Monday, April 23, 2007

Might vs Will

Here is the big problem of getting environnemental solution implemented, look at last week and this week-end reports. First the governement publish a report saying that doing what Kyoto ask will cost some billions dollars then to contredict the repport environmentalist publish and answer saying that not doing anything might cost more billion dollars. The problem and why it probably won't make politician moves (and please don't fall under the illusion that Stephen Dion will do it, the liberal plan for Kyoto is not to do anything and buy the right to pollute from other) is that a will is much more actual and factual then a might. To give you an exemple of this if I buy a car I will have a car, if I buy a lotery ticket I might win a car. Which one do you think will make me call my insurance compagny to learn about car insurance quote?

Some will answer that climate change is not a might situation but a will situation, however that is partly false, we know that climate change will change things and will cost something but how much and how far in the future the bill will come is a very uncertain thing. It once again outline one problem of our democratic system transitivity of action. Politician prefere to spend money on short term solution then on long term one, simply because long term solution will probably serve to increase someone else popularity and the spending at the moment can even be used to defeat them by saying they are grasping at straw.

Oh and one last thing: please stop getting hard on over the Kyoto protocoles. They are bullshit, as long as the US doesn't sign a protocol for the environnement it probably won't be usefull. Any protocole that give the right to pollute to some country will not work, in fact it will probably make the situation worse. To work any attempt at reducting greenhouse effect will need to be global, include replacement technology and penalty for violating the accord enforced by every country. Oh and don't go and saying that Kyoto is a first step, it is as much a first step as taking a glass out of the ocean is the first step to empying it. We have to realise that the goal of Kyoto is to reduce the level to pre 1991 level, which were already way too high and causing greenhouse effect.

What needs to be done is not Kyoto (it's not the Harper governement plan either) it is in search for new way of doing thing that would allow us to reduce the greenhouse gaz production bellow 1700 level, then sell/give those technology to other country and then make global accord to use and improve those technology. Oh and one last thing: returning to old production methode will make thing far wrose for the environnement, remember then the smoke from house heating made a permenant toxic fog in some cities in the 1600s and 1700s and that burning wood produce a lot of greenhouse gaz.

In short we have to work to make the environnement better not by trying to force emission reduction on people and industries but by encouraging the develloppement of new ways of doing thing with less pollution. Any other way will probably fail until the environnemental collapse force us to find new way and when that happen we will be too busy trying to survive to actually do anything.

No comments: