FReepmail me to get on or off
Click pn POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Yup... Canada too.
Posted on 03/02/2007 2:53:26 PM PST by Clive
For too long, the climate-change debate has been dominated by a small number of special interest groups shouting past one another, often making claims that cannot be substantiated and resorting to scare tactics to achieve political gain.
In the two decades since I embraced the concept of sustainable development, I have never wavered in my view that responsible environmentalism and responsible economics go hand in hand. The supreme test of leadership is to draw the best from both. How then is this to be done?
We must begin by embracing an inescapable imperative: The restoration of global ecological balance and the mitigation of the effects of climate change will not succeed unless all major countries are fully engaged. This must include not only the developed world but also emerging powers such as China and India that are not bound by Kyoto Protocol targets.
Next to the United States, China is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases and its emissions are growing the fastest. If Canada stopped producing greenhouse gases tomorrow -- if all economic activity in Canada were to cease -- the growth of Chinese emissions would make up the difference in 18 months. Should the developed world take the lead in combating climate change? Of course--but the battle will be lost if the major emerging economies are not part of the effort.
We must be equally realistic in confronting Canada's responsibilities. Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 totaled 758 million tonnes. Our country's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol begins in 2008. To honour our commitment, Canada would have to reduce average annual emissions to 563 million tonnes -- a drop of almost 200 million tonnes.
Meeting this would be a gargantuan task. If we took all cars and trucks off the road and every aircraft, train and ship out of service, we might come close. If we no longer heated any home, commercial building or public institution in Canada, we would be less than halfway to the target. If we shut down all oilsands production tomorrow, we would only make a small dent in the needed reductions.
Nevertheless, the Green Party, numerous environmentalists and now apparently a majority of parliamentarians insist that we must meet this onerous target. Technically, we can if we are prepared to make massive sacrifices or if we are prepared to spend billions of dollars in purchasing foreign carbon credits -- a course of action I doubt taxpayers would accept.
The sensible solution to Canada's predicament lies in a combination of bold actions and strategies:
1. Let's have a genuine national debate about the options, the costs and the responsibilities. The sad truth is that few Canadians understand what meeting the Kyoto Protocol involves. The equally sad irony is that the Liberal government of the day committed Canadians to overly ambitious targets without the slightest idea of what such a commitment would entail.
2. Let's embrace the sustainable development challenge and the immense opportunities it offers us. Conservation must be at the top of the agenda, along with more effective harnessing of technology aimed at reducing the environmental impact of human activity. The focus must be on technologies that will have a real payoff in the future, not on forcing expensive changes at the margin with only minimal reductions in greenhouse gases.
3. Let's create a policy and regulatory framework that will encourage industry to further reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and move more rapidly in the deployment of transformational technologies. What business wants are clear rules, adequate lead time and consistent policy. We do not oppose regulation or the idea of putting a price on carbon. But the overall package has to reinforce the ability of firms to innovate, invest and grow.
4. Let's really get consumers on board. The challenge is fundamental -- much more than not idling your car, using compact fluorescent light bulbs or turning down your thermostat. Many of the big things that consumers can do to reduce emissions -- buying a hybrid car, installing a high-efficiency furnace or replacing windows -- involve paying thousands of dollars up front, with the energy savings repaid slowly over many years. Let's have a debate about what policies Canadians are ready to support and how they want their tax dollars spent to improve the environment.
5. Finally, let's stop ignoring adaptation as one of the essential tools for coping with climate change. The reality is that the earth will continue to grow warmer even in the face of much more successful mitigation efforts. Understanding and preparing for change must involve a comprehensive policy framework and long-term investment that can blunt the negative consequences and capitalize on the positive.
- Thomas d' Aquino is chief executive and president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.
-
Please send me a FReepmail to get on or off this Canada ping list.
Click pn POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Surely people must be catching on to the scam. First, as the article mentions, China is not covered. This makes Kyoto the "move your factory to China" treaty; the easiest way to meet the terms of the treaty is to build future factories in China.
