Smile of the week

[mahogany]

I attended a lecture on global warming on Wednesday night. The presenter was discussing different causes, and informing us that it’s difficult to pinpoint one specific cause of global warming. At one point, he mentioned that sulphite/suphate/sulphide (I can’t remember exactly) emissions that result from burning coal actually have a cooling effect. And then went on to say that, “No one is suggesting that the answer to global warming is acid rain, BUT part of the increase in temperatures that we’re experiencing may be attibutable to the positive effect of reducing the suphide emissions as a result of the clean air act.” Don’t ask me why, but I found that statement really damn funny.

Black humour aside, the lecture was really interesting. Apparently one of the mechanisms via which developed countries may reach their target (Canada is currently WAAAAY off track) under the Kyoto accord involves carbon trading. This sounds totally intriguing. I’m not completely clear on the specifics of how this mechanism works (I thought I was clear Wednesday night, but now I’m totally confused again), and breaking into the field probably entails a strong accounting and brokering background??? I’m not sure, but if Kyoto proves to be successful, this could be a huge growth industry.

Comments

[shofarot.livejournal.com]

From what I understand about carbon trading is that inefficient countries can buy carbon polluting credits from more efficient countries who excede their carbon emmission targets.

For example, Canada, being less efficient than say Sweden can permit its less efficient industries (and hence firms) to buy carbon credits from Swedish firms who are not emmitting at projected levels. This enables some countries and firms to strive for efficiency, and in the long term save money (in the form of Kyoto polltion taxes applied by their governements). It also allows late adopting countries and their firms to buy time by paying higher pollution taxes.

The idea is great, but as long as the USA remains offside I do not really see how it can go anywhere. Furthermore, who is to say what is the acceptable level of carbon emmission, and will consumers be willing to foot the bill for efficiency?

Let me know if my train of thought is correct.

[mahogany.livejournal.com]

Yes, that was my basic understanding as well. My concern is that Canada may use some of the mechanisms such as carbon trading, and carbon sinks to the exclusion of encouraging and supporting industries to reduce their carbon emissions, which essentially amounts to buying our way to our target, which I think defeats the purpose.

I think we need to use countries like the Netherlands as example. They are world leaders in this areas, and they have found ways to succeed in reducing emissions without compromising profitability - infact, companies like Shell Oil have apparently increased their profit margins while substantially reducing carbon emissions. If Canada could also become a world leader in an area like this, I think it would be good for our country on a number of levels.

The idea is great, but as long as the USA remains offside I do not really see how it can go anywhere.

132 countries have ratified it, and with Russia being on board, we now have 61% of the emissions from developed countries.

I'm actually hoping that Kyoto succeeds without the US and Australia being on board, and I think it has a chance of succeeding. Kyoto is a pretty big deal, and if it succeeds without US support, I suspect it may have impact on other areas (or at least, I'm hoping that it will have impact in other areas). I'm hoping that any international project of this scale, that SUCCEEDS without US invovlement or support will be instrumental in lessing US hegemony.

But then again, I'm an optimist.