Media's hot air on Kyoto
Conservatives get killed for inaction on global warming ... the Liberals got a pass
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
I've been doing some research into global warming and the Kyoto accord and boy, have I found some interesting stuff that the Liberal Party of Canada and its media shills don't like to talk about.
Ready? Here we go. Remember that big Kyoto conference held in Montreal last December, the one hosted by then Liberal environment minister, now Liberal leader, Stephane Dion?
Remember how the Liberals and their media shills breathlessly told us when it ended how Dion had provided the leadership that helped hold the conference together when it was in danger of falling apart, before emerging with a series of new Kyoto deals that some environmentalists proclaimed just might save the planet?
Dion's website (stephane dion.ca) boasts that "at the follow-up to the Kyoto Conference on Climate Change in Montreal in December 2005, he won international agreement to extend the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012."
Right. Well, here's a more realistic assessment of what actually went on in Montreal, written by Kyoto expert Robert Henson in his new book, The Rough Guide to Climate Change, The Symptoms, The Science, The Solutions.
Henson, no global warming sceptic -- his book has been praised as "superb ... even-handed and accessible" by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change -- assesses that meeting in this way:
"In the end, the diplomats managed to eke out an agreement for a two-year round of non-binding talks under the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) that 'will not open any negotiations leading to new commitments' (as the official wording says) but could set the stage for future talks. In this light, it's not at all certain that Kyoto-like targets will prevail after 2012."
Gee. Guess Dion and Co. didn't save the world, eh?
And Canada's record on greenhouse gas emissions -- mainly carbon dioxide and methane, identified as the key culprits in global warming -- during all those Liberal governments from 1993 to 2005?
Well, if you're a supporter of Kyoto, terrible. Just terrible.
While the Liberals signed the Kyoto accord in 1998 and ratified it in 2002, not only did our emissions go up by 24.2% compared to 13.3% for the U.S. from 1990 to 2003 -- which the media did report -- but that left us with the sixth worst record among the world's key industrialized nations.
The "evil" U.S., which never ratified Kyoto, finished five places better than we did.
And while the U.S. is the world's biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (20.6% in 2000, compared to our 2.1% , which put us in ninth place) when you break the numbers down on a comparative basis, we, uh, stink.
Based on emissions per capita in 2000, we were the seventh-worst offender, at 6.3 tonnes of carbon equivalent per person, barely one place better than the U.S., at 6.8.
On the basis of carbon intensity, we were the 10th worst offender at 172 tonnes of carbon emitted per million dollars in GDP, one position worse than the U.S., at 162.
Indeed, you have to wonder what former Liberal PM Paul Martin was smoking when he raced to that Montreal conference last year during the federal election and scolded the U.S. for lacking a "global conscience" on climate change.
Now, remember, we have a Conservative government that has been in power for less than a year. So think back.
How many critical stories and columns do you recall seeing over the last two months in our media, ever since Environment Minister Rona Ambrose released the Tories' proposed Clean Air Act, their response to Kyoto, global warming and other environmental issues? Recall, as well, the unrelentingly dismissive and contemptuous tone of most of that criticism.
Any criticism?
Now, how many critical media stories and columns do you recall, and how many of them were equally dismissive and contemptuous of the Liberals and their record over the previous 12 years that they were in power, while doing almost nothing to control greenhouse gases?
Welcome, again, to liberal (and Liberal) media bias.
Conservatives get killed for inaction on global warming ... the Liberals got a pass
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
I've been doing some research into global warming and the Kyoto accord and boy, have I found some interesting stuff that the Liberal Party of Canada and its media shills don't like to talk about.
Ready? Here we go. Remember that big Kyoto conference held in Montreal last December, the one hosted by then Liberal environment minister, now Liberal leader, Stephane Dion?
Remember how the Liberals and their media shills breathlessly told us when it ended how Dion had provided the leadership that helped hold the conference together when it was in danger of falling apart, before emerging with a series of new Kyoto deals that some environmentalists proclaimed just might save the planet?
Dion's website (stephane dion.ca) boasts that "at the follow-up to the Kyoto Conference on Climate Change in Montreal in December 2005, he won international agreement to extend the Kyoto protocol beyond 2012."
Right. Well, here's a more realistic assessment of what actually went on in Montreal, written by Kyoto expert Robert Henson in his new book, The Rough Guide to Climate Change, The Symptoms, The Science, The Solutions.
Henson, no global warming sceptic -- his book has been praised as "superb ... even-handed and accessible" by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change -- assesses that meeting in this way:
"In the end, the diplomats managed to eke out an agreement for a two-year round of non-binding talks under the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) that 'will not open any negotiations leading to new commitments' (as the official wording says) but could set the stage for future talks. In this light, it's not at all certain that Kyoto-like targets will prevail after 2012."
Gee. Guess Dion and Co. didn't save the world, eh?
And Canada's record on greenhouse gas emissions -- mainly carbon dioxide and methane, identified as the key culprits in global warming -- during all those Liberal governments from 1993 to 2005?
Well, if you're a supporter of Kyoto, terrible. Just terrible.
While the Liberals signed the Kyoto accord in 1998 and ratified it in 2002, not only did our emissions go up by 24.2% compared to 13.3% for the U.S. from 1990 to 2003 -- which the media did report -- but that left us with the sixth worst record among the world's key industrialized nations.
The "evil" U.S., which never ratified Kyoto, finished five places better than we did.
And while the U.S. is the world's biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (20.6% in 2000, compared to our 2.1% , which put us in ninth place) when you break the numbers down on a comparative basis, we, uh, stink.
Based on emissions per capita in 2000, we were the seventh-worst offender, at 6.3 tonnes of carbon equivalent per person, barely one place better than the U.S., at 6.8.
On the basis of carbon intensity, we were the 10th worst offender at 172 tonnes of carbon emitted per million dollars in GDP, one position worse than the U.S., at 162.
Indeed, you have to wonder what former Liberal PM Paul Martin was smoking when he raced to that Montreal conference last year during the federal election and scolded the U.S. for lacking a "global conscience" on climate change.
Now, remember, we have a Conservative government that has been in power for less than a year. So think back.
How many critical stories and columns do you recall seeing over the last two months in our media, ever since Environment Minister Rona Ambrose released the Tories' proposed Clean Air Act, their response to Kyoto, global warming and other environmental issues? Recall, as well, the unrelentingly dismissive and contemptuous tone of most of that criticism.
Any criticism?
Now, how many critical media stories and columns do you recall, and how many of them were equally dismissive and contemptuous of the Liberals and their record over the previous 12 years that they were in power, while doing almost nothing to control greenhouse gases?
Welcome, again, to liberal (and Liberal) media bias.
Comment