Just Say it: "Kyoto's a Crock"

by Barry Artiste | June 1, 2008 at 05:49 am | 424 views | 2 comments

slideshow view all 2

Opinion
Barry Artiste, Now Public Contributor
One thing that is true about all the Kyoto Bandwaggonry, is that opposition politicians and politicians in power, who had the power to implement Kyoto, did nothing. Why? Because Taxpayers would have been up in arms over paying more for everything from soup to cars. So instead it seems these Politicians talked the talk to appease Environmentalists, a talk they hoped that would have got them re-elected, if re-elected, they did more talking to further their political party as a reigning power.

Once turfed out of office, these who were in power to do something, became the Political Opposition, once in Opposition, these Politicians went Full Steam Ahead to get the New Political Party in office to implement Kyoto.

Why? for two reasons, one reason is that it shows the public, media and the world, Opposition Parties are still concerned about the Environment. Secondly if the Party in Political power now were foolish enough to implement the Oppositions Kyoto plan, prices for everything in that country would rise dramatically, and public outrage would soon see that political party in power soon be relegated to a political wasteland come next election, with the Opposition Party back in power. One the Opposition Party back in Power, they would state to the Public, the previous government is at fault, mismanagement, incompetence etc.
But it is too late to change anything now. This way a Political Party who when in power initially, had first implemented a Kyoto plan and did nothing, now have a plan, a plan they wanted, but others put in place, and when it went horribly wrong, the Political party can now blame others.

As they say many implementors of Kyoto, it seems, didn't have any intention of going ahead with it, as this story states.

As for Al Gore, he and Bill Clinton when they were in power and able to do something about Kyoto and the Environment, soundly rejected Kyoto for one reason, "Re-election". Al Gore knew if they went with Kyoto, he would not stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting the presidency. Once Gore lost to Bush, all of a sudden, he became concerned about the environment, an environment he dismissed when in office as not important a few years ago.

Funny how the Public conveniently forget all this, but then this is the environment most live in. An environment of "Misremembering of InConveniences of Truth".

My Final Thoughts

In an age of Video Teleconferencing, Emails, certainly Kyoto's Greening initiatives for the Earth, shows Hypocrisy when taxpayer funded junkets (Of Course, is there any other?) to warm, sunny exotic locales (especially during North American Winters) such as Bali, and in the summer Europe or other First Class destinations in which Politicians, Researchers, Pundits, Media, Environmentalists and other publicly funded Environmental Think Tanks immediately and without question, congregate enmasse for three week Kyoto Gabfests in which only a portion of that visit is actually Kyoto, the rest of the time is spent visiting the local culture, taking in the local flavours, golf course, attractions etc.

Certainly all the attendees to Kyoto would be nonplussed to explain why on one hand reducing ones Carbon Footprint and Green house gas on Mother Earth is important, yet for hundreds, if not thousands of Globe Trotting attendees to such an important Kyoto Environmental conference, why travel thousands of miles and stay in First Class accommodations such as Bali, Europe, or other exotic Asian countries. When videoconferencing would accomplish the same thing, and drastically reduce the attendees Carbon Footprint and Green House gases to boot?

Last year I sent an email on this to the powers to be, and I am still awaiting an answer to that question, as are many taxpayers. In the meantime let's not hold our collective carbon dioxide exhaled breaths waiting for that question for an answer we already know.

Just say it: Kyoto's a crock

Stephen Harper should call the environmental accord what it is -- a train wreck

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 altarMore 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 ratifiedThat 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?

Flag this story

Upload

Make your good story a great story. Click here to add your photos & video to this story.

Crowd Power

Scan the web to add photos and videos to this story or add them from the NowPublic Archive.

Mike Wood

at 10:48 on June 1st, 2008

good stuff:

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff.

"Certainly all the attendees to Kyoto would be nonplussed to explain why on one hand reducing ones Carbon Footprint and Green house gas on Mother Earth is important, yet for hundreds, if not thousands of Globe Trotting attendees to such an important Kyoto Environmental conference, why travel thousands of miles and stay in First Class accommodations such as Bali, Europe, or other exotic Asian countries. When videoconferencing would accomplish the same thing, and drastically reduce the attendees Carbon Footprint and Green House gases to boot?"

Good point!

Although I'm all for cutting emissions and saving our what seems to be un-savable planet, how can countries who are growing in population (like Canada) reduce CO2 and other pollutants from the atmosphere or land and water for that matter, when we are steadily building new subdivisions, high-rises and manufacturing cars in ever increasing numbers?

"Green" technology just isn't moving fast enough for our over populated planet.

Of course if we redirected the billions spent on the war machine towards 'saving' technology instead of 'killing' technology, we and planet Earth would be way ahead of the game.