Kyoto Petition!

[89coupe]

Go here to sign the petition...
http://www.taxpayer.com/KyotoOnlinePetition.htm

[T5_X]

on the foundation of faulty science

Sure, everything I've learned in 2 semesters of global change themed classes is based on faulty science. I most certainly will not sign that. Anyone against Kyoto should go to a university and talk to the profs and other people who are most educated on environmental issues.

[Blue Devil 2]

aren't there seminars on Kyoto at the U ??

[RickDaTuner]

thats what i think,
is there really a price to pay to keep the exsistance of the human race an exsistance, i think not, kyoto will reduce some jobs but the ecomony will surely find other jobs that fit in with Kyoto accord
I dont think this responsabilty can be put off any longer, the issue needs to be taken care of while, Earth is still in some what decent shape

[rage2]

Originally posted by Ranger_X31
Sure, everything I've learned in 2 semesters of global change themed classes is based on faulty science. I most certainly will not sign that. Anyone against Kyoto should go to a university and talk to the profs and other people who are most educated on environmental issues.

Originally posted by RickDaTuner
thats what i think,
is there really a price to pay to keep the exsistance of the human race an exsistance, i think not, kyoto will reduce some jobs but the ecomony will surely find other jobs that fit in with Kyoto accord
I dont think this responsabilty can be put off any longer, the issue needs to be taken care of while, Earth is still in some what decent shape

The Kyoto debate is not 100% about the environment. There are 2 large issues dealing with the Kyoto accord which makes it flawed.

First off, global weather changes have not been tracked accurately for the last 100 years. Changes of measurement from ground based stations to satellite based readings have thrown data completely out of whack. Of the satellite readings read in the last 15 years, there's actually been a cooling trend. Also, the "warming" that we're all fearing has mostly been around 1900-1940, well before the massive greenhouse gases that's being released today. Honestly, the 2 sides of the debate is all based on statistics. One can show that global warming will kill us, another will show that it'll help us, etc.

The second and BIGGEST problem with Kyoto is that we will NOT meet the targets of 2012. That's a known fact admitted by every level of government. If we remove the entire transporation infrastructure (cars, trucks, planes, trains, etc) we will still miss the 2012 target. Here's where the problem lies... if we don't meet the targets, we have to pay developing countries to help them create technologies and infrastructures to reduce greenhouse gases. Money coming out of the taxpayer's pockets. Even whackier is that developing countries have no targets, meaning they can pollute all they want and get money from Canada who won't meet their targets. Canada doesn't even pollute that much in the first place (compared to other developing countries), so we're spending untold billions and transfering even more billions to make a small blip on the greenhouse emissions radar.

Lots of other hidden issues, such as who's managing the $ in the developing countries? Corrupt politicians? You think all the money from our greenhouse credits to the developing countries would end up in the right hands? IMO, Kyoto is a hidden attempt for redistribution of wealth, something that sucks to every taxpayer in Canada (and other developed countries who will be penalized for not meeting the unreasonable targets).

What the Alberta government is doing is creating their own plan that meets REALISTIC GOALS without being punished. This is why the Kyoto Accord is a bad thing. Nobody's saying "let's pollute the *@$# out of the air", just saying there's a better and smarter way to do things.

Check out http://www.globalwarming.org for views from "the other side" of the environmental debate. A site that talks about global warming, and the science behind it that makes some of the scenarios flawed. All the data is backed by scientists and facts.

I hate politics, but Kyoto's gonna cost every person that pays taxes. Let's hope everyone that's interested in the environment or the economy to get all the facts before saying Let's go with Kyoto. Some of you guys are young and still in school, in 10 years, when you're paying your taxes, you're going to regret saying yes to Kyoto.

[89coupe]

I'll second that

[Ben]

rage, I couldn't have said it better myself!

Cretien can lick beanbag, he obviously didn't seriously think over the drastic affects it will have on western economy, which is funny because they rely so much on our multibillion dollar transfer payments...

