It's funny you mention Honda, and car companies. One of the
hot issues at the Kyoto is Carbon sinks. (The short definition--
areas which exchange CO2.)(forests,ect.) Developed countries think carbon
sinks can help balance global warming without to much change.I can't
remember who it was now, Honda or Mitsubishi but one of the two, are
spending massive amounts of money researching in GM trees, as a sustainable
technology for helping reduce global warming.
I say with some gest, any connection?
I don't nessacarly agree with a total carbon sink protocal. But I don't
think carbon sinks are so unethical. The WWF (world wildlife fund)
is supporting the idea, because think what it could do for biodiversity.
However, I think there should be a limit to how much justification
a carbon sink should allow for in the protocal. They are currently
unpredictable for CO2 exchange amounts. A shift to sustainable technologies
is a time consuming process but if developed countries, could realize the
potential for the marketing. It would in a longer while from now greatly
reduce dependence on oil. In the US that would certainly be a benefit to
consumers and producers who depend so much on that foreign "stuff."
With intelligent policy the Kyoto-- doesn't nearly have to be so
stalled with gridlock, if there could be definite balance for reduction
found. But obviously that is a very ideal statement. And the questions
of how long, and what will drive the international players to make that
desicion, is of much more complication then use this or that technology.
Have a good night.
Li-
In a message dated 11/22/00 2:12:18 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> You mean can we put more life back into the Kyoto Protocol Agreement to
> reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions?
>
> I wonder what Shaw would say about the issue?
>
> Recently the Honda Corporation developed a commercial, for sale, robot that
> can turn lights on and off. Will this reduce GHG emissions on a small scale
> or add to a large problem later? Can we as private citizens help nations
> make the transition to a world economy that does not waste so much energy?
> It is hard for myself to imagine a better future without collective private
> action that addresses the luxury consumption of fossil fuels,
deforestation,
> and habitat distruction.
>
> Should investors focus on investments now which are capable of reducing
> consumption of fossil fuels as part of the requirements of the Kyoto
> Protocol?
>
> My answer is yes, the signatory nations should be implementing policy
> instruments that will affect real change. One way to do this is to use
> economic incentives for private citizens to reduce their own consumption of
> fossil fuels. Can nations get their elected representatives to discuss,
> debate and ultimately enact beneficial policies that will do the job much
> more quickly than 'best of intentions' and 'promises' of the past.
Currently
> only a few nations have met their own stated goals of reducing greenhouse
> gas emissions. Canada for instance is being criticized for lack of
> compliance in terms of forest clearing.
>
> Some solutions are investments in 'mass public transit', 'energy
> efficiency', imposition of 'luxury consumption taxes', development of
> 'substitute materials that replace wood products', protection of 'old
growth
> forests', & development of 'geothermal energy',
>
> Other policies may be instituted by large corporations and these policies
> may consist in reduction of the work week to four days, longer hours during
> those work days working [from 8 to 9 hours], greater development of
energy
> sources like wind for businesses [Body Shop International is developing
it's
> own wind farms], more 'reuse, recycling, and reduction' of potential
wastes,
> etc.
>
> It seems to me that the Kyoto Protocol is doomed to failure as long as
> nations avoid their responsibilities to facilitate gradual positive change
> through incentives [eg. policy instruments, expenditures in R&D, etc.].
>
> How do we as private citizens put life into it...?
>
> >In a message dated 11/21/00 10:39:34 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
> >[log in to unmask] writes:
> >
> >> Life may apparently be, or be evidenced by, any moral virtue which for
> the
> >> moment [is] under consideration.
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|