Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 06/02/2008 1:00:39 AM PDT by Roy Tucker
Could Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Environment Minister John Baird please explain what they mean when they say Canada continues to be a participant in the Kyoto accord?
How can we be a participant when the PM has said we cannot do what Kyoto requires of us -- lower our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by an average of 6% below 1990 levels between now and 2012?
We're 29.1% above our Kyoto target. Achieving that target is the point of Kyoto.
So what, exactly, are we participating in?
Yes, the Liberals are hypocrites for ratifying Kyoto and then doing zilch to implement it.
Yes, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion supports a carbon tax he once opposed.
But the Conservatives have been no more coherent.
In opposition, they didn't complain the Liberals were doing too little to implement Kyoto, as they do now. They complained they were doing too much, consistent with Harper's views at the time that Kyoto was a socialist, money-sucking scheme.
Kyoto is a socialist, money-sucking scheme. Why don't the Conservatives just say it?
I know -- I hear it from Conservatives supporters all the time -- Harper has to pay lip service to Kyoto to win the next election.
Nonsense. First off, voters know when politicians are bulls...ting them. If the Conservatives think they're getting a boost from pretending to support Kyoto, they're not.
Worshipping at the altar
More important, with the Liberals, Bloc, NDP and Green parties, and most of the provinces, all insanely worshipping at the altar of Kyoto and ready to "green" tax us to death, is there not one mainstream party with the courage to denounce Kyoto for the train wreck it is?
Look at the thing. Why do you suppose the main instigators of Kyoto -- the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United Nations -- happened to pick 1990 as the base year for reducing GHG emissions?
It wasn't written in stone. Kyoto wasn't even agreed to until 1997 and didn't come into effect until 2005. The drafters could have picked any year as the base year.
They retroactively chose 1990 because that was just before the Soviet Union imploded, meaning the European Union was able to take advantage of the dramatic drop-off in GHG emissions of the former Soviet satellites which later became part of Europe, countries which dramatically cut their GHG emissions not by doing anything, but by suffering a recession.
Also by 1990, the U.K.'s "dash for gas" was well underway -- again, unrelated to Kyoto. But by replacing coal power with natural gas, the U.K. was also able to benefit from Kyoto without doing anything.
These countries, along with the UN, whose interest was transferring wealth from the First World to the Third, crafted the treaty right down to exempting the entire developing world, led by China and India, with one purpose in mind.
Not ratified
That was to damage the U.S. economy by putting it at a competitive disadvantage had the Americans been stupid enough to ratify Kyoto. But even with Al Gore as their vice-president, they weren't.
We were. We ratified it because a reckless Jean Chretien was looking for an environmental legacy.
Chretien's top political aide, Eddie Goldenberg, has since acknowledged the Liberals knew Canadians weren't ready for what Kyoto required when they ratified it in 2002.
Of course, the Liberals weren't ready either, the proof being what they did to implement Kyoto after they ratified it. Nothing.
Ironically, even with all the advantages the U.K. and EU handed themselves in Kyoto, many of their own citizens are now revolting against the usurious carbon and green taxes they're being asked to pay.
Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism, under which developed countries fund environmental projects in developing ones, is rife with charges of corruption and profiteering.
Even if every one of the 37 member states in Kyoto (including us) required to reduce their GHG emissions (as opposed to the 143, which aren't) meet their emission targets (which they won't), the coal plants China and India alone are building will more than wipe out all the cuts Kyoto calls for.
And this is the deal the Conservatives say we need to be part of?
Why?
Are we nuts?
“Smart woman. Maybe the world is waking up. Except, all three of the remaining candidates are ready to sign off on this fraud.”
And how are we going to measure it? Kyoto is exactly what it says in the article. It is a Socialist money sucking scheme. For American politicians it is a vote machine that will never be implemented.
Paging Senator John McCain....please pick up the white courtesy phone....
She is right the principal purpose was to disadvantage the US economy.
Apologies to Lorrie Goldstein, who, going by the photo in the column appears to be a man.
Our Canadian sister site was on to these frauds and scams years ahead of everybody else— this forum has been up for as long as I can remember:
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=29
Global Warming and Other Junk Sciences
Thanks- Junk Science is very good.
