Manic Monday #5

[ciroccoj]

Didn't have Monday #5 last week, because of Thanksgiving. That's a huge upside to scheduling 7.5 hours of class on Monday: a holiday Monday practically gives you the week off :)

And oh, my was I wishing this was another holiday Monday. Much as I love my classes, I was hurting by about the second hour of class #2... ie, still 5 more hours to go. ::strangling::

• I'm actually rather hating Int'l Env Law right about now, as we continue to wade through the Kyoto mess. Our profs did remind us that Russia has (thank GOD!) decided to ratify, which means the Protocol will actually some day come into force, because it needed to be signed by countries that, added up, constitute at least 55% of greenhouse gas emitters. Russia, at 17%, helps a lot. It would be really nice if the country that produces 25% of planetary emissions would sign on too, but Dubya thinks that would put an unfair burden on wealthiest economy in the world, so ::shrug::
  
  I'm really, really looking forward to our post-Kyoto subjects. I'm even kinda jazzed about writing my EnvLaw paper. The profs gave us a list of possible topics and I was totally squeeing OOooh SHIny!! at most of them.
  
  Although my most probable choice of EnvLaw paper shows I'm a total masochist at heart. Since we're using an American textbook, it naturally says almost nothing about Canada. And guess which topic I'm most drawn towards? The Canadian experience with Kyoto.
  
  Which, fascinating though it is, is also virtually 100% guaranteed to make me want to lose my lunch during the research. Because I remember the anguished wails from Canadian industry when Kyoto was being discussed, and how the richest, fattest cats in Canada shed copious tears for the poor beleaguered Canadian economy, which was going to be hamstrung by these insane granola-brained schemes to protect the planet from "so-called global warming," which (a) didn't exist and (b) wasn't the fault of humans at all but of sunspots or some volcano in India. And how Canada's economy (nowhere near the level of the US, but still one of the strongest in the world) could absolutely not afford to do anything to risk our competitiveness. And that if we were going to have to cut our emissions at all, it just wasn't fair to say that other countries (like Somalia, Bangladesh, etc) could get a sweeter deal out of Kyoto just by claiming they were "starving."
  
  Perhaps I should find something less sickening to write about.
  
  Wanna get incensed informed? Follow the dancing links:
  
  Q&A: The Kyoto Protocol
  
  Climate change: The big emitters
  
  Maldives: Paradise soon to be lost
  
  
• ADR ≠ my favourite toy today.
  
  
• Legislation continues to rock my grammar socks. Must find and read Eats, Shoots and Leaves.
  
  
• First meeting with my Law Review cel some time this week. Is it horribly geeky that I'm looking forward to that too?

Came home to find Justin in trouble again. And in tears because he's always getting in trouble and can't seem to stop being too rough.

::sigh::

We need to work on this.

Comments

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes - the hell that is Kyoto... Yet another thing that will never happen now that Howard has been re-elected for a fourth term in office (Australia ratifying, I mean). Although I've been reading somewhere that the Carbon credits scheme has been picked by the EU, and even some individual US states (like California) are involved in that despite the fact that the US generally isn't signed up. Don't know the details, of course.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

Yet another thing that will never happen now that Howard has been re-elected for a fourth term in office

Yeeeah.

I read an article the other day about how Bush was gushing all over Howard during a state visit. The article mourned the fact that Canada has lost its place as the US's closest ally, and pointed out that Bush just luuurves Howard to death because they agree on so, so much. The first thing I thought was, "And this is bad for Canada because... ?" and the second thing I thought was, "Ouch, sangerin. I'm so sorry."

Don't know about you, but while I normally believe that an "election every four years come hell or high water" system is wasteful and illogical, I do see its merits. Like, for example, when the party in power here is a bunch of jerks and you can't even comfort yourself by thinking, "Eight more years. Just eight more years. Then we'll have to pick someone else."

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

I was musing on term limits today, and how nice it would be if the PM couldn't be PM for more than two terms. Because then, although we would still have the Libs in power, we would at least have Costello, who supports reconciliation and is a Republican. (However, he's still a bigot when it comes to gay rights, etc.)

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

Because then, although we would still have the Libs in power, we would at least have Costello, who supports reconciliation and is a Republican.

The other thing is it's terribly difficult for people to vote against a guy who's already in power. Just the fact that you're the leader makes most people think you're supposed to be the leader. New face = new chance for the other team, regardless of their personal politics.

(However, he's still a bigot when it comes to gay rights, etc.)

Ah yes, the evil of two lessers :( Lucky, lucky you.

Have I mentioned that I'm terrified our Liberals will lose a vote of confidence and we'll elect the Conservatives? Because there will go all the gains we've made wrt gay rights, the environment, etc etc. It's disturbing to have so much depend on so little.