Kyoto accord was never about the environment
Finally, something positive happened at a United Nations climate summit on the Kyoto Protocol.
Canada walked away. We officially withdrew from the Kyoto madness.
The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997 under the auspices of the United Nations, was the first international agreement to set binding targets for countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent relative to 1990 levels by 2012.
At the recent meeting in South Africa, more than 190 countries all but conceded Kyoto's ultimate defeat by extending the 2012 deadline to 2017.
If Canada had not abandoned the treaty, we would have been on the hook for at least $14 billion in penalties for not meeting the target. If we had dedicated ourselves to meeting the target, various studies have estimated that gasoline prices would have risen 50 per cent, economic growth would have been reduced by at least three per cent and there would have been a net loss of about 450,000 jobs. Further, it could have cost every Canadian at least $3,500 per year, according to the Fraser Institute.
There is no consensus on the exact costs associated with complying with Kyoto, but there is a consensus that these efforts would significantly compromise the Canadian economy and our standard of living.
And, based on Environment Minister Peter Kent's comments, I don't think many of us are willing to pay that cost.
Kent gave Canadians an idea of the grim realities involved by saying, "To meet the target under 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads, or closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada."
All this when Canada only emits two per cent of the world's greenhouse gases and the Alberta oilsands contribute just five per cent to that total.
Kyoto is, essentially, a tax on wealth. If a developing country can't meet a certain target for a reduction in greenhouse gases, then it must pay a penalty by purchasing emissions credits from foreign countries. So a country doesn't have to reduce CO2 emissions, it can simply buy its way out of carbon hell.
As such, Kyoto never really had much to do with the environment. It was never much more than an exchange of money from rich nations to poor. In fact, it is estimated that up to $1.6 trillion was up for redistri-bution if the Kyoto Protocol had maintained its 2012 targets.
The madness began at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where countries agreed to a voluntary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. But the voluntary part of the agreement never really took hold, so, in 1997, pious countries caught in the web of political correctness decided to set binding targets for 2012 in the form of the Kyoto Protocol.
But the treaty was basically dead in the water in 2001, when the United States refused to ratify it. In 2007, the United Nations held a climate summit in Bali and produced a document with a whole lot of back-pedalling. There were no new targets or time frames for cutting CO2 emissions. It simply resulted in an agreement for western nations to implement emissions quotas if developing nations such as China and India agreed to do the same. So far, no developing nations are offering to take part in the UN's climate change game plan.
The agreement has gone nowhere internationally, and nowhere domestically. Canada's Liberal government decided to ratify it in 2003, and while it was still governing, incorporated Kyoto programs and targets into annual budgets that have cost Canadians billions of dollars. We've spent plenty on Kyoto, yet our reductions are still nowhere near the 2012 target.
A 2007 issue of Nature, one of the best scientific journals, published a paper that calls for an end to the Kyoto accord and warns against creating any similar agreements that are geared toward targets and timetables for cutting CO2 emissions. The authors say Kyoto is a "symbolically important expression" of concern, but it's "the wrong tool for the job." A major flaw is the simplistic assumption that global emissions quotas are the best way to confront climate change.
Another flaw that has been widely addressed in the western media is the validity of the United Nations reports that are the foundation for all climate change discussions. Two separate leaks of inside e-mails from scientists involved in the UN's climate reports have shown that they are quite willing to fudge the data when necessary, confuse science and advocacy and use their influence to prevent the publication of any contradictory information - all to foster the belief that the world is in a global warming crisis.
The United Nations climate plans are a messy, deceitful business. If the UN can't get the science right, it probably won't do much better at keeping that $1.6 trillion exchange straight.
Canada is right to walk away and other nations will undoubtedly follow. Just make sure the last one turns off the lights.
Read more: Kyoto accord was never about the environment
Finally, something positive happened at a United Nations climate summit on the Kyoto Protocol.
Canada walked away. We officially withdrew from the Kyoto madness.
The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997 under the auspices of the United Nations, was the first international agreement to set binding targets for countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent relative to 1990 levels by 2012.
At the recent meeting in South Africa, more than 190 countries all but conceded Kyoto's ultimate defeat by extending the 2012 deadline to 2017.
If Canada had not abandoned the treaty, we would have been on the hook for at least $14 billion in penalties for not meeting the target. If we had dedicated ourselves to meeting the target, various studies have estimated that gasoline prices would have risen 50 per cent, economic growth would have been reduced by at least three per cent and there would have been a net loss of about 450,000 jobs. Further, it could have cost every Canadian at least $3,500 per year, according to the Fraser Institute.
There is no consensus on the exact costs associated with complying with Kyoto, but there is a consensus that these efforts would significantly compromise the Canadian economy and our standard of living.
And, based on Environment Minister Peter Kent's comments, I don't think many of us are willing to pay that cost.
Kent gave Canadians an idea of the grim realities involved by saying, "To meet the target under 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads, or closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada."
All this when Canada only emits two per cent of the world's greenhouse gases and the Alberta oilsands contribute just five per cent to that total.
Kyoto is, essentially, a tax on wealth. If a developing country can't meet a certain target for a reduction in greenhouse gases, then it must pay a penalty by purchasing emissions credits from foreign countries. So a country doesn't have to reduce CO2 emissions, it can simply buy its way out of carbon hell.
As such, Kyoto never really had much to do with the environment. It was never much more than an exchange of money from rich nations to poor. In fact, it is estimated that up to $1.6 trillion was up for redistri-bution if the Kyoto Protocol had maintained its 2012 targets.
The madness began at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, where countries agreed to a voluntary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. But the voluntary part of the agreement never really took hold, so, in 1997, pious countries caught in the web of political correctness decided to set binding targets for 2012 in the form of the Kyoto Protocol.
But the treaty was basically dead in the water in 2001, when the United States refused to ratify it. In 2007, the United Nations held a climate summit in Bali and produced a document with a whole lot of back-pedalling. There were no new targets or time frames for cutting CO2 emissions. It simply resulted in an agreement for western nations to implement emissions quotas if developing nations such as China and India agreed to do the same. So far, no developing nations are offering to take part in the UN's climate change game plan.
The agreement has gone nowhere internationally, and nowhere domestically. Canada's Liberal government decided to ratify it in 2003, and while it was still governing, incorporated Kyoto programs and targets into annual budgets that have cost Canadians billions of dollars. We've spent plenty on Kyoto, yet our reductions are still nowhere near the 2012 target.
A 2007 issue of Nature, one of the best scientific journals, published a paper that calls for an end to the Kyoto accord and warns against creating any similar agreements that are geared toward targets and timetables for cutting CO2 emissions. The authors say Kyoto is a "symbolically important expression" of concern, but it's "the wrong tool for the job." A major flaw is the simplistic assumption that global emissions quotas are the best way to confront climate change.
Another flaw that has been widely addressed in the western media is the validity of the United Nations reports that are the foundation for all climate change discussions. Two separate leaks of inside e-mails from scientists involved in the UN's climate reports have shown that they are quite willing to fudge the data when necessary, confuse science and advocacy and use their influence to prevent the publication of any contradictory information - all to foster the belief that the world is in a global warming crisis.
The United Nations climate plans are a messy, deceitful business. If the UN can't get the science right, it probably won't do much better at keeping that $1.6 trillion exchange straight.
Canada is right to walk away and other nations will undoubtedly follow. Just make sure the last one turns off the lights.
Read more: Kyoto accord was never about the environment