[rage2]

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba213.html

An excellent analysis of Kyoto, and why it doesn't work.

[redec]

Couldn't have said it better myself....I wouldn't mind it so much if Canada had a say on what our money was being used for in the developing countries....as far as we know, we could be funding them to develop nukes, and then use them on us.
Realistically tho, many of the countries our money would be going to have little (if any) organized government....our money would not go to helping the people of the country, it would go straight into the pockets of the already-rich 'politicians'. And by politicians I mean the terrorists that took power in the country's last bloody coup.

[Ben]

Nicely Put Redec

[ninjak84]

I agree with Rage, Kyoto will skyrocket gasoline prices and put far too many people out of jobs. Perhaps if it actually accomplished the goals it said it would, I would be for it.

The fact that the creators had to lie about meeting their targets speaks volumes about what they truly hoped to do.

[RickDaTuner]

thanks for brusihing me up on the situation, i was really just going of minimal media coverage on it, wasnt really to sure of the effects it would have, all i saw was better enviourment...
i guess i was wrong

[4wheeldrift]

Don't forget that fact that Kyoto exempts developing countries from emissions targets, leaving gross polluters like china and india to continue to belch out as much garbage into the air as they like. China's emissions are already several times that of canadas, but we have to curb our emissions while they don't?

[Toms-Celica]

I heard, correct me if Im wrong, that even if Canada did meet Kyoto standards, it would only lower the temps by .5 of a degree.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Toms-Celica
I heard, correct me if Im wrong, that even if Canada did meet Kyoto standards, it would only lower the temps by .5 of a degree.

OK You're wrong. If Canada did meet Kyoto Standards, then greehouse gas emissions would still go up because developing countries are EXEMPT from cleaning up their pollutants. If Canada did meet the standards, we wouldnt' have to send money for greenhouse credits to the developing countries.

As for temps going up and down, there's been no solid link between greenhouse gas emissions vs global temperature rises... unless you take the last 100 years of data and only have use the first and last years as start and end point... if you graph out emissions vs temps yearly, the graphs do not correlate to each other at all.

[4wheeldrift]

Hopefully Cretien will follow the United States and Australia's lead and say no to kyoto. I doubt it, but hope springs eternal.

[finboy]

both sides have valid points.

i am sure recent increase in polutants over the last 100-150 years have caused damage to the ozone layer, but not nearly as much as enviromentalists are saying.

even through studying fossils, they have found that the ozone layer has thinned and also gotten thicker, but simply because we are emiting pollutants, the whole thing is our fault.

seems to me most of the polutants are comming from eastern canada anyways, so why don't we just cut off their supply of alberta fuel and let them import their own while we use all the fossil fuels we want for twice as long. Hell, ottowa has been ignoring the west for quite some time, but last i heard alberta was the most successful province in canada right now. Reducing our fossil fuel output will do for us what putting tarrifs on soft lumber did for bc.

i signed it

[T5_X]

I just wrote a big post but I got logged out and lost it

Anyway, there is an overwhelming trend in data to suggest that there is a global climate trend towards warming. The fact that there is so much disagreement on the accuracy of the data to wich humans are affecting the rate of change is no basis to simply throw out the entire theory.

Go to these sites for an unbiased perspective:

http://www.wri.org/

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_C...oto&Beyond.asp

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf (if you can't get to this link directly, click and download this article: WG I "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis" from the homepage)

http://www.ipcc.ch

[rage2]

Originally posted by Ranger_X31
The fact that there is so much disagreement on the accuracy of the data to wich humans are affecting the rate of change is no basis to simply throw out the entire theory.

Nobody's throwing out the theory. Read my posts, the debate is that Kyoto's not the way to tackle the issue, even if global warming IS happening and we will all die if we don't reduce emissions.

[4wheeldrift]

I'm not saying global warming isn't necessarily a problem, but kyoto is ... fatally flawed at best and totally useless at worst. Protecting the environment is important, but the Kyoto Accord is definetly not th way to be doing it.