I had a feeling you'd be sounding off on this article. The very first thing I thought of was an analogy of two overweight adults who both need to lose more weight. If a 400 lb man loses 43% of his weight, that's a lot more than if a 200 lb man does, but that's because there's a lot more fat to lose. If a 200 lb man lost as much weight, he'd be nearly dead, as our economy would be.
Ontario is starting up several initiatives including wind farms, we just closed a coal plant and our hybrid car sales are up. We're doing okay. I can't speak for Alberta- it's the only province in the country that's reaping the benefits of the gas hikes. Alberta is actually debating paying the University tuition for its constituents.
I will say that both countries rely too heavily on carbon-based energy; a yoke we both have to get out from under. I realize falling in with Kyoto would be economic suicide for the US, but rather than pointing fingers, our two nations have to work together to eliminate what is going to be a serious, serious problem for our grandchildren.
Whoa- way too heavy for first thing in the mornings. Sorry.
Interestingly, this argument is made in reverse against the U.S. in reference to how much of our GDP is provided to developing countries in foreign aid. The argument is that the U.S. gives the lowest amuont of aid as a percentage compared to other, "more enlightened," countries, when in fact our giving in real numbers dwarfs that of most nations. Moreover, the figures on spending do not include private contributions which are higher than any other industrialized nation.
The moral of the story is that people play with percentages to make their case when it serves their interest. I agree with you, however, that we must get serious about developing a more comprehensive partnership relative to environmental protections, focusing on solutions that will not cripple our economies.
The article was interesting because it is Canada's own researchers who are smacking their fellow Canadians down for their smug, self-righteous attitude toward the U.S. when it comes to environmentalism.
I read a book called "The End of Oil," the thrust of which was that we, as environmentalists, can't have unrealistic views on what the US can and can't accomplish. It's simply unrealistic to expect that the States can reach those goals (ie Kyoto) in such a short time. In effect, by setting the bar so high, we get nowhere at all.
Better to foster an attitude of conservation and to nudge our politicians to pursue R&D that will decrease our dependence on carbon fuels.
I completely agree that American gets an unfair shake when it's compared to other countries because, quite frankly, it's like no other country in the world. Kudos to the Canadian scientists who see past our jingoism and are calling on Canadians to get our heads out of the clouds; everyone needs to pull up their sleeves.
In other news, I tried the Narnia link you sent me, but it didn't work. Still, I can't believe those comments!
3 comments:
I had a feeling you'd be sounding off on this article. The very first thing I thought of was an analogy of two overweight adults who both need to lose more weight. If a 400 lb man loses 43% of his weight, that's a lot more than if a 200 lb man does, but that's because there's a lot more fat to lose. If a 200 lb man lost as much weight, he'd be nearly dead, as our economy would be.
Ontario is starting up several initiatives including wind farms, we just closed a coal plant and our hybrid car sales are up. We're doing okay. I can't speak for Alberta- it's the only province in the country that's reaping the benefits of the gas hikes. Alberta is actually debating paying the University tuition for its constituents.
I will say that both countries rely too heavily on carbon-based energy; a yoke we both have to get out from under. I realize falling in with Kyoto would be economic suicide for the US, but rather than pointing fingers, our two nations have to work together to eliminate what is going to be a serious, serious problem for our grandchildren.
Whoa- way too heavy for first thing in the mornings. Sorry.
Interestingly, this argument is made in reverse against the U.S. in reference to how much of our GDP is provided to developing countries in foreign aid. The argument is that the U.S. gives the lowest amuont of aid as a percentage compared to other, "more enlightened," countries, when in fact our giving in real numbers dwarfs that of most nations. Moreover, the figures on spending do not include private contributions which are higher than any other industrialized nation.
The moral of the story is that people play with percentages to make their case when it serves their interest. I agree with you, however, that we must get serious about developing a more comprehensive partnership relative to environmental protections, focusing on solutions that will not cripple our economies.
The article was interesting because it is Canada's own researchers who are smacking their fellow Canadians down for their smug, self-righteous attitude toward the U.S. when it comes to environmentalism.
I read a book called "The End of Oil," the thrust of which was that we, as environmentalists, can't have unrealistic views on what the US can and can't accomplish. It's simply unrealistic to expect that the States can reach those goals (ie Kyoto) in such a short time. In effect, by setting the bar so high, we get nowhere at all.
Better to foster an attitude of conservation and to nudge our politicians to pursue R&D that will decrease our dependence on carbon fuels.
I completely agree that American gets an unfair shake when it's compared to other countries because, quite frankly, it's like no other country in the world. Kudos to the Canadian scientists who see past our jingoism and are calling on Canadians to get our heads out of the clouds; everyone needs to pull up their sleeves.
In other news, I tried the Narnia link you sent me, but it didn't work. Still, I can't believe those comments!
Post a Comment