Harper and Howard Shun Kyoto for AP6
- Thread starter FiveParadox
- Start date
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/....html?id=3386fa8c-db0e-4746-923d-98d7f19e210e
National Post
Published: Tuesday, May 23, 2006
According to a leaked document, Stephen Harper's Conservative government opposes the extension of the Kyoto accord on greenhouse gas emissions Naturally, environmentalists are up in arms. But the Conservative position is absolutely correct: Recent developments show that our participation in Kyoto will neither help fight climate change, nor advance Canada's international status.
This month in Bonn, Germany, the 190 countries that are parties to the Kyoto accord selected Australia to co-chair negotiations on a replacement for the treaty, which is set to expire in 2012. Why Australia and not Canada? Australia hasn't even signed Kyoto, whereas we have been its most vocal booster. Canada is even the chair of the international Kyoto committee this year.
The answer may be found in Australia's emissions record -- it's substantially better than ours. Or it may result from the fact that Australia was able to bring the United States to the post-Kyoto table. The world, correctly, may have deduced that Australia, not Canada, possesses the necessary clout to take the United Nations' climate change treaty to the next step.
Instead of wagging their finger at Washington and publicly hectoring the White House on global warming -- the approach of the former government -- the Australians have been co-operating with the Americans on practical emissions solutions for nearly four years now. As Bonn proves, this strategy has paid off.
Among all the name-calling and posturing the Liberals directed at Washington during more than a decade in office, the one instance that reportedly angered the White House the most came last year in Montreal during an international gathering on the Kyoto accord. There, then-prime minister Paul Martin, in a crass attempt to score political points in the early days of Canada's election campaign, declared: "To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say this: There is such a thing as a global conscience, and now is the time to listen to it. [To those] voices that attempt to diminish the urgency, or dismiss the science, or declare either in word or in indifference that this is not our problem to solve ... let me tell you, it is our problem to solve and we are in this together."
This oratory provoked cheers from the assembled international environmental crowd, but it just about ended any remaining influence the Liberals had with the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.
Canada may have played the multilateral game just so on Kyoto. But all of the Liberals' rhetorical correctness and devotion to Kyoto's hollow symbolism -- the accord may be popular, but even if fully implemented, it would never have solved global warming -- got them nowhere. In the end, it didn't even win us much respect among other Kyoto supporters around the world.
Australia's willingness to stand outside Kyoto should also serve as a caution to environmental groups and other critics of our Conservative government's new made-in-Canada greenhouse strategy. Since 1990, Canada -- perhaps Kyoto's most devoted acolyte -- has increased its greenhouse emissions by 25%. Meanwhile, Australia, which went its own way with made-in-Australia solutions, has seen emission increases of less than 3%. Warnings that Canada will never bring its emissions under control unless it hews to the Kyoto framework are clearly nonsense.
The Americans, who have shunned Kyoto, too, have a better emissions record than Canada. Over the past 15 years, the relative growth in their greenhouse emissions has been less than two-thirds our own. And that is despite an economic boom greater than Canada's.
So rather than Kyoto being vital to reducing greenhouse emissions, as is the accepted wisdom, it may be counterproductive. Our Conservative government is correct to look for alternatives. Who knows: Maybe someday, we can aspire to the success of the Australians
National Post
Published: Tuesday, May 23, 2006
According to a leaked document, Stephen Harper's Conservative government opposes the extension of the Kyoto accord on greenhouse gas emissions Naturally, environmentalists are up in arms. But the Conservative position is absolutely correct: Recent developments show that our participation in Kyoto will neither help fight climate change, nor advance Canada's international status.
This month in Bonn, Germany, the 190 countries that are parties to the Kyoto accord selected Australia to co-chair negotiations on a replacement for the treaty, which is set to expire in 2012. Why Australia and not Canada? Australia hasn't even signed Kyoto, whereas we have been its most vocal booster. Canada is even the chair of the international Kyoto committee this year.
