| On paper, the Kyoto Protocol looks fantastic – the global community working together to solve a significant problem before the feared consequences materialize.
In reality, well, let’s just say the outlook isn’t quite as rosy. The world’s biggest polluters, the United States, China, India and Australia, have not signed on to the treaty while our government has. This means that if Canada can successfully manage to get its emissions rates down to the prescribed levels, it would only make a small dent in global pollution rates.
Regardless of this fact, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s government recently announced its $1.3-billion plan to meet the protocol’s goals. Some of the money will be spent on personal rebates to homeowners who retrofit their houses to be environmentally friendly, some will go to companies that will add green technology to their factories and some will go to advertising geared towards encouraging citizens to do their part for the environment by cutting one tonne from their annual emissions output.
I find this last bit the most interesting. I see this money going to predictably corny commercials urging Canadians to walk to work, buy a hybrid vehicle and lower their dependency on gasoline. These are all noble goals, but unrealistic for many.
In fact, acting, and buying, ethically is often a challenge – not because the end result isn’t desirable, but because the process demands either a significant lifestyle change or considerable financial investment.
Take, for instance, walking to work. I do it and I find it rewarding. Every morning I get some exercise as I walk across Centre Street Bridge on my way downtown. The cool air off the river and the early morning sunlight that reflects off the water make this my favourite part of my morning (I spend the rest of it staring at a computer screen waiting for lunch, so competition isn’t exactly stiff).
Of course, I live close to downtown, while many of my co-workers do not. They have to drive to work because they do not have a realistic alternative – they do not want to spend two hours of their day on a packed transit train or bus. The sheer size of our city demands a car to get around. And I, like many others, do it almost every day.
I fill up my car with overpriced gasoline and drive to visit friends, get groceries or whatever else I’m up to that day. I’d like to get around in a more environmentally friendly manner, but it’s just not possible for me – the $30,000 price tag on a hybrid is far too much cash for a debt-ridden student.
This is the way I feel about many ethical purchases. I would like to buy fair-trade coffee, but it costs too much. I would like to buy clothes that were made by well-paid employees in good working conditions, but the extra research required is too much of a hassle. I would like to do, and buy, a lot of things that were crafted with a socially responsible mindset, but I don’t for these same reasons. And I don’t think I’m alone.
Many people see the benefits of acting and buying responsibly, but just can’t do it. This is where the hope of reducing pollution lies. There is no doubt that the Kyoto Protocol was inspired by idealistic views of global co-operation – I think we’re just going about it the wrong way.
If acting green didn’t put you in the red, many people would be more willing to do it. Industry must be enticed to adapt to environmentally friendly technology – not because they have to, but because it is feasible and will turn a profit.
I am sure that people recognize the high price we pay for our fuel dependency and would love to spend their money on a good, affordable alternative. As it stands now, there isn’t one and the status quo continues. When the car industry realizes that there is a market for fuel-efficient or alternative energy vehicles, you can bet that they will produce what consumers want at the price that they are willing to pay. On the other hand, when government steps in and tells them to do it, the end result is stalling, political lobbying and whining to Premier Ralph Klein.
The Kyoto Protocol is a wonderful idea in an overly idealistic sense. It sets a worthy goal that, unfortunately, will not make a significant difference without unanimous global participation.
As an alternative, I would like to see the continued education of the hazards of current emission rates coupled with investment in green technology to make it a more realistic alternative. If Canada, and Canadian companies, can successfully find a way to significantly cut emissions without big lifestyle changes, we could become a global leader that others will follow.
That would make a huge difference. |
Copyright ©2003 FFWD. All rights reserved.