As you all may know approximately 30% of our electricity is developed through fossil fuels and we are fully dependent on them for transportation. The unfortunate downside to these materials is they create enormous amounts of CO2 (greenhouse gas) emissions. GHG is playing a major role in the global warming phenomenon, which in turn is increasing global temperatures at an exponential rate (for those who are interested in how much this is the UN says a global temperature increase of 1.4 to 5.8 C in 100 years). To counter this, the Kyoto protocol was created as a global initiative to significantly reduce the output of this damaging gas.

The Kyoto protocol is an interesting piece of documentation in itself, personally I have read it and recently completed a course investigating the feasibility of implementing green energy technologies, and how they relate to the protocol. This field is extremely complex as it is a mixture of regulation, ethics, economics, etc. This is why there is so much debate over the protocol. I will attempt to go over some of the key points in the protocol and allow those who may not be familiar; a glimpse into the theories behind it.

The Kyoto Protocol's primary goal is to reduce GHG emissions 5% below 2000 levels globally, now this doesn't seem like all that much, but to increase the GDP of a country, one must increase the energy consumption. With the US economy growing at 4%, Canada at 3% and China at 9%; reducing emissions is becoming increasingly difficult year after year of 'business as usual'. The protocol feels that countries that are not as developed, where standard of living is lower and emissions per capita are low; they are effectively exempt from the regulations. The developed nations are much more constrained with set goals. For example Russia, Australia, Norway, Germany are all able to increase emissions, while Canada, US are to reduce emissions by 6% and 7% respectively. Now you can start to see where the argument starts to come into effect. How is it fair for some countries to increase emissions when the goal is to reduce? It all comes back to the pollution per person and as it turns out Canada and the US are THE most wasteful people on the planet.

As in many contracts, there is some leniency in the rules. The trading of emissions credits will be allowed, this means that Canada can pay Russia to allow ourselves to pollute even more than we do now. Why we don't take that money to invest in greener technologies such as government subsidies for hybrid vehicles is beyond me, but when does anything in this world make sense? Another thing that Canada has been pushing for is green space, Canada has a lot of trees that consume CO2, effectively reducing the amount of GHG emissions in our atmosphere.

One problem that is just starting to be calculated now in the EU is the effectiveness of green technology development. People are starting to estimate energy/fuel costs as a product is created throughout the whole value added process of manufacturing. For example, lets say you decide to replace a coal power plant with wind farms (already logistically hard). To create the wind farm you need to make a bunch of turbines to harness the wind. Turbines are incredibly complex devices and are some of the toughest things to manufacture in the world. Now to make that turbine, you have to invest energy and fuel to make it. Some studies are saying that the energy put into some turbines will never be recuperated by the turbine in its whole life. This is a relatively new field of study in North America; Europe has done it for a little while now.

Bringing this back to how it affects Canada, since signing Kyoto in April 1998 (about 7 years ago); Canada has yet to do one thing to implement Kyoto. The government has been in negotiations to buy credits from other countries, lobbying the protocol to reduce obligations due to several reasons like the green space example mentioned above. Canada would also like to reduce obligations by showing raw materials like oil production (very energy intensive) are consumed by the US.

While I like the idea of decreasing emissions, and I think it can be done without too much harm to our economy, weaseling out of the protocol like we have been doing is unacceptable. As a side note, environmental critic Bob Mills has stated that the Conservative Party if elected will ratify the agreement. I am hesitant to see the Conservatives do this as they have fought hard to not ratify as the US, China and India (major polluters) are not on board with Kyoto. Although if you look at the flip side of the coin, the Liberals have done nothing since signing the agreement over 7 years ago. So both sides have made nothing but promises, which is unfortunate as the EU has already met its criteria and is ready for the next round of reductions.

Before jumping all over the US for its lack of ratification, I would like to point out that if the US were to enter the agreement, they would be more on track than we are currently when it comes to GHG emissions. That is how truly sad our regulations are right now. Also, for those who were Kerry supporters in this past round of elections in the US, the Democratic Party has no plans to sign onto Kyoto.

They are divisive, they are hurtful, they are what make us human. What are these terms and why are they so important to us that we feel the need to form rage against one another? Every single opinion, thought, and value is centred on these words. Take any side to a political issue, any human rights issue, any belief, and there is another person somewhere on this globe with an equal and opposite view. Does this create balance, or is this something that is the most destructive to our society?

My good friend Paul sent me a link to an article where this group "envisions a future of clone plantations, child sacrifice, legalized polygamy and hard-core porn." While this statement seems out there, and is definitely not a mainstream idea (as some may want to believe); it is still a legitimate idea and worth considering. The group is making reference to today's hot button social issues in the form of: stem cell and cloning research, the term marriage, abortion, and other sexually oriented topics. Over the last few years at university, as many of you may know, I have opened myself up to new cultures, opinions, and lifestyles. Along with this i have thoroughly discussed and analyzed these sorts of issues for countless hours in hopes of learning more about where I fit in all of this, and why i agree/disagree with others.

Take a hot button issue like abortion for example. I've always been an advocate of a 'woman's right to choose' (and still am); there should be no laws created where by i cannot determine what happens to my body. That is all well and good until you sit down and talk to someone and ask them why they disagree with such an idea so basic and raw with integrity. This friend first brought my attention to other laws we currently have that do restrict the will of our bodies. An example of this is suicide where it is illegal to take one's own life. While this sounds like the most ridiculous law ever created, it stands and while the right to one's body should be upheld, it is not the case in today's society. The second point this person brought up is the number of abortions performed in the US were 1 million (21 in 1000 aged 15-44); 18% of these were second time or more. Finally the third point made was that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion company in the US (and the world), is in the business of making condoms. Seems logical, a non-profit organization offering sexual services and products to Americans; unfortunately the condoms are ranked the worst for reliability and strength by a long shot as tested by consumer reports.

I could go on for hours about different issues where morals, rights, and ethics play a major role in any issue. Even things as simple as healthcare or welfare: how much compassion you have for those who cannot survive without government assistance? How much do you spend, or should we even be spending? If we were not forced to pay taxes, would you donate to those on the street? Do people who vote for parties with plans to increase spending; donate while a more stingy party is in power?

In conclusion: don't look down on someone because they may not share your same views; try to listen to other's concerns and respect their values as they are just as valid as yours. There is no right and wrong, we all have different views, where do we get them?; who knows...

I'd like to hear your views as to what issues you find hard to come to grips with, maybe I can make a post with reference to both sides of the argument ;). Why you think abortion, same-sex marriage/pologamy, porn or certain science research is right/wrong. Where do you look for moral/ethical guidance?