| Date Published | December 24, 2015 |
| Company | Agapi Marketing & Consulting Ltd. |
| Article Author | Nancy Boisvert |
| Article Type | December 2015 Issue |
| Category | Articles, Business |
| Tags | Carbon Emissions, Climate Change Conference, Environmental Treaties, S&S |
| HUB SEARCH | AgapiMarketing |
Well, the conference for climate change in Paris ended on December 11, and what, if anything, will this have accomplished, aside from taxpayer-funded trips, meetings that rehash many of the same issues as in previous conferences, and more fear mongering about, “the end of the world?”
Now, before you dismiss me as someone who is not a friend of the environment, let me clarify my position.
I, like most rational thinking people, understand we humans do some pretty miserable things to our planet. And, as someone who cared about the environment long before it became fashionable, I bristle at suggestions that I don’t care about our planet. Despite there being differing science on the reality or the impact of global warming, I’m sure most people would agree dumping toxins into our air, water, and soil is not a good thing.
Simply put, I am a realist. I do my best to approach any and every issue with balance, and that is what has been missing, in my opinion, from all the discussions over the many years about global climate change.
So, now that you understand me a little bit more, you will also understand I’m not against things like reducing emissions from our energy sources. Note I said energy sources. Alternative energy sources are not without their environmental impacts too, but more on that next year.
One of the fundamental flaws of the climate change conferences is the delegates attempt to apply the same criteria to every country. This is not only impossible but is ridiculous!
Let me explain.
Australia, as a country, is comprised of 2,970,000 km2. Within this area resides 23.13 million people. Like Canada, there are vast distances between population centers, which makes travel over large areas a necessity.
And, what about the United States? Well, the US is 9,857,000 km2 with a population of 318,900,000. It is a much larger population base but still largely concentrated in urban areas. Again, this requires travel over great distances.
Let’s move on to Canada. Canada comprises 9,985,000 km2 and supports a population of only 35,750,000 people. With significant amounts of the population living in major centers, once again, we have vast tracts of land that are largely unpopulated which necessitates significant travel.
Okay, now let’s talk about Europe. Not the individual countries in Europe, but Europe as a continent. The whole continent of Europe comprises 10,180,000 km2 and hosts a population, in 2013, of 742.5 million people. Keep in mind Europe is made up of approximately 50 different countries. The US, as a country, has 50 states. Simple common sense tells us delivering services, food, necessities, and travel within one country in the European Union is much less difficult, less expensive, and has less environmental impact than in countries as a vast as Australia, the United States, and Canada.
To think a “one size fits all” environmental or climate change policy can be applied across the board to all countries is madness. It’s like jamming a size 12 foot into a size 6 shoe. It is doomed to fail. Just as we saw with Kyoto.
So, let’s talk just for a minute about Canada’s participation in these 2015 talks. Canada sent 383 delegates, which is more than the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia combined. Since when does more mean better or more effective? This huge contingent, which is trying to impress the world with how environmentally aware Canada has become since electing a new government, should consider what footprint they have left on the planet. The environmental result of this huge delegation is over 800 metric tonnes of CO2. This has the equivalence of greenhouse gas emissions as that of 153 cars driving 2,000,000 miles plus 260 tons of garbage dumped in land fills. Believe it or not, this has even outraged a Green Party MLA.
Instead of looking to be heroes, perhaps the delegations should look at how to implement meaningful, achievable change tailored to each country’s specifics. With realistic expectations, goals, timelines, targets, and budgets, each country can be kinder and gentler to the environment with the result of real global environmental improvements.
Nancy Boisvert
President & Marketing Director
AGAPI MARKETING & CONSULTING LTD.
Originally published in the