Travis Tokarek

This conversation is closed.

What will be the long term effect of Canada from abandoning its Kyoto Protocol Commitment? Have we lost our will?

Up until now, the only saving grace we had was our cap on Greenhouse emissions. Not only as a means to protect our environment, but as a means to LIMIT consumption. Our society has a thirst for energy, and a thirst for wealth. These are inherit to the human psyche. The more we have the more we will succeed and be "on top". Do we really think we can have 7 billion people "on top"?

We are running things the wrong way! Innovation and science are no longer motivated by creativity and progress but by profit alone.

I am SICK of hearing the question "is there a market for it?"

WHO F#CKING CARES! Do you want your children to embrace personal success and status, or do you want them to grow up with compassion?

Most of the talks I see on here today seem to be about empathy. Everyone agrees the solution to the problem is empathy. Well, I can tell you, MANKIND WILL NEVER EMBRACE EMPATHY AS LONG AS PROFIT IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND HOW WE LIVE OUR LIVES!

Good-bye Canada :( you are losing grips with the quality I loved most about you...

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Dec 7 2011: There is substantial evidence that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming ( I prefer the term climate change). The CO2 cycle is not regulated on human CO2 emissions alone, that much is very true, but the release of CO2 by combustion of hydrocarbons (from humans) is greatly accelerating the natural cycle. I don't think the Kyoto protocol is the solution to emission, because what is done cannot be undone and we will still require energy from the combustion of hydrocarbons. My major concern is that withdrawal from a commitment is implying that there is no benefit to pursuing that commitment. If we withdrawal from the protocol, I feel as though the whole "green movement" will start to diminish. I am just saying, that even though we will benefit economically, I am concerned that Canada will lose focus of innovation for the sake of sustainability. Whether this is in the form of research funding or national pride. I hope I made my concern a bit more clear, and I do appreciate the feedback.
  • thumb
    Dec 6 2011: I completely disagree with everything you just said.

    A common misconception, people tend to illogically assume, is that business, industry, money, ect (i.e. the major forces propelling society forward) are somehow the "be all and end all". Well... they're not! Money may be the root of all evil, but it still makes the world go round.

    So stop with all this pessimistic bs. If anything, THAT will be the reason for our inert downfall.
    Don't be a deer in the headlights... Think positive!
    • thumb
      Dec 7 2011: My concern is that a positive attitude is what people relate to happiness, and that happiness necessarily implies abundance in our society today. I agree that pessimism is not the answer, and I apologize for "writing in the moment" but I still believe that we need to change our ways, not necessarily by changing the way our society uses money and industry, but by changing the way they are governed.
  • thumb
    Dec 9 2011: I hope countries put something else good in place of the Kyoto Protocol.

    I agree with the Empathy idea. There is actually a big market for Empathy. Counselors, Psychologists, Social Workers, Psychic Networks, Dating Sites, etc. are all selling empathy.

    Capitalism, well, I just can't explain how much suffering it is causing. (But I will for just 29.95 plus shipping and handling, and the trucks will be battery powered.)
  • Dec 7 2011: To get a visual sense of global air pollution, this might help. While this is for one pollutant, many of the others broadly follow a similar spatial pattern.
  • thumb
    Dec 7 2011: As a Canadian, I have the sinking feeling that our government has looked at global warming and that it might have decided that it might not be so bad for Canada. With the opening of the north west passage, with the warming of our weather patterns we might actually be able to cccupy and farm more of the country. I have no real evidence that they are thinking this way- just a hunch but it might explain the current government's stance on failing to meet the commitments of previous administrations. Comments?
    • thumb
      Dec 7 2011: I would love to comment:D

      I have never really thought about climate change as a benefit to the economy through the opening of a new trade route or farming area. Not sure where you heard this or if you just came up with it, but it is quite ingenious :D.

      The problem with climate change is that it's patterns are not predictable. If the average temperature of the planet goes up a degree or two, it does not necessarily mean that all geographic locations will increase in temperature. There are so many variables at work. The major concern is rise in sea level, but besides this drastic concern, you also have humidity, ocean currents, wind patterns changing. How could this affect the growing conditions of the prairies? or of the Napa valley, or China? What will happen to crop conditions and how will we adjust if the impact is within a short time period? An increase in CO2 concentration also has an impact on soil and ocean acidity.

      To answer your question, I don't think that the government would view global warming as a long term benefit. If they did, I would love to meet who they consult with.

      I should mention, I am a chemistry student. I have to admit that I am not very knowledgeable in the fields of economics and politics. Though I can see the impact we are having on climate change and to ignore it, to me, seems devastating in every aspect.
  • thumb
    Dec 6 2011: i thought the conversation will be about canada and the kyoto protocol. instead i got a rant about empathy vs profit, and compassion vs success.

    do you genuinely think that the kyoto protocol is about compassion and empathy?
    • thumb
      Dec 7 2011: Your right. My title is misleading. The truth is, after I started writing, my tangent seemed to make sense in my own head. It still does, but I realize now that what I am talking about is a bit more personal than what I was hoping to bring to the table. I don't think the Kyoto protocol specifically is about compassion and empathy. I do think that it shows something about the way a population thinks as opposed to the way individuals think, and that if this difference is bridged, it would make the world a better place. Even in my reply I am getting a bit too personal. Long story short, sorry my description had little to do with my title.