“Kyoto is a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nation"
thankyougrandma
Posts: 1,182
These are the great wise words of Canada Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. He put those ridiculous ads against Dion, the Liberals gave this letter to the medias, i think we'll be up for a nice political season...
Harper letter dismissed Kyoto a money-sucking socialist scheme
Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, January 30, 2007
OTTAWA - A prime minister who now promises to fight climate change once ridiculed the Kyoto accord as a money-sucking socialist scheme and said he would battle to defeat it.
Stephen Harper derided the global treaty and questioned the science of climate change in a 2002 fundraising letter sent to members of his now-defunct Canadian Alliance party....
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=0de3608c-9f8f-49f4-bb52-bf3fcd9aa3a5&k=71162
Harper letter dismissed Kyoto a money-sucking socialist scheme
Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, January 30, 2007
OTTAWA - A prime minister who now promises to fight climate change once ridiculed the Kyoto accord as a money-sucking socialist scheme and said he would battle to defeat it.
Stephen Harper derided the global treaty and questioned the science of climate change in a 2002 fundraising letter sent to members of his now-defunct Canadian Alliance party....
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=0de3608c-9f8f-49f4-bb52-bf3fcd9aa3a5&k=71162
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
this gov't is a joke ... its principles are flawed and no matter how much spin doctoring they do - they won't be able to govern this country as the people see fit ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0pKGdLjxk
2003 ~ Toronto
2005 ~ London, Toronto
2006 ~ Toronto
2008 ~ Hartford, Mansfied I,
2009 ~ Toronto, Chicago I, Chicago II
2010 ~ Cleveland, Buffalo
2011 ~ Toronto I, Toronto II, Ottawa, Hamilton
2013 - London, Pittsburgh, Buffalo
Sounds good to me.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Pretty much sums it up.
Next thing yah know, people will be saying that the American left is invested in a loss in Iraq. Oh, the outrageous claims of these whacky right-wingers.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
-Enoch Powell
I guess that explains why they always seem to leave these threads alone.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Here's Chomsky's take on the Bush administrations refusal to follow the Kyoto agreement, and my interpretation.
"The Bush admin has been criticized for undermining the Kyoto Protocol on grounds that it would harm the US economy. ...odd. We are instructed daily to be firm believers in neoclassical markets, in which isolated individuals are rational wealth maximizers. If distortions are eliminated, the market should respond perfectly to their votes, [dollars]. The value of a person's interest is measured the same way. ...the interests of those with no votes [dollars] are valued at zero: future generations for example. It is therefore rational to destroy the possibility for decent survivial for our grandchildren, if by doing so we can maximize our own wealth."
So Bush, by refusing to follow Kyoto on grounds that it may affect the US economy negatively, is doing the right thing, because we are allowed to pursue personal wealth at all costs. Even our very survival comes second in this pursuit of monetary gain.
A statement like that is likely to get you banned around here. So do me a favor and whisper next time...
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Remind me again what the net affect of Kyoto would be in terms of environmental impact. You (and/or Chomsky) have elevated Kyoto to a level not even touted by most of its proponents - "our very survival". Will Kyoto really address "our very survival"? If so, how? Will climate change be minimized? Will the warming trend be reversed? Or will the warming trend at least be slowed? What kind of timeframe are we looking at to realize the drastic changes Kyoto will usher in?
Most Kyoto proponents I've talked to concede that Kyoto will have little tangible effect. If that is the case it makes your conclusion seem a bit melodramatic.
But as they say, what can the protocol achieve if the biggest carbon emitting countries are out of it?
Kyoto would have been a first step towards a controlled development for the world. But in the end it really will be a money-sucking-failed protocol.
naděje umírá poslední
the reality is that the US economy would likely be hurt for the simple fact that oil and gas (and weapons) dictate policy there ... it is why exxon can post $600 billion profits ... they control the policies coming out of washington ...
at the end of the day - the US is like that high draft pick with limitless potential who just doesn't care - they got their big contract and are wasting away ...
Did Harper at least change the name Bush to Harper upon signing that letter.
