It was last week that Stéphane Dion, federal minister of environment, revealed his agreement with automotive manufacturers. This accord, which they have been working on for 4 years, was revealed in Windsor, known as the Canadian automotive capital.
The agreement
Ottawa has signed a "volunteer" agreement with the automotive manufacturers so they accept to reduce the rise in greenhouse gas emissions by 5.3 megatons in the country's automobile fleet, compared to 2010's projected levels.
By signing this agreement, the government is actually authorizing a rise in the automobile fleets' greenhouse gas emissions. This causes an enormous problem on the population in general. In fact, if automobile manufacturers don't have to assume their fair share of responsibility in the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Kyoto protocol, who will do it for them? Us?
In 1990, greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks in the country amounted to 72 megatons. If the automobile industry respects their fair share in the application of the Kyoto protocol, the greenhouse gas emissions would total 67 megatons between 2008 and 2012. We expect it will rather be 90 megatons in 2010.
In 2008, the objective is for them to reduce their emissions by 3 megatons; in 2009, the reduction is asked to be 3.9, and 5.3 for 2010. Still, if we asked them to do their fair share of reducing emissions, it should amount to 41 megatons, not 5.3. We are asking them to assume 1/8ths of their responsibilities in the application of the measures within the Kyoto protocol.
Also, while the federal government wanted a ruled agreement, it ended up accepting an agreement on a voluntary basis, which means the government will rely on the good will of the manufacturers in order to achieve their goal. However, if the manufacturers, with a follow-up from a board made up of people in the industry and the government, fail to respect their promise, the government would end up forcing them to respect the agreement by ruling.
Context and explanations
I would like to go back in time so you can put this accord back in context and understand why, in my opinion, that it's irresponsible.
In the '80s, scientists have started talking about a climate phenomenon dubbed "global warming". This phenomenon, caused by greenhouse gases and mainly CO2, will end up rising the global temperature of the planet by 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century.
I've written about it before, but I will say it again, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is important to see the difference between polluting emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. I will try to explain the difference so that it becomes very clear.
Polluting emissions
Polluting emissions are those which emanate from an exhaust system and constitute the atmospheric pollution, notably smog. The expression "smog" originates from the first associations we have made between "smoke", observed over large cities, and "fog". This brownish fog seen in summer over main urban areas was described for the first time in Los Angeles in the 1940s.
Smog represents a real danger for the public's health and affects the growing of certain vegetations. The most harmful pollutants contained in this chemical soup are ozone (O3) and the particles in suspension.
It is important to mention that troposphere ozone (ground ozone) cited in the present section is different from stratosphere ozone (in very high altitude) that protects us from the ultraviolet rays of the sun.
The agreement
Ottawa has signed a "volunteer" agreement with the automotive manufacturers so they accept to reduce the rise in greenhouse gas emissions by 5.3 megatons in the country's automobile fleet, compared to 2010's projected levels.
By signing this agreement, the government is actually authorizing a rise in the automobile fleets' greenhouse gas emissions. This causes an enormous problem on the population in general. In fact, if automobile manufacturers don't have to assume their fair share of responsibility in the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Kyoto protocol, who will do it for them? Us?
In 1990, greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks in the country amounted to 72 megatons. If the automobile industry respects their fair share in the application of the Kyoto protocol, the greenhouse gas emissions would total 67 megatons between 2008 and 2012. We expect it will rather be 90 megatons in 2010.
In 2008, the objective is for them to reduce their emissions by 3 megatons; in 2009, the reduction is asked to be 3.9, and 5.3 for 2010. Still, if we asked them to do their fair share of reducing emissions, it should amount to 41 megatons, not 5.3. We are asking them to assume 1/8ths of their responsibilities in the application of the measures within the Kyoto protocol.
Also, while the federal government wanted a ruled agreement, it ended up accepting an agreement on a voluntary basis, which means the government will rely on the good will of the manufacturers in order to achieve their goal. However, if the manufacturers, with a follow-up from a board made up of people in the industry and the government, fail to respect their promise, the government would end up forcing them to respect the agreement by ruling.
Context and explanations
I would like to go back in time so you can put this accord back in context and understand why, in my opinion, that it's irresponsible.
In the '80s, scientists have started talking about a climate phenomenon dubbed "global warming". This phenomenon, caused by greenhouse gases and mainly CO2, will end up rising the global temperature of the planet by 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century.
I've written about it before, but I will say it again, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is important to see the difference between polluting emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. I will try to explain the difference so that it becomes very clear.
Polluting emissions
Polluting emissions are those which emanate from an exhaust system and constitute the atmospheric pollution, notably smog. The expression "smog" originates from the first associations we have made between "smoke", observed over large cities, and "fog". This brownish fog seen in summer over main urban areas was described for the first time in Los Angeles in the 1940s.
Smog represents a real danger for the public's health and affects the growing of certain vegetations. The most harmful pollutants contained in this chemical soup are ozone (O3) and the particles in suspension.
It is important to mention that troposphere ozone (ground ozone) cited in the present section is different from stratosphere ozone (in very high altitude) that protects us from the ultraviolet rays of the sun.