give wheat ... get tax reciept

[cakadu]

Cowman, there were consultations on Kyoto - they may not have been widely publicized, but I know that they took place. Emrald may have a bit more information on that than I do.

As far as getting out of it, as I pointed out earlier it isn't just a matter of saying we want out. There are a good many things to consider and timelines for doing it. If it is true that 65% of Canadians want out of it - which should be noted that generally anywhere from 1,000 to 2,500 people are polled - then should the Conservatives win, they should talk to at least the provinces before getting out. They are saying there was no consultation with the provinces and if they stand for change, then it would stand to reason they would consult the provinces at a minimum before going.

Who says we have to get out entirely? There are 2 provinces leading the charge for not being involved with Kyoto and both of them are the largest contributors to Green House Gas emissions. Is it any wonder they don't want Kyoto?

Making campaign promises is one thing, acting on them is something entirely different and often not easy to do. If the Conservatives are in with a minority, then they will be doing everything they can to stay in power, with little room for much else, which is what has happened for the last 18 months.

As far as appointing judges, who gets appointed depends on whether they need a liberal thinker or not. Personally, I wouldn't want a supreme court limited in their thinking as that could work against people just as easily as it could for them. Oftentimes it is the thinking of the day that prevails in the end -- witness the recent decision on allowing swinging etc. As social values crumble, so do the laws surrounding them.

Amendments to law have to be carefully thought out so as to try and avoid any kind of manuvering. For every law and amendment, there is some lawyer who can figure out the loophole - even the stuff that is supposed to be foolproof.

[silverback]

Pollution would be a great thing to reduce, too bad Kyoto is aimed at CO2. Carbon Dioxide cannot be classified as a pollutant, plants need it by the way! Kyoto is designed to move money around the world and that is all. Nobody really has to reduce anything other than their own citizens bank accounts with carbon taxes.

[cowman]

I guess in the end the people of Canada will decide...or will they? I wonder how much good it will do if we force someone like Syncrude to go to Russia and pay them billions? It won't reduce pollution or green house gasses one iota, but it will drive up the price of a gallon of gas? Do you think Alberta will go along with Kyoto?
The Kyoto protocol is basically really flawed and is like silverback says...a welfare scheme for the world? Take from the rich give to the poor...and everybody continue business as usual!
Not to hard to see why this happened considering the "leaders" who dreamed this joke up were "watermellon environmentalists"? You know green on the outside...red inside?
You want to talk about pollution? Go to downtown Calgary at rush hour? Or maybe drive by a feedlot? Or look and see how lovely your local landfill is? Go take a look at the Red Deer landfill? Notice the creek running through it...Waskasoo creek? What kind of idiot ever let them build a landfill on a creek?
Instead of sending a bunch of high browed idiots to negotiate a stupid deal like Kyoto the various governments should spend money where it makes some sense?
The oil and gas industry is making strides in reducing some of their more blatant pollution. Carbon dioxide injection and recirculating NG(rather than flaring) are coming? Now mind you the industry is taking these steps...not the government! The government doesn't care...just keep those royalty payments rolling in! And in reality the Alberta government is supported by a very big majority of the people so I guess we are all guilty.

[sawfly]

kyoto does seem like a shuffle taxpayers money back and forth till it disappears plan,
as for backing out of deal it hasnt stopped the usa on lumber grain etc. why should it bother us

[ivbinconned]

Mark Steyn: Climate change myth

January 11, 2006
MICHAEL Crichton's environmental novel State Of Fear has many enjoyable moments, not least the deliciously apt fate he devises for a Martin Sheenesque Hollywood eco-poseur. But, along the way, his protagonist makes a quietly sensible point: that activist lobby groups ought to close down the office after 10 years. By that stage, regardless of the impact they've had on whatever cause they're hot for, they're chiefly invested in perpetuating their own indispensability.

That's what happened to the environmental movement. Denouncing this week's meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership, starting today in Sydney, the eco-tists sound more than a little squaresville: fossils running out of fuel. "Clearly, the short-term profits of the fossil fuel companies count for more in Canberra than the long-term health and welfare of ordinary Australians," says Clive Hamilton of the Australia Institute, disregarding the fact that the "long-term health and welfare" that ordinary Australians enjoy is not unconnected to fossil fuels.

"Relying solely on technology to deal with greenhouse emissions is like trying to empty a puddle while the tap is still running: you simply cannot do it," says Labor's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese. So Labor's policy is to turn off the tap?

Even if it wasn't driving the global environmental "consensus" bananas, the Asia-Pacific Partnership would still be worth doing. In environmental politics, the short-term interests of the eco-establishment count for more than the long-term health and welfare of ordinary Australians, or New Zealanders, or indeed Indians and Nigerians. They count for more than the long-term reputation of scientific institutions.

Hence, the famous "hockey stick" graph purporting to show climate over the past 1000 years, as a continuous, flat, millennium-long bungalow with a skysc****r tacked on for the 20th century. This graph was almost laughably fraudulent, not least because it used a formula that would generate a hockey stick shape no matter what data you input, even completely random, trendless, arbitrary computer-generated data. Yet such is the power of the eco-lobby that this fraud became the centrepiece of UN reports on global warming. If it's happening, why is it necessary to lie about it?

