Implimenting Kyoto

Andrew Coyne's column on Kyoto reveals a few things the rest of the media doesn't seem to focus on. I strongly recommend reading it before continuing, although I will include a few points.

First and foremost, that the Kyoto deadline is not 2012. It is the average between 2008 and 2012. Meaning we would have to reduce CO2 emissions drastically by next year (not possible) or increase far past our targets by 2012 to achieve that average.

Furthermore, there are not enough CO2 credits available from developing countries for us to buy our way to freedom. We would have to bid for credits from countries like Russia, the great irony being that Russia didn't spend any money fixing their environmental problems. Their economy collapsed and they hadn't set ambitious targets.

However, facts never mattered with Kyoto. The left is correct when they say there is no debate on climate change; they don't allow any. Kyoto has served the Liberals well, and continues to do so. Signing Kyoto was all the Liberal government had to do to prove it was serious about the environment. And it was free, no less. Now that they're out of power, it is a weapon they can use against the new government.

It is clear that there was never any way that Harper could have met the 2008-2012 targets in Kyoto. It was already too late. If I were advising Harper, I would advise on one of two courses of action, although I would recommend the second.

1) Admit we cannot reach this target, but remind us that this does not put us in violation of the treaty. It simply adds a penalty for our next target. Instead of spending billions on CO2 credits to meet the current target (as Dion wants to), use those billions to reach the next target, including penalties.

2) Point out the fact that Canada's CO2 emissions are insigificant when compared to the rest of the world, then attack the environment where it counts for Canada; our water. We have some of the best freshwater resources on the planet, and we neet to protect them. I would hit the environment on three fronts; water, smog, and garbage disposal. We can achieve greater results with less money than it would take reaching the Kyoto target, and to me as a Canadian these are more important issues.

I like the second plan, because it provides a clear distinction between the styles of the two parties. You can vote Liberal or NDP and give Russia money, or you can vote Conservative and help Canada's environment.

Note: About plan 2, please do not try to tell me that Kyoto reduces smog. I've seen that a lot on the left side of the blogsphere and it's not true. Smog is mainly composed of tropospheric ozone, sulphur oxides, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides and ammonia gas. Kyoto does not account for any of these gases.