Classical Values :: Canada's Harper

October 16, 2007

Canada's Harper - Kyoto Is Socialism

Well, well, well. What do you know. The marks are starting to wise up. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Kyoto is socialism all the way. As I have been saying for a while, human caused global warming is Socialist Science. Let me let the Prime Minister tell it like it is.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.

The letter, posted on the federal Liberal party website, was apparently written by Harper in 2002, when he was leader of the now-defunct Canadian Alliance party.

He was writing to party supporters, asking for money as he prepared to fight then-prime minister Jean Chrétien on the proposed Kyoto accord.

"We're gearing up now for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership," Harper's letter says.

"I'm talking about the 'battle of Kyoto' -- our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord."

This is the same reason that the American Senate killed the very idea during the Clinton administration by voting against it 95 to 0.

The Prime Minister goes on:

He writes that it's based on "tentative and contradictory scientific evidence" and it focuses on carbon dioxide, which is "essential to life."

He says Kyoto requires that Canada make significant cuts in emissions, while countries like Russia, India and China face less of a burden.

Under Kyoto, Canada was required to reduce emissions by six per cent by 2012, while economies in transition, like Russia, were allowed to choose different base years. As developing nations, China and India were exempted from binding targets for the first round of reductions.

"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations," Harper's letter reads.

He said the accord would cripple the oil and gas industries, which are essential to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

I'll bet if America adopted it that it would be bad for Texas and Oklahoma too.

So much for history. How about some news.

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government promised Tuesday to get tough with polluters, but it angered opposition parties with a throne speech that reiterated its intent to ignore the country's legally binding targets under the international Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

So how is Europe doing? About as well as Al Gore. They say one thing and do another. Robert Samuelson had this to say in 2005:

Almost a decade ago I suggested that global warming would become a "gushing" source of political hypocrisy. So it has. Politicians and scientists constantly warn of the grim outlook, and the subject is on the agenda of the upcoming Group of Eight summit of world economic leaders. But all this sound and fury is mainly exhibitionism -- politicians pretending they're saving the planet. The truth is that, barring major technological advances, they can't (and won't) do much about global warming. It would be nice if they admitted that, though this seems unlikely.

Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy. Considering Europeans' contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you'd expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto's base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The U.S. increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn't done much better.

Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It's true that Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2 emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).

You know I think Kyoto is dead. I am also of the opinion that after seeing what is going on in the rest of the world any Kyoto like treaty will be no more popular in the Senate than it was the last time. It seems like Al's Nobel signifies what the Peace Prize always has signified. A person whose time has passed.

Let me make it official then. Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore is now officially a has been. He should than the Nobel Commission for the recognition.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 10.16.07 at 10:45 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5678

Comments

I agree that Kyoto has been a massive failure. And that much of Europe, and even Japan, will not be able to meets its obligations.

The Senate was right to not ratify the treaty since it did not include developing nations like China and India. China has now surpassed the US in CO2 emissions.

But I want to reiterate that I don't think that climate science itself is socialist. The solutions like the Kyoto Accord may be, but the science itself is pretty sound. And the fact that conservatives are not inclined to listen to it makes socialist solutions be the ones most likely to be heard and implemented. This reinforces the idea that it's "socialist science".

But I think of promising technologies like Polywell Fusion and I'm much encouraged. We could replace all our fossil and fission power with it, carpeting deserts with solar would be unneeded, and cheap electricity could make EVs more attractive as foreign sources of energy become more and more expensive as the dollar weakens and oil production peaks.

Cervus · October 17, 2007 01:28 AM

Cervus,

If you take a look at Climate Audit it is fairly evident that more than a few Climate "Scientists" are cooking the books. There is in fact no definitive proof that man is affecting climate in any significant way. The global warming we are experiencing may only be temporary as solar scientists are predicting we may be headed for a Little Ice Age due to a decline in solar output. In fact global temperatures have plateaued. This may be a temporary halt or it could be an inflection point before we head into an Ice Age.

And then there is the old saw about the Greens - "Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside".

We are going to naturally progress away from our reliance on mined fuels as science and technology progresses. No need for climate scares with their attendant taxes and draconian regulations and other drastic measures that will cripple our economies and actually slow technological progress. So at least we agree on that point.

M. Simon · October 17, 2007 02:06 AM

I am unconvinced that the issues raised on Climate Audit are systemic through the entire climate science discipline.

Cervus · October 17, 2007 02:45 PM

Cervus,

We won't know until they release all their computer codes and data. The fact that the vast majority of climate scientists in the Hansen camp have not done so is suspicious in and of itself.

If Enron was behaving this way you would be suspicious.

M. Simon · October 17, 2007 03:54 PM