Kyoto Accord

First, we have to establish 2 things. #1 is the fact that global warming exists. If you think global warming is a fake-out, then the Kyoto Protocol has no bearing on your life. Go to your SUV and drive up the 1/2 block to get a Starbucks. I like a latte with 3 sugars and extra foam, please. #2 is the fact that some people stand to get rich from it, so there is an ugly undercurrent as there always is when money is involved.

The objective of the protocol is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." (read the rest of this Wikipedia article here.)

A country like Canada has many many credits, because we aren't densely populated. Aside of major urban centres, the only province that's really messing up Canada's willingness to sign is Oilberta. (That's a whole other post for a whole other day.) Anyways. A country like China, which is very densely populated, obviously has a greater potential for poking a local hole in the ozone with their greenhouse gas (GHG) emmissions than someplace like say Nunavut. Kyoto proposes the use of credits and penalties, which I'm going to dummy down as best as I can. *note this is NOT the actual formula or the number of credits. So let's say Nunavut has 5 credits and China has 5 credits. Ideally, both Nunavut & China would not exceed these credits, thereby stabilizing GHG. On top of that, you can earn credits for good behaviour for reducing your GHG emissions, by, for example, using only 2 of your 5 credits. Some scientists work on band-aid solutions to the problem, like deep geological storage of CO2, which is basically filling a thick-walled tank with CO2 emissions collected from big industries, and burying it deep in the ground. You can get credits for giving money to the researchers trying to figure out how to make that work for more than 300 or so years.

Well then, let's say Nunavut is only going to use 1 credit, for all the GHG emissions from their whale blubber lamps. They also install a whole poopload of solar panels to power their diamond cutting lasers. That earns them an extra 5 credits. So sad, China has already used all 5 of their credits for being bad polluters, so Nunavut can then sell their credits to China. So Nunavut, by virtue of being sparsely populated and showing a little initiative, is enabling China to not actually do anything proactive. The end result is YOU GET SCREWED, since emissions haven't actually been reduced. Ta da!

Did I mention that the sale of the credits will propably be done by a broker? Oh yeah, people - everyone's got their fingers in the Kyoto money pie... Google 'emmissions trading.' It's the greatest thing since Enron.

Anyhow. The Kyoto Protocol is great, in theory, but in practice not so much. It's governed under the UN, which is voluntary (and kind of utopian itself) in the first place. For the record, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am in full support of the Kyoto Accord and the UN, but I think both the Kyoto Accord and the UN are too far removed from 'everyman' for anyone to really take it seriously. Filthy-minded politicians and corrupt environmental brokers, the rich oil and manufacturing companies who can afford to buy credits and pooh pooh the GHG reduction initiatives reward system have no reason to give a damn. At least the US is being honest - they don't want to participate, or pay, and don't think the good PR of saying, "Why yes, we're Kyoto.." is worthwhile. Of course, the US is THE BIGGEST POLLUTER, but they also have that monkey-muppet gdubya and his fall guys voted in to head up the club. I digress.

I think in order to be effective, the guidelines would have to be a LOT stricter, and have a better trickle-down effect. What I mean is, if you and me and my neighbour were going to feel the financial pinch of Kyoto instead of ~ I dunno, the oil companies? ~ we'd be more apt to pay attention to what's going on in our own backyards. An example would be giving each person a monthly fuel credit. Non-transferrable from person to person. If you wanted to take a big road trip, you would have to save up your monthly fuel credits until you had enough to cover your gas consumption. (Obviously, vehicles used for transport of goods etc. would be set up differently...) This would motivate people to invest in smaller vehicles, maintain their current vehicles better, and be more conscientious of where they are driving... This is, of course a ridiculously utopian scenario, but you get the point.

You can calculate your own impact on the environment here. The average person is responsible for 45,100 pounds per year. There are 6 billion people or so on the planet. Imagine if there were incentives, ones with real consequences (fines, loss of services) and tangible rewards (tax breaks, gifts) for each person to reduce their PERSONAL contribution of CO2 by just 10%. Keep the heat in your house at 22C? Turn it down to 20C and get FREE SWEATERS for everyone in your home! Drive to work everyday? Try public transit, even if you have just drive to a terminal so you aren't taking 73 connector routes, and we'll give you $5 OFF your next buspass! Think recycling takes too much work? Try at least setting aside your bottles and cans that are eligible for return, and get a SODA POP to kick start the next collection!

So, to sum up in my never-humble opinion, at this point in time the Kyoto Accord simply isn't enforceable in any meaningful way.