3) Our planets
For those aspiring for longevity, or who are cryonicists (longevity by brain revival through freezing) or transhumanists (longevity through deliberate eugenics), H.G. Wells provides a basic road-map in “The Outline of History”, having a comparable reference also for the sun (see previous segment).
Wells states, referring to the inception of the world, that sun and earth and moon were then whistling about at a speed much greater than their speed today. The sun is much cooler than it was, it spins more slowly now, and it continues to cool and slow down. Likewise, with the earth’s spinning, it is slowing down, our day is growing longer and longer, and the heat of the centre of the earth wastes slowly. There was a time when the day was not a half and not a third of what it is today; there will be a time when the day will be as long as a year now, and the cooling sun, shorn of its beams, will hang motionless in the heavens. “The Earth”, says Sir James Jeans in his “Universe Around Us”, “will in all probability go on for another million million years and then its equatorial temperatures may be sinking to Arctic conditions”.
Comment: It is a relief to note academically that at this time we do not need to worry too much, but we have to acknowledge that forces and functions of our planets are far stronger than our man-made, well meant but unrealistic aspirations. We are still plain mortals...
Conclusion
From the array of various aspects of Kyoto, a few main observations can be made:
1) Science has not proven the unquestionable need and feasibility of Kyoto. Worldwide, it appears to be simply politically motivated to earn brownie-points.
2) Only 38 nations were expected to take on legally binding obligations, leaving 155 nations with no sure obligation. It stretches imagination to call it a global excercise.
3) Economic consequences are not known. It is fairly obvious that Canada will lose capital: a) by purchasing emission credits in developing nations; b) projects will be drawn to the USA, or even to Venezuela (with its rich tar-sand fields). All this means job losses because jobs follow capital.
The taxpayer should be concerned because the industry’s share of the emissions is only 25% (and apparently negotiable). Prudent fiscal management is also of concern. (The experiences with the HRD fiasco, GST rebate fraud, gun-registration cost overrun).
4) It is regrettable that national unity will be affected. The Federal Government has an exclusive authority to enter into international treaties, but apparently cannot enact laws within Provincial Constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court will decide.
5) It is quite surprising that in terms of environmental improvements the clean air issue has been left in the background. Improvements in public transportation, rail networks (replacing the gas-guzzling trucking industry), reduction of automobile use in urban areas, more fuel-efficient automobiles would make a significant contribution towards the improvement of air quality.
6) Worldwide, Canada is at a disadvantage. Third World countries are excluded (at least at this initial stage), the Europeans get credit for shutting down inefficient Soviet-era industries (particularily Russia), and no country in the Western Hemisphere except Canada is ratifying.
Further, it is difficult not to pay attention to some (knowledgeable) commentators who have expressed their frustration:
Paul Sullivan, Globe & Mail, Oct. 2, 2002 : “... that if all developed countries were to meet their targets by 2012, it would still mean a net reduction in global emissions of 1 percent because the developing countries have what amounts to a free pollution card because of their low comparative per capita emissions. So Canada is starting to look like the developed world champ.”
Jeffery Rubin, Globe & Mail, Oct. 10, 2002: “Global warming will cost enough in its own right without adding anything to the bill. Would Canada not be far better off spending the billions of dollars that Kyoto will cost on addressing the actual impact of the climate itself?”
William Johnson, Globe & Mail, Oct. 12, 2002: “The reality is, if it implements Kyoto, Canada will make no perceptible improvements to global warming while doing harm to its competitiveness and its national unity. And it will perpetuate the illusion that the world is doing something real about greenhouse gases.”
Michael Den Tandt, Globe & Mail, Dec. 2, 2002: “Kyoto Protocol, for this government and for so many others is a charade: a sop for environmentally lightened and socially aware... Why go to all this trouble, why alienate business and eight of ten provinces, why confuse everyone? The answer is simple: Kyoto is motherhood. Never mind the details, never mind the science, never mind the price of uncertainty...”
Obviously, Kyoto is and will remain a politically, economically and scientifically issue that is very much well-alive, with unknown consequences for Canada. Quo vadis, Canada? Time will tell.
VIKTOR VIRAK
Dec. 18-th, 2002
( Compiled from listed and other media references September 3 to December 17, 2002)
Comment: Kyoto 101 - (2)
Archived Articles | 07 Jan 2003 | Viktor VirakEWR
Archived Articles
TRENDING