Indeed, no one in their right mind wants to build a factory where they are not wanted.
Secondly, as the writer notes, the way to meet the terms of the treaty is to buy "carbon credits". These are obtained by paying some third world potentate not to develop his country, or buying up some swath of third world forest and putting it off limits to development even by the people who live there. That is a most perverse kind of colonialism, one in which first world people take over chunks of the undeveloped world, not to develop them, but to make sure no one does.
And the transactions, the trading of these "credits", are handled by the men in suits here in New York, Toronto, London.
Kyoto is a scam of the first order.
Its the new religion of science. Buy your indulgence.
Climate change happens. It changed many times before the dawn of man, and it will change in the future, even after the demise of man.
When Algore buys his indulgences, he is buying them from himself.
"Meeting this would be a gargantuan task. If we took all cars and trucks off the road and every aircraft, train and ship out of service, we might come close. If we no longer heated any home, commercial building or public institution in Canada, we would be less than halfway to the target. If we shut down all oilsands production tomorrow, we would only make a small dent in the needed reductions."
----
Gee maybe you guys should have thought ahead before making commitments. I heard Algore is selling credits...
Yeah, I heard Rush talking about this today. Gore is a self-righteous, do as I say, not as I do wacko. The real troubling thing is so damned many people will still vote for the idiot!
Now you're talking. Just let the market direct the adaptation, as needed, instead of the government, by prescription, and you've got a good idea there.
>Gore is a self-righteous, do as I say, not as I do wacko<
The more I hear about Gore's scheme to buy "carbon credits" from himself, the more I wonder if we're not giving him credit for being as big a crook, and as crafty as the Clintons.
I don't think anyone here doesn't take the threat he poses seriously, but blowing him off as a simple wacko is potentially dangerous.
Well, being that I'm a Tennessean I can tell you first hand he is a wacko and a crook. He and his family have long and sorted history of crooked deals. The dangerous part, as I see it, are all the myrmidons who would vote for him regardless. I think he's damaged goods and all but the rabid left know that. The only thing to worry about is if the 'Pubbies nominate another Bob Dole......
A research group in Tennessee, where the former vice president lives, claims that Mr. Gore's 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville consumes more electricity in a month than the average American household uses in a year.The Tennessee Center for Policy Research said Mr. Gore's house in the Belle Meade area of the city last year consumed nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity — more than 20 times the national average.
*snip*
"What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible," a spokesman said.
"Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gores do, to bring their footprint down to zero."
Supporters of Mr. Gore said the criticism was politically motivated and that the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, despite claims of being independent and nonpartisan, was "a strongly-leaning Republican organization."
Vice President Gore's home,And, cowardice and hypcrisy from David Suzuki, a leading enviro advocate from north of the Border(link, excerpts below):
Eco-icon not so green By TOM BRODBECK Political activist David Suzuki -- on a cross-country tour urging Canadians and politicians to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- may want to look in his own backyard before lecturing Canadians on how they're destroying the Earth.
With all the alternative-energy modes of transportation out there, Suzuki and his entourage are crossing Canada in a sprawling, "rock-star-style" diesel-burning tour bus, emitting more greenhouse gases during his 30-day tour than many of us do in a year.
That's right. Mr. Kyoto isn't so green after all.
"It's diesel," Jason Curan, a media staff member on the Suzuki tour told Sun Media yesterday. "It's a tour bus -- kind of like a rock-star tour bus."
You know, one of those big-ass, diesel-guzzling, carbon-spewing beasts?
The kind that emits tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and supposedly contributes to some future catastrophic climate event.
A polar-bear killer on wheels.
"It's kind of too fancy for our needs," admitted Curan. "But it does the job."
I bet it does.
How are we supposed to take a guy like Suzuki seriously when he drives across Canada in one of the most polluting modes of transportation available?
I don't see a lot of leadership there.
review
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.