Top 10 Reasons Why Kyoto is Evil
10) Kyoto makes baby Jesus cry.
9) Kyoto makes beer go flat.
8) Kyoto was the one-armed shooter on the grassy knoll.
7) Kyoto makes Don Cherry’s suits.
6) Kyoto is the father of Anna Nicole’s baby.
5) Kyoto makes everything taste like chicken.
4) Kyoto before marriage is a sin.
3) Kyoto taught Sanjaya Malakar how to sing
2) Kyoto is the reason Europeans need to wear visors.
1) If Kyoto wins, the terrorists have won
9) Kyoto makes beer go flat.
8) Kyoto was the one-armed shooter on the grassy knoll.
7) Kyoto makes Don Cherry’s suits.
6) Kyoto is the father of Anna Nicole’s baby.
5) Kyoto makes everything taste like chicken.
4) Kyoto before marriage is a sin.
3) Kyoto taught Sanjaya Malakar how to sing
2) Kyoto is the reason Europeans need to wear visors.
1) If Kyoto wins, the terrorists have won
par / by Anthony à / at 7:40 p.m.
5 Commentaires:
You had me at #10... LOL.
Here’s another one: By supporting Kyoto, we’re emboldening the climate.
Don Cherry's suits are beautiful. He puts Harry Rosen to shame.
His suits are the perfect expression of his personality. He refuses to wear the same bland grey that is so popular. He stands out.
To every thing there is a season. For the ancient Greeks, four foot high wooden shoes were regal. In the 80's, leg warmes around women's ankles. History will remember Don Cherry. It will forget Tip Top Tailors.
Baird is right when he says that four years is too short to make a substantial reduction in emissions. The fundamental problem with Baird’s study is that it doesn’t allow for carbon trading.
Therefore, the primary tool is pain. This implies a great deal of pain since the demand for energy is quite inelastic. That is, the price has to rise a lot before consumers cut back. True?
In a democratic society, it would be quite difficulty to achieve substantial cuts using this approach. It would be catastrophic as baird pointed out.
Of course, that is why harper and the oil patch are using this inappropriate model. They don’t want any serious action on carbon emissions. They would prefer to work on a ‘2050’ timeframe. By that time, Alberta’s oil sand production would be past its peak.
In contrast, Bill C-30 with its 100 amendments is a serious attempt to prepare Canada for the global warming paradigm.
There is an attempt to reduce actual emissions by regulations. There is carbon trading to ‘pay’ for emissions not actually reduced in Canada. There is a mechanism to funnel a $20/tonne tax (compared to baird’s $195/tonne) to green projects.
In other words, it doesn’t just depend on pain.
The Bill sets hard targets for the short term. It targets industries but provides flexibility, support and incentives for the industries. It’s about creating profits and jobs in new green industries. It allows for economic expansion.
In the short term, the plan is likely to be a drag on the economy, but not necessarily a disaster. It would help if Dion had the numbers to support his plan. But, any numbers would be controversial because we are in a gray area. For example, it is unclear how much of the costs would be passed through to the consumers.
The examples from Europe tend to be positive. But, it is difficult to apply the European (dense population) example to North America.
I’ll give my thoughts on why I think that a carbon trading system, which is about sharing and restraint, could be a good thing, if anyone is interested.
you know Antonio, I have never been pissed with you ever before, but this morning, I am pissed.
Sanjaya is a fine singer with a great personality and I will mourn his departure from American Idol.
I remain a loyal Sanjaya-maniac even if I would personally vote for Melinda Doolittle. But then, I am a soul, r&b type fella.
Rot in hell, Sanjaya basher!
Sanjaya will be a better singer when he grows up and learns to be a little more forceful.
At the fear of incurring Chucker's wrath...I fully agree with Antonio's assessment.
Post a Comment
<< Home