my thoughts on the planet this week

The kyoto protocol reaches its expiration this coming December and a convention will be taking place in Copenhagen where the hope is that a more agressive approach is adopted in the fight against climate change.

The kyoto protocol, an international agreement involving the united nations focusing on climate change including a collective of 37 countries using industrious processes, is with an aim to implement targets to be reached in reducing the current levels of emissions. 

With over a century of industrial emissions the levels of these greenhouse gas emisssions were in need of attention and it was decided that monitoring of these emissions would be in place in an effort to try and dramatically reduce the output levels.

There is much debate as to whether the kyoto protocol is effective or not. Having done some research, there is an article on the opinion of a leading econimist detailing his opinion of introducing a global carbon tax, rather than what he considers an ineffective kyoto protocol. My first concern with a global carbon tax is that of will the money be spent wisely and will it not in effect create more industrious processes in that of red tape and all that bestows with it.

 One point is that of the percentages of emissions globally and of the reduced emissions of the 37 countries involved in the kyoto protocol. The conundrum is that of due to the number of countries involved being not enough to equate to effectiveness as the cost of reducing those emissions they report that with many countries not participating it equates to a much greater cost to those who are participating. Essentially, the 37 countries end up paying more as an almost penalty.

I really do not see the idea of a global carbon tax taking off to a fantastic start, mainly due to my sceptical mind thinking that introducing another tax is definately not the answer if any previous taxations are to go by. There are people that evade their tax every year, both legally and illegally, there is the rise in prices in food and petrol, but some, if not most people still spend. They will just find another thing to sacrifice or add it to their overdraft or credit card if in a position to do so. The belief that higher tax on petrol and so on will curb emissions is a laughable statement considering we are a planet of consimers with a long history of production and manufacturing to cater for this desired consumerism.

There are answers without adding to what we are currently experiencing as a recession at this current moment in time, even if not in a time of recession, it is proven that money is of no real value, yet we still strive for it to be of importance. With the importance of money in mind, (considering that it is what motivates most people, and rightly so as we need to earn and live). What use is money when there is no town to purchase goods or no place to spend money on clothes?, what if we really have depleted the planet of its useful elements and have intoxicated it beyond return? what use will the tax on the petrol be? and what use will peoples money be when it possibly comes to there being no town?

The real answer is in unity and cooperation and really allowing ourselves to be open to the innovative and imaginative. The problem is one that seems to baffle all and it is not a problem that can be seen to come to an agreeable and conceivable conclusion of positive action.

There are processes in place for us all to contribute to our defense in climate change, there is recycling in an attempt to reduce our use of resources. In the process of recycling, there is also the issue of emissions produced from the recycling process as well as emissions produced from the transportation of items to be recycled. There is a vicious cycle of problematic dysfunction, in that one resolution does reduce waste consumption, but it does not solve the problem entirely as it has another negative factor in that it contributes to emissions. There is no counter effect, it is one that also reduces but also increases. There is no solution it seems, other than to increase recycling emissions and lower the levels of resources consumption giving an unbalanced scale effect.

Governements should enforce higher expectations and standards of regulations for the manufacturing of items. There are many items that can be natural and with less of an impact on the environment than those current materials and processes used for manufacturing. Maybe there is not enough of more natural resources to go around, in fact no, there probably isn’t. The planets population increases and so does the level of consumerism, this is a natural part of life. But we have the kyoto protocol in place for a reason. I am not really aware of any other environment campaigns on such a grand scale ever being entertained. (Maybe there has been, and it’s either my age or I wasn’t really paying attention). But the point of the kyoto protocol is to make an effort in preserving what we have and looking after all that we have in gratitude, not with ignorance or an oblivious approach that is undeservadely due to the planet. We want to see more tomorrows, we live in hope and with hope has to come action. 

I would like to see the government make an effort in introducing electric cars at a significantly reduced price in order to lower car emissions as they apparently contribute to 30% of emissions. Of course, there will be the emissions involved in their production, maybe this could be carried out with as little impact on the environment as possible. Long term, maybe a mass of electric cars could make an improvement on todays current levels. If the concern is of money, in respect to the economy if we were to stop the purchase of petrol entirely, then there would be job losses and so on. Maybe we could create jobs by replacing petrol stations with wind powered battery stations instead, still being able to make money, but with a different material or product. Have battery stations where electric car owners can purchase re-charged batteries for the same cost as petrol based on to the mile usage. Sounds crazy, but maybe worth entertaining? 

Another point I would like to raise is that of the responsibility that is put on the consumer, when it could be more a choice of the government in the first instance. For example, Sainsbury’s have an organic range, where the fresh tomatoes are packaged in compostable and recyclable materials that take up hardly any space in comparison to the bulkier plastic packaging.  The only problem is that they do not appeal to every consumer as they are more expensive in comparison to other alternatives offered at a cheaper price. They do not reach a wide target audience as they do not meet every budget.