[OT]Re: [oclug]Port 4662

[Jon Earle]

Agreed about OT, and thanks for marking it as such.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Mike Thomas wrote:

> > Kyoto is about reducing greenhouse gases, not reducing pollution.  When
> > our ability to live indoors, eat, enjoy life, etc is put at risk because
> > of some lame (yet costly) attempt to reduce a few gases, one must ponder
> > if any real, tangible benefit will be achieved.  The full economic impact
> > has not been determined yet we've gone ahead and said it's a terrific idea
> > we should all smilingly embrace.  Have Canadians become so stunned that we
> > shoot first and ask questions later?
> >
> > Now, if it were about reducing pollution - the stuff that harms us all -
> > then I'd more interested.
>
>    Interesting that you mention "live indoors" rather the just live.
> Living indoors will be your only choice if we don't start to change
> things now. I for one will not be content to live in a bubble.

Bubble or not, I don't want to be sleeping in a tent or just "under the
stars" on a night like what we've had this past week (-24C).  Or in the
pouring rain.  Or in the scorching heat/humidity.  I like living indoors,
venturing out (and I do go outside quite a bit - I live in the country
with extensive bush behind the house) when I choose, and staying inside
when I choose.

> Harvesting/burning/using the things that cause the "few gasses" creates
> tremendous amounts of pollution as well. You can't seperate the two.
> Even if you could, conclusive proof now exists that global warming is
> real(I myself was in the "natural climate variation" camp until
> recently).

For us (humans) to think that we've figured out the planet's climate and
ecosystems after 100 yrs or so of monitoring is arrogance in the highest
degree.  How can we predict the climate changes of a 4.5billion yr old
planet based on so little research?  Heck, we can't even accurately
predict when it's going to rain!

> Putting these perfectly good reasons aside for now<g>, tell
> me how to calculate the economic cost? Each side will rig its own
> numbers to show how good/bad it is. I think back to the TCO of a PDA
> article that was psoted a while back. That is the kind of nonsense that
> exists out there, on both sides of the issue. We will never be able to
> accurately calculate the cost. That is no reason not to do it. Some

Some of the costs will be borne by the workers let go as a result of the
affected industries.  What industries?  Well, almost anything that
produces wastes.  (That includes bicycle manufacturers.)  How are they
going to be affected?  Well, you tell me.  Noone has any idea, yet we've
passed it anyway, thinking it'll all just magically sort itself out in the
wash.  Actually, the Liberals themselves claimed that nearly half a
million jobs would be lost... I'm sure those people (and their friends and
family) are not going to be too pleased with Kyoto.

Other costs will be borne by you and I in the form of increased taxes
(collected directly, or, more likely, indirectly), increased prices for
goods, reduced availability of goods due either to discontinued product
lines or simple reduced manufacturing output.

Heck.. are we going to check vehicles (trucks, etc) coming from the US and
making sure their emmisions are up to snuff?  I don't know if that's part
of it, but if it is, you can be sure that costs for many things are going
to jump!

> industries will be hard hit, others will benefit and even be created.
> The reality is it starts with Joe Citizen. Many Kyoto targets could be
> met requiring nothing more than moderate changes in the consumption
> habits of every day people.

Well, some yes.  Reality though, is that there's simply more of us.  1
house comsuming 10hwh/day of power is less of an indirect polluter than 10
houses consuming 2kwh/day.

My point is not so much to do with "Stop Kyoto for it's all bad and evil",
rather, "Don't rush into ratifying Kyoto until we have FACTS, not wishful
thoughts, on paper in our hands".  I agree we should reduce emmissions.
But, we should do it in meaningful ways, not ways which suggest a
knee-jerk reaction to a problem.  Kyoto is going to cost more in jobs and
money than it will save (we're only going back to 1990 levels after all!)

Cheers!
Jon

---
Jon Earle

SAVE FARSCAPE http://www.savefarscape.com/

Q: Could your economic future be negatively affected by Canada's
ratification of Kyoto?