Major Problems with the approach
- Problem viewed as a technical issue, i.e., technology and economic instruments are the solution
- No mention of reducing consumption in developed nations
- Reductions are not large enough to prevent major climate effects
- Little sense of urgency or appreciation of the magnitude of the problem
The problem isn’t just technical, it’s value-based. Our ‘domination of nature’ rationality, which assumes we can continue transforming the environment to meet our desires, must change to one that allows for the meshing of human systems with natural systems, in a symbiotic manner rather than a parasitic one.
The developed world is really the ‘overdeveloped’ world. Do we really need two cars, a large house, a cottage, and yearly winter vacation in the tropics?
The average Canadian’s ecological footprint is 4.3 hectares - it is .4 hectares in India. Two hectares is about the size of a football field.
The reduction in emission levels does not reduce the overall amount of GHG in the atmosphere, so the warming is only slowed down for a while.
Aside from a few environmental groups and the AOSIS. there were few attendees at the Kyoto gathering that seemed perturbed about what may result in major evironmental disasters. It was very much an exercise in avoiding a bad deal by doing the least, in what was basically an economic negotiation.