyoto targets (and enhance economic efficiency while doing so).

The Conservative government is even less dedicated to addressing the problems. They have cut the research programs, and have made some noise about a "Made in Canada solution". They have not announced what that solution will be. They also made some noise about backing out of Kyoto. They have not explained why their Made in Canada approach cannot be implemented within Kyoto, because Kyoto leaves ample room for every country to develop their own solutions to meeting the targets. (In addition, the Environment Minister keeps making speeches where it is obvious that she does not understand the difference between air pollution and climate change). So basically their Made in Canada solution sounds alot like the US solution ... talk about it, but don't take any concrete action, and avoid the multilteral action that is obviously required to solve this global problem.

The question should not whether the targets are unrealistic, but why Canada is having any difficulty in meeting these relatively modest targets. Many European countries are on track to meet their targets under Kyoto ... because they have actually made the effort. It's not the targets that are unrealistic ... it is the assumption that we can implement them without actually doing anything.