Well, the problem for the Kyoto cultists is that the end of the world's nighness is never quite as nigh as you'd like. Thirty years ago, Lowell Ponte had a huge bestseller called The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?

Answer: No, it hasn't. Yes, we can. So, when the new ice age predicted in the '70s failed to emerge, the eco-crowd moved on in the '80s to global warming, and then more recently to claiming as evidence of global warming every conceivable meteorological phenomenon: lack of global warmth is evidence of global warming; frost, ice, snow, glaciers, they're all signs of global warming, too. If you live in England, where it's 12C and partly cloudy all summer and 11.5C and overcast all winter, that dramatic climate change is also evidence of global warming.

That's the new buzz phrase these days: climate change. We've got to stop it, or change it back before it destroys the planet. And, if it doesn't destroy the planet, circa 2011 the Kyotocrats will be citing lack of climate change as evidence of climate change. They are, literally, a church, and under the Holy Book of Kyoto their bishops demand that the great industrial nations of the world tithe their incomes to them. So they're never going to take Crichton's advice.

That being so, the next best thing is the Asia-Pacific Partnership, or the "coalition of the emitting": Australia, the US, India, China, Japan, and South Korea. These nations are responsible for about half of greenhouse gas emissions and, by 2050, will account for roughly 75 per cent of global gross domestic product. In other words, these are the players that matter. And, unlike the Kyotophiles, their strategy isn't a form of cultural self-flagellation. America and Australia will be making Western technology available to developing nations to accelerate their development, so they don't have to spend a century and a half with belching smokestacks glowering over grimy cities the way the first industrialised nations did.

My only problem with this is that, in a government notable for its blunt, healthy disdain for the transnational pieties, Australia's Environment Minister seems to have been spending way too much time snorting the ol' CO2 at the eco-lobby parties. As Matt Price reported in these pages last year:

"Emerging from a bushwalk through the Tarkine forest in northwest Tasmania, Environment Minister Ian Campbell told The Australian that argument about the causes and impact of global warming had effectively ended: 'I think the Australian Government owes it to the public to tell it like it is."'

Oh, dear. By "telling it like it is", he means telling it like we've been told for the past 30 years: "Australia and other industrialised nations need to take urgent action to avert environmental disaster."

Really? You know, I don't like to complain but maybe that Tarkine forest is part of the problem. Here's a headline from the National Post of Canada last Friday: "Forests may contribute to global warming: study." This was at Stanford University. They developed a model that covered most of the Northern Hemisphere in forest and found that global temperature increased three degrees, which is several times more than the alleged CO2 emissions. Heat-wise, a forest is like a woman in a black burka in the middle of the Iraqi desert. In my state of New Hampshire, we've got far more forest than we did a century or two ago. Could reforestation be causing more global warming than my 700m-per-litre Chevrolet Resource-Depleter? Clearly I need several million dollars to investigate further.

I said above that any day the Kyotophiles will be citing lack of climate change as evidence of climate change. But, in essence, that's what they've been doing for years. For example, just before Christmas, Rutgers University put out a press release headed "Global Warming Doubles Rate of Ocean Rise".

Whoa, sell that beachfront property now! If things keep up like this, Sydney's excitable "youths" will be having to rampage in diving suits. But hang on, what exactly do they mean by the "rate" "doubling"? Kenneth Miller claims to have proved that from 5000 years ago to about 200 years ago the global ocean rise was about 1mm a year.

But since 1850 it's been rising at 2mm a year. In other words, it doubled sometime in the early 19th century and has stayed the same ever since, apparently impervious to the industrialisation of Europe, China, India and much of the rest of Asia, as well as to the invention of the automobile, the aerosol deodorant and the private jet Barbra Streisand used when she flew in to Washington to discuss global warming with president Clinton. Yet nobody thought to headline the story "Rate of ocean rise unchanged for over a century and a half".

If the present rate continues, the Maldives will be under water by 2500. Of course, by then, if the present rate of demographic decline continues, most of Russia and Europe will be empty, and we could resettle the 350,000 residents of the Maldives on the Riviera.

Or we could cripple the global economy now.

One day, the world will marvel at the environmental hysteria of our time, and the deeply damaging corruption of science in the cause of an alarmist cult. The best thing this week's conference could do is inculcate a certain modesty, not least in Senator Ian Campbell, about an issue that is almost entirely speculative. We don't know how or why climate changes. We do know it's changed dramatically throughout the planet's history, including the so-called "little Ice Age" beginning in 600, when I was still driving a Ford Oxcart, and that, by comparison, the industrial age has been a time of relative climate stability. But, of course, as with that "hockey stick", it depends how you draw the graph.

Question: Why do most global warming advocates begin their scare statistics with "since 1970"?

As in, "since 1970" there's been global surface warming of half a degree or so.

Because from 1940 to 1970, temperatures fell.

Now why would that be?

Who knows? Maybe it was Hitler. Maybe world wars are good for the planet.

Or maybe we should all take a deep breath of CO2 and calm down.

Mark Steyn, a columnist with the Telegraph Group, is a regular contributor to The Australian's opinion page.