The answer may be found in Australia's emissions record -- it's substantially better than ours. Or it may result from the fact that Australia was able to bring the United States to the post-Kyoto table. The world, correctly, may have deduced that Australia, not Canada, possesses the necessary clout to take the United Nations' climate change treaty to the next step.
Instead of wagging their finger at Washington and publicly hectoring the White House on global warming -- the approach of the former government -- the Australians have been co-operating with the Americans on practical emissions solutions for nearly four years now. As Bonn proves, this strategy has paid off.
Among all the name-calling and posturing the Liberals directed at Washington during more than a decade in office, the one instance that reportedly angered the White House the most came last year in Montreal during an international gathering on the Kyoto accord. There, then-prime minister Paul Martin, in a crass attempt to score political points in the early days of Canada's election campaign, declared: "To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say this: There is such a thing as a global conscience, and now is the time to listen to it. [To those] voices that attempt to diminish the urgency, or dismiss the science, or declare either in word or in indifference that this is not our problem to solve ... let me tell you, it is our problem to solve and we are in this together."
This oratory provoked cheers from the assembled international environmental crowd, but it just about ended any remaining influence the Liberals had with the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.
Canada may have played the multilateral game just so on Kyoto. But all of the Liberals' rhetorical correctness and devotion to Kyoto's hollow symbolism -- the accord may be popular, but even if fully implemented, it would never have solved global warming -- got them nowhere. In the end, it didn't even win us much respect among other Kyoto supporters around the world.
Australia's willingness to stand outside Kyoto should also serve as a caution to environmental groups and other critics of our Conservative government's new made-in-Canada greenhouse strategy. Since 1990, Canada -- perhaps Kyoto's most devoted acolyte -- has increased its greenhouse emissions by 25%. Meanwhile, Australia, which went its own way with made-in-Australia solutions, has seen emission increases of less than 3%. Warnings that Canada will never bring its emissions under control unless it hews to the Kyoto framework are clearly nonsense.
The Americans, who have shunned Kyoto, too, have a better emissions record than Canada. Over the past 15 years, the relative growth in their greenhouse emissions has been less than two-thirds our own. And that is despite an economic boom greater than Canada's.
So rather than Kyoto being vital to reducing greenhouse emissions, as is the accepted wisdom, it may be counterproductive. Our Conservative government is correct to look for alternatives. Who knows: Maybe someday, we can aspire to the success of the Australians
Thats quite the article...
Hmmm, I guess it's all in how you look at it. I mean the Taliban types took out 3000 in some half hour plus the buildings.....maybe we should relax all our security and monitoring and let the Tallybans have a real go at it and see how many they can kill.
What hasn't proven to be much of a threat is "global warming" sure pollution isn't good for our health, but the worst of "global warming" are its activist and their hunger for government dollars and killing off industry, raising taxes and the names you get called if you don’t believe their theories to the letter.
I like how he uses WWII as an example....are we supposed to really believe liberals are for war and deterrents....I mean come on, not everyone is that stupid to fall for that game. Next thing you know Liberals are going to claim winning the cold war was a good thing too and they were on our side! :lol:
Hmmm, I guess it's all in how you look at it. I mean the Taliban types took out 3000 in some half hour plus the buildings.....maybe we should relax all our security and monitoring and let the Tallybans have a real go at it and see how many they can kill.
What hasn't proven to be much of a threat is "global warming" sure pollution isn't good for our health, but the worst of "global warming" are its activist and their hunger for government dollars and killing off industry, raising taxes and the names you get called if you don’t believe their theories to the letter.
I like how he uses WWII as an example....are we supposed to really believe liberals are for war and deterrents....I mean come on, not everyone is that stupid to fall for that game. Next thing you know Liberals are going to claim winning the cold war was a good thing too and they were on our side! :lol:
kind of like discerning between someone saying the 90's as in a period of time rather than the year 1990, or 20 something percent not actually meaning 20% but any number in the 20's. but i wouldn't expect everyone to comprehend this either...