Many people like to point to the oil companies for the blame of Climate change, but households contribute to 45% of all emissions. That means if we wish to achieve the goal most climate scientist say will help us avoid disaster we need to reduce household emissions. We must reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050. So even if all industries close there doors today we would still need to cut household emissions by more than half. An easy way to start reducing emissions considering the energy sector is responsible for 82% of emissions is a shift to cleaner sources of energy such as wind and hydro instead of oil and gas for heating and for industry. Since motor fuel use is increasing it's share of emission promoting public transit will curve that. Products that we buy which contribute heavily to emission as in order to make and distribute a product CO2 a byproduct is released. In order to make it easier for consumer for consumers to by more Eco friendly product without hurting their bottom line. I have urge this forever a Carbon Tax that gives consumers a rebate so that the more Eco friendly product is actually the more cheaper product and can actually save you money. All of these proposals will make a big scratch, but all Canadians as citizens of the world must act together to conserve energy and the planet for generations to come. We must get real on climate change.
Read more here
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." A Liberal-supporting, environmentalist blog. We blog according to our opinions, not those of the party or government. Free speech must win and that's why we have this blog. The views of two Montrealers and a Libertarian.
"So even if all industries close there doors today we would still need to cut household emissions by more than half. "
ReplyDeleteWhen you write something like that don't you stop and think "Hey, that's one hell of a lot of cuts"? I mean, you basically just whistled past the fact that we could utterly destroy our economy and that would not be enough. Do you really not understand what you are advocating?
What I said was that even if there were no industries we would still need to reduce emission, because household emissions are very high. We can't just reduce industry we need to reduce household emissions. I a m not advocating to eliminate industries what I am advocating is to reduce there emissions. Industries can reduce there emission and be profitable or even more profitable. We just need to push them to do that. One of the ways is too impose fee's on polluting so they will shift there habits and move to cleaner energy and efficient tactics. What people forget to realize is that the economy and the environment can move together.
ReplyDelete"What I said was that even if there were no industries we would still need to reduce emission, because household emissions are very high."
ReplyDeleteYou still seem to be missing the point. The kinds of cuts you are calling for are massive. You assume that if we price carbon highly that industry will simply find some way to continue, using some other less polluting energy. You even call them "habits", trivializing the economic realities that result in the energy choices industry makes. The more realistic assumption is that essentials will increase in price massively to match their new carbon input price and other, less essential things will simply disappear. We simply do not have the miracle clean energy with the possible exception of nuclear. We know how the enviros feel about that. Until someone proposes realistic solutions that don't start with huge taxes dependent the wish that maybe some alternative will miraculously appear, the middle class will never accept AGW mitigation.
I am proposing not only a Carbon tax which will reduce emissions especially since it will increase over time, But I say requiring industries to follow certain environmental practices would also lower emission's. Here in Canada we are blessed with a lot of land where we can put wind turbines and solar panels, not to mention the amount of Hydro energy we can produce. I have said Nuclear is fine for the moment as it is better than coal or gas. We can use nuclear, but if we can use solar or wind I would rather have wind and solar. We have the solutions the only problems is not having the power to do it.
ReplyDelete