Wednesday, February 14, 2007

"How much could that Kyoto thing cost us?

...and who will we be paying money to? You mean taxpayers will be paying it? Are you kidding me?"

A conversation I had today.

Baird has a great analogy:

"It's almost like saying around the world we've signed a protocol to all go on a diet and lose weight and instead of losing weight, we gain 35 pounds. But we somehow get an out by paying someone in Russia to lose weight for us. And by the way, they don't lose weight. This just compensates them for weight they lost 20 years ago."

4 comments:

Len Pryor said...

Kyoto is an unecessary solution to a non existant problem. If implimented it would be an economic disaster. Improving emission standards is a good idea, but any human influence on climate change is probably infinitesimal. Solar activity is most likely the cause of climate change now, as it has been since time began.

Len Pryor

Chad Moats said...

I thought there was a business that was paying farmers to not farm, or reduce carbon emissions per acre, and then selling it on the Kyoto market. Is there not an opportunity for us to sell credits to others or even within our own country.An example would be, Ipsco paying $x per hectare to farmers to reduce Ipsco's emissions. Would this not benefit our economy ?

David MacLean said...

Forcing businesses to spend money for nothing is NOT good for the economy.

Chad Moats said...

Then sell them to the EU or US companies that are buying them currently.
It lowers grain supplies increasing price per unit, it allows farmers to earn income in a new market and lowers GHG emissions. No one is forced to do it and I don't know what you define as "nothing".

Just saying there is opportunity, if you want it. Not the end of the economy.

CTF You Tube Channel

Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Fan Box