Kyoto. The anagram lovers’ Tokyo.
Actually that is not the "point of Kyoto" that is the "target of Kyoto".
The "point" of Kyoto is to put a price on carbon and thereby change the 300 year momentum that economic growth leads to increase in emissions and create a dynamic in which those emissions would begin to fall.
This is to be achieved by placing a price on carbon that would make technologies that did not release carbon, or were more energy efficient, more economically competitive.
Whether or not you believe in AGW, understanding what the Kyoto Protocol was about is not that complicated. This woman doesn't really understand anything. She starts out with a point and tries to bend the facts to fit them. She could easily be a liberal.
They retroactively chose 1990 because that was just before the Soviet Union imploded, meaning the European Union was able to take advantage of the dramatic drop-off in GHG emissions of the former Soviet satellites which later became part of Europe, countries which dramatically cut their GHG emissions not by doing anything, but by suffering a recession.... Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism, under which developed countries fund environmental projects in developing ones, is rife with charges of corruption and profiteering. Even if every one of the 37 member states in Kyoto (including us) required to reduce their GHG emissions (as opposed to the 143, which aren't) meet their emission targets (which they won't), the coal plants China and India alone are building will more than wipe out all the cuts Kyoto calls for.
And this is the deal the Conservatives say we need to be part of?
---<>---<>---<>---<>---<>---
Brilliant points --- I am wondering exactly how many people are actually understanding this by now? I hadn't heard that the Europeans are starting to get upset about their green taxes. I hope they start an actual revolt over that.
Putting a price on carbon is as stupid as putting a premium on “natural” foods. Absolutely pointless. The article states the case very well.
For American politicians it is a vote machine that will never be implemented.
Ah. You're an optimist, I see.
I never wrote anything about cars in my post and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
In terms of “Americans needing their cars to live”, that is BS. The United States existed for nearly 200 years without cars. The US built its current way of life based on the automobile and cheap oil.
Choices were made and now you live with the consequences.
The layout of cities in the US could and would be much different under different circumstances.
Your myopia is astounding considering you have experience living in a different country.
Ah, but two producers, China and India, will not be charged anything for their carbon emissions under Kyoto. Their increase in emissions offsets any savings dictated by hitting Kyoto's targets (which by the way the signatories are not doing as a whole). So one is left to ask what is the point?
And while I will grant you that CO2 emissions have risen I am not convinced there is a very good correlation between increased CO2 and the warming of the earth. Unless one can explain the Medieval Warming Period prior to any industrialization. Plus, if there were a direct correlation, the earth would be warmer now than it was in 1998 which it is not.
The point is to create the incentive to develop the technology or put the current technology on the ground that is only economically viable when fossil fuels are more expensive.
Supply and demand are actually already doing this.
Your are correct that the rapid emissions growth of India and China will negate all reductions of Kyoto.
The theory of course, is that the build-up of greenhouse gasses was caused by industrialized countries and that it would be unfair to penalize developing countries at this point.
Hmm. . . so you are reverting to ad hominen attacks although I did not even actually say I supported Kyoto, nor did I state a position on AGW.
Rather I pointed out what the “POINT” of Kyoto was, so to prove that the person who wrote this article didn’t get it.
Based on your mildly reasonable line of argumentation, you accept that I am correct on the “POINT” of Kyoto and then pointed out that there was a major flaw in the actual effectiveness of the treaty.
The argumentation behind not restricting GHG emission in developing countries was basically this (you can skip reading assuming you know EVERYTHING about the AGW debate and have been scientifically astute and thoughtful):
The carbon “sinks” - which basically means the oceans - of CO2 have been filled over the last 300 years by industrialized countries burning fossil fuels. These countries have grown rich by doing so and now have the wealth to switch to lower carbon alternatives. The developing countries do not have this luxury and restricting their carbon use would be unfair and hurt a very large number of very poor people.
Now you may not think the science behind AGW is real and then that would be an argument that restricting GHG is absurd. That is fine. But the point of the discussion was about Kyoto itself. Not the underlying premise.
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.