Today's National Post editorial focuses on the failures of Kyoto and the ironic hypocrisy of the upcoming Bali conference itself - Son of Kyoto:
...The UN is hosting a major conference this week and next in Bali, Indonesia, to negotiate a successor agreement to Kyoto. What lessons have the delegates drawn from the first treaty's flaws? None, apparently. If anything, their proposals for a Kyoto II suggest an accord that would be worse than the original.
While nominally binding more nations to reduction targets, the UN in reality appears intent on making the same three dozen wealthy countries make the bulk of the sacrifices. At the same time, it would saddle them with an additional burden: sending hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to developing nations in order to ensure that what marginal emission reductions those countries are called on to make can be achieved cost-free.
The sheer size of the Bali gathering shows how the global-warming movement has become an industry unto itself. During their negotiations on emission reductions to save the planet, the 20,000 delegates and observers in Bali will generate a greater carbon footprint than all the residents of a city the size of Victoria, Halifax or London, Ont., would produce in a month. The Canadian Climate Action Network, which includes some of this country's best-known eco-crusaders, boasted Monday that it was sending 60 participants. Flying those delegates and their confreres from around the world to the remote resort island will generate 110,000 tonnes of CO2, alone.
But then, this do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude should not be surprising: The most strident champions of carbon abatement are unaccountable NGOs and celebrity environmentalists who travel around the world feting one another, drinking their own green Kool-Aid...
Exactly. And if any of those eco-evangelists feel the need for a brief diversion, there's plenty to atone for afterwards.
Cutting through the hype is a challenge for the average Canadian, but let me make this perfectly clear - It will affect your own bottom line. As Ultramar vice-president Louis Forget said of Quebec's 'green tax', "Somehow, the consumers will pay for it."
Oh yes, we will pay and pay and pay again.
Those of us who still have jobs, that is.
9 comments:
Cutting through the hype is a challenge for the average Canadian, but let me make this perfectly clear - It will affect your own bottom line. As Ultramar vice-president Louis Forget said of Quebec's 'green tax', "Somehow, the consumers will pay for it."
Oh yes, we will pay and pay and pay again.
Joanne, do you believe doing nothing about climate change will be cost-free?
Yes, but you didn't quote this part.
What you're reading on this page is not a Terence Corcoran-style attack on the science of global warming. Like just about every scientist who doesn't have a regular opinion-writing gig at The Wall Street Journal or Financial Post, I believe anthropogenic global warming is real. My problem with the Kyoto camp isn't that it's peddling "junk science."
Unfortunately Jonathan Kay is not a reliable commentator on these matters. He has already drunk the Kool-Aid.
RA - I think it makes his argument even more effective.
Greg - I don't see our Government 'doing nothing'. I see someone in charge who actually wants real cost-effective results; not platitudes that end up costing us everything while accomplishing very little.
If by "doing something", you mean "intensity targets" and "aspirational goals", then I stand corrected. It is worse than nothing, it is pretending to be doing something substantive while allowing the problem to get worse.
Btw. The Liberals were masters at the art of looking like they were doing something while doing nothing. But, and this is a big but, learning that art does not speak well of this government. If the problem is real, (and your side seems to admit it is) then the solutions should be real too. We don't need more marketing, we need action.
Hey Joanne, here is an idea I came up with. Kind of a reverse carbon-credit tax. Might be a stupid idea(probably is). Let me know what you think:
Kyoto signees go on about Canada not meeting targets and having one of the highest per-capita emissions levels. Of course this is true, because of the oil industry in Canada. What is never mentioned is the majority of oil in Canada is actually sent out of country. So here is the plan.
1. All Kyoto signees who buy Canadian crude will be subject to a $20 per barrel carbon burning tax. The funds from this tax will be sent to the Canadian government, who will use the funds to create more efficient and more enviromentally safe procedures for the oil industry. You want to buy our oil, you pay a carbon price for the fact it will be burned in your country, but our country cranked out emissions for your prooduct.
Countries, such as the European Union, should have no problem paying this tax, and as an extension, nor should their consumers mind the increase in gas prices. The world is better off because Canada will have government funding targetted towards real emission reductions, and thats what Kyoto is all about, saving the planet, right?
paulsstuff:0)
How does JKs acceptance of the AGW mythology make his argument more effective? He's arguing for spending on mitigation rather than prevention. But since there isn't any global warming - as proved many times on Blogging Tories - the correct and best argument is surely not to spend anything at all.
Thank you r a !
A similar sentiment was expressed in the last comment on the article when I read it, using my new favourite words "so called".
Wow, a lot of different stuff going on here.
Paul, I like your idea! Send it to John Baird. Maybe you'll get to go to Bali. ;)
Greg, I'm glad you added the part about the Liberals doing nothing. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this, but I don't believe Kyoto is the answer to this problem, unless perhaps all the big emitters are included.
RA, I personally don't doubt that there is global warming. How much is man-made is the issue, I suppose. The fact that Kay is a AGW believer and still doesn't accept Kyoto as the solution would seem to me to have more credibility than someone who doesn't accept the concept of GW at all.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue this anymore. I simply pointed out that I liked Jonathan Kay's article, and the Post's editorial. That's all.
Post a Comment