August 2003 Kim Meier OP Photographer Name: Jon Age: 19 and a half Major: Business What movies have you seen lately? Matrix Reloaded. But I think everyone’s seen that. Been anywhere this sum- mer? Went to Montreal for a week to visit family and bar hop. What’s in your CD player? Queens of the Stone Age Name: Sundrae Age: 23 Major: General Arts What movies have you seen lately? 28 DaysLater. It was bril- liant. Been anywhere this sum- mer? God no, too busy with work and school. What’s in your CD player? Mariah Carey: Daydream Opinions ¢ the other press © If | had Two Hundred and Sixty Dollars .. . l’d be Rich Barbara K. Adamski Features Editor I just finished registering. I was going to take ten credits this term— one measly credit more than “part-time”. But I'd have to pay $260 for medical and dental insurance that I don’t even need. Oh, sure, I could “opt out” once I prove that I have extended coverage through my hus- band’s work—butt not before the end of August. Not before I’m already paying interest on that $260. So I made a decision. I bowed out of the course I was taking “just for fun and enlightenment”. And now, I’m officially part-time again. I’ve been trying to decide just what to do with the money I’ve saved. Here are five things I’m seriously pondering: 1. I could buy 226 plants at a buck a piece at a dollar store on 6th Avenue. After GST and PST, Id still have enough money for a slurpee to get me through the hot afternoon whilst I contemplate my new gar- den. 2. I could pay for 2.4 months of basic MSP coverage for my family, which is what I really need since my husband’s company doesn’t pay for it. 3. I could get 15 free Cinnaparts from Pizza Hut to accompany my 30 medium-sized Pan Pizzas. (Limited time offer, pick-up only. Those who partake may experience the following symptoms: flatulence, dry mouth, heartburn, severe acne, and dramatic weight gain). 4. I could feed my family of three-plus-a-dog for two (yes, two) whole weeks! 5. I could buy 173 diet cokes from the vending machine on campus. That’s more than enough caffeine to get a few friends and me through the semester. So there you have it. Enjoy your dental plan! en, After the federal government adopted the Kyoto Protocol last’ December, Canadians could be forgiven for think- ing that the issue had been solved, that the country was united in its quest to reduce the emissions responsible for cli- mate change. Unfortunately, that assumption would be wrong. Groups that lobbied against the climate treaty in the first place, like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), simply changed course and are now hard at work trying to make sure industry tar- gets are marshmallow soft - even if that means sticking it to taxpayers. CAPP lobbied hard against the Kyoto treaty, making outrageous claims about how reducing greenhouse gas pollution would cripple Canada’s econ- omy and send us spiraling back into the stone age. Of course, few people really believed their claims, especially when oil companies like BP have been reduc- ing their emissions and turning a prof- it. But CAPP, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein and companies like Imperial Oil are very influential. They want to make sure the oil industry has to do as little as possible to meet Kyoto, and their efforts appear to be working. The whole purpose of Kyoto is to reduce the emissions that are causing climate change. It’s just the start of much bigger reductions that will be necessary to prevent global warming from seriously disrupting our environ- ment, economy and quality of life. Canada has agreed to reduce emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The problem is, the petroleum industry has already increased emis- sions by 50 per cent since 1990. Recently, Prime Minister Chrétien sent a letter to CAPP, indicating that the industry will only be required to reduce emissions intensity, not actual emis- sions. That means that pollution from the petroleum sector could skyrocket, but as long as the industry is a little bit more efficient at polluting, then it will be off the hook. Now, if the petroleum industry is allowed to increase emissions, and the country’s goal is to decrease emissions overall, then other sectors of society will have to take up the petroleum industry's slack. That means other industries and citizens will have to make bigger reductions. What’s more, Mr. Chrétien’s letter asserts that if the petroleum industry finds that meeting their weak targets becomes too expen- sive, the federal government will cover any additional costs. In other words, taxpayers will subsidize the industry to allow it to pollute more. This hardly sounds like a fair and equitable plan. The federal government is making some good strides. For example, the recent federal budget included $1.7 bil- lion dedicated to a climate change ini- tiatives. But details on how this money will be spent have not been fully released and there are indications that some of the money could go towards one of the most polluting forms of energy - tar sands. Getting oil out of Alberta’s tar sands is an expensive, dirty business. Even the http://www.otherpress.ca conservative magazine The Economist recently all but panned the tar sands as a viable source of energy in the near future, arguing that “economics will ensure that most of the oil trapped in the tar sands never sees the light of day.” Of course, that argument assumes CAPP and the Canadian government do not come up with some subsidiza- tion scheme that enables the industry to turn a profit at the expense of tax- payers, the environment and future generations. Prime Minister Chrétien did the right thing by adopting Kyoto. But the petroleum lobby has just begun the fight to make sure the industry gets away with ever-increasing pollution levels. And it appears to be winning. Let’s hope Canadian taxpayers and the federal government fight back because we cannot afford to give the petroleum sector a free ride at the expense of the rest of Canadian society. To discuss this topic with others, visit the discussion forum at . Page 11