Wednesday, 28 November 2007

Logical inconsistency

Let me get this straight.

Canada won't commit to binding targets on reducing greenhouse gases. Its not worth doing if other countries do not do the same.

However, reducing GHGs is a worthy aspirational goal.

How does that man reconcile this logic? Either something is worth doing or it isn't. If its worth doing, its worth doing right, i.e. mandatory reductions to meet specific levels. This letting individuals and corporations decide how much and when on an individual basis won't accomplish anything.

Put it this way, if aspirational goals work so well, lets reform the tax system to use that logic. Instead of the hard percentages we all have to pay in income tax, we get to aspire to how much we would like to pay. No hard goals necessary, its the thought that counts.

2 comments:

Ken Breadner said...

I guess my problem here is that we produce two percent of world emissions. Yes, I get that any reduction is a good thing, but even reducing our emission to zero would go completely unnoticed as China and India's emissions are growing.
Any agreement that doesn't include major emitters is, in my view, a total waste of time.

Catelli said...

I don't necessarily disagree with that view. But this half-assed approach is even more illogical. Its about making ourselves feel like we're doing something, but not do anything at all. Its a form of buck passing.

Me, I'm on the Adapt Damn it! side of the argument. The climate is changing, we need to deal with its effects and plan our future around it. I wish I could find it again, but last night I read an article that crystallized a point for me. Adapting and reducing GHGs are not mutually exclusive exercises, they are actually heavily intertwined, its just a matter of focus.

There is no way we could realistically reduce GHG emissions without mass-adaption (or change, pick your verb) our way of life. Conversely, any adaptation would also cause GHG reductions as a side effect. Eg. reduce dependence on oil as adaptation, would reduce GHGs. Reducing consumerism would also reduce GHGs, etc. etc. I see the two go hand in hand. Both require massive change from the individual, but the focus or push behind the change is different.

Instead of pushing to reduce GHGs to save the planet, we push society to adapt to save our own asses.