I think the neocons are taking pretty good care of the defeat part all by themselves...
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
That doesn't mean you know anything about Kyoto. All that may mean is you've seen a few Al Gore speeches and an end of the world piece or two on the National Geographic Channel.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
As someone who specializes in emission's reduction to some extent...that being the design/application/costing of them.....it is more than do-able...and I work for a large oil company....from that point of view Kyoto is not hard to obtain.....not at all.....
I'm not sure what makes the conservatives here an expert on the subject more than any of the other liberal members. If you would like to debate the science or the effects of the accord, that is fine, I haven't seen anything here but broad generalizations and opinions.
I do believe Kyoto is not a perfect agreement. I have lots of criticisms of it, but it is a step in the right direction and not a particularly bad one. Do you have any better ideas? Is this not a global issue that needs a solution and set of standards to fix? There is a lot of misinformation on this board from both sides. I do have a background in environmental geography (which includes a fair amount of climatology and ecology and my wife is an ecologist/forestry major, so its not as if I am getting all of my information from one movie.
Do you accept climate change is occurring? I think often the analysis of economic costs for agreeing to Kyoto is often talked about, but not the cost of allowing CC to continue.
I'll admit that made me laugh.
Let me ask this. At what point would you consider someone knowledgeable? Because in my mind you don't have to be a climatologist to form an educated opinion about global warming. Maybe you have a problem with liberals speaking out because you don't agree with it.
But you should know something about Kyoto before using it as a point in an argument. The localized emission permit markets around the US are far more effective in controlling emissions than Kyoto ever could be. Kyoto's targets were stupid. They don't take into into account the vast changes in level of production (especially in Russia) and the fact that Europe starting curbing emissions in the early 90s. And now people look at Europe and say that the targets are easily met. Harper's comments were stupid, but Kyoto is a waste of time and money and at least he realizes this. Now the Liberals are going to jump all over him with their uninformed rhetoric. How many years did they have in power to address climate control? Not enough I guess.
explain to me how setting targets is a bad thing?? ... as for the liberals - (not that i think they did enuf) but their plan was always not gonna show results until 2008 ... it was said all along ... now, compare that to the clean air act the conservatives rolled out this past summer ... that was an insult to every canadian out there ...
I'm no socialist and I'm sorry but that is just a bullshit statement to avoid having to take tough decisions....
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
*****
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/177620
OTTAWA – Environment Minister John Baird says he'll act to curb industrial pollution that contributes to climate change, but he won't set a national target for cutting greenhouse emissions.
Speaking from Paris following the release of a massive report which says evidence of climate change is unequivocal, Baird promised to regulate industry which accounts for about half of Canada's emissions.
He says this will be done using intensity targets which require companies to produce fewer emissions per unit of output – but could still allow total emissions to increase.
Baird rejected the notion of green taxes to promote more careful use of energy by individuals and small businesses which account for the other half of Canada's emissions.
He said the government is working with opposition parties to strengthen the proposed clean air act, but he will not wait for passage of the act to regulate industry.
What do you think local permit markets do? Someone says: this area gets x amount of emission permits and the permits are traded among polluters. Under the Liberal's plan, Alberta's booming oil industry comes to a screeching halt, and that loss is not made up anywhere else in the country. A worse situation would arise if all of Canada competed for Kyoto emission permits. The oil companies in Alberta buy them all up and the rest of Canada is left without the legal right to produce anything. I'm not too familiar with the Clean Air Act, so I can't really comment on it, but I talked to a few MPs (before the election) who said that idealy, the Conservatives would like to set up localized permit markets across the country.
Anyway, setting targets is what it is. It's what you do to enforce those targets that matters. There is no way that we would have hit our Kyoto targets by 2008 with the Liberal's "plan". So what do we do to "punish" GHG producers? Do we fine them, charge them, close them down? I'll admit that it's good PR for Canada to be part of Kyoto. Unfortunately, Kyoto is 100% useless.
Just one part of the agreement affects %55 of greenhouse gasses emmitted by humans. that alone is going to make a difference.