SkyscraperCity Forum banner

On Kyoto, I am...

  • favour of the plan.

    Votes: 30 63.8%
  • ...against the plan.

    Votes: 12 25.5%
  • ...neither nor against the plan.

    Votes: 5 10.6%

Kyoto: Where do you stand on it?

2825 Views 32 Replies 18 Participants Last post by  mr.x
As you all know, our current government in power is in favour of Kyoto but the second most powerful party is threatening to call an election if Kyoto is forwarded into action even more. It would be another spring election, almost 1 year from the last.

Are you in favour of Kyoto?

An election would cost our government about $250 million. That's enough to buy 600 humvees, enough to replace our military, and 27 hospital MRI's. After that, we still have $25 million leftover - perhaps, get another governor general of the same nature and attitude? :cheers:
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
For. We can drag our feet by drafting other plans and thus doing nothing, or we can start doing something about a very immidiate problem. My only concern is that it doesn't go far enough. The Greens, I think, have some great ideas in this field (as they should); taxing inefficiency and providing subsidies to energy efficiency is a good way to start doing more.
The industry self-regulation cannot be trusted as a matter of common sense. Either we change the structure of the corporation so that revenue isn't its only goal, or we regulate it. Since the former won't happen, and since voluntary targets tend to not be met, we need a way to tax consumption.

I do agree that foreign credits are generally smoke and mirrors, though, and are based on some questionable science (how much does a heatsink provide in CO2 relief...). Still... they're not a complete loss - properly invested credits (say, in the Amazon Rain Forest) can give some unstable ecosystems a second lease on life.
No, no. I have nothing against anyone that works at a corporation. A corporation is a legal entity that does what it is supposed to do, i.e. make money, relatively well. It has a extremely limited democratic mechanism, however; public opinion is easily shaped. Their contributions are often a few meaningless sponsorships instead of large-scale changes in the way they conduct business. There's exceptions, of course, corporations which lean towards a community structure model, in which revenue isn't a zero-sum game. But it's rare, and without some way to equal out the playing field, I don't think there's a future here.

Regulation, in the hard sense of the word of simply slapping a levy, may not be necessary in all instances though, as long as we move towards environmental accounting in which we come to recognize the true cost of environmental resources. These are remarkably underpriced at the moment.

Boris550 said:
Corporations are being pressured by public opinion. They don't need regulation. You act like anyone that works at a corporation isn't humane...
Boris550 said:
Consumption taxes are a good way to go, so long as they cut my income tax at the same time...
Sure :yes:

The Green Party, if I remember, had the idea to eliminate the income tax alltogether arguing that the more self-sustainable you are, the less taxed you should be. So, instead of doing blank cheque income taxation, one is taxed according to their environmental footprint.

Indeed, there is some fairly persuading logic to this, although I've not made up my mind about it completely - a flaw in this plan is that it will be easier for a wealthy person working in the service industry to eliminate their environmental footprint than would be for the poor, so we may end up taxing those that, in part, depend on cheap, but inefficient and short-lasting, goods; a subsidy that is bracketed based on income levels may work in this case, though.

Basically, I've not made up my mind about the total elimination of income taxes, but an income tax reduction coupled with an appropriately levied consumption tax is a step in the right direction, I think.

Boris550 said:
Think about it. How much more likely is it that I will go out and buy a hybrid car if you let me have a little more money in my pocket and then tell me that you'll tax the crap outta me if I buy an SUV??? Thus we make the one-tonne challenge possible for the average Joe.
Indeed, I couldn't agree more.
^ a prudent political move is what it is, though. A solid majority is behind Kyoto; Alberta will vote for Conservatives regardless, and this makes them more palattable elsewhere. I'm sure the other parties will milk this about face for all it is worth, however.
^ maybe the Conservatives are finally realizing that the only way to win is to forget about much of the Alliance wing, and pay more attention to the reddish PC wing. Our political tastes in Canada (for better or worse) are fairly narrow and generally centrist. The old job of the (with a slight exception of Mulroney) Progressive Conservatives was to be the Liberals when we got mad of Liberals enough to throw them out. So yeah, if PC still existed, I would bet serious money that the party would go right back to the top.

Well, the current Conservatives are realizing, 'yes, we need to out-Liberal Liberals,' a strategy they were flirting with, but one they could never quite pull off, during the last election. Their future success will fully depend on how much they embrace the red Tory ideals.

On a completely unrelated note, McKay is a dick. He sold what could have been a viable party once again for a dubious political gain. Ugh.
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.