UN is holding climate talks in South Africa to attempt to craft a treat to take over after the Kyoto protocol is finished.Actually, the Kyoto protocol has been finished for a long time, but the politicians have refused to admit it. Kyoto protocol, one of Bill Clinton’s signature 'achievements', encouraged nations to reduce anthropogenic pollution, especially CO2 emissions. So far, so good.
The Kyoto protocol was ratified in 2005. After nearly decade of discussions, who actually implemented the protocol? Not Canada, they just announced a formal withdrawal, citing the inconvenient truth:
"We are invoking Canada’s legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto,” Peter Kent said outside the House of Commons. ”This decision formalizes what we’ve said since 2006, that we will not implement the Kyoto Protocol.”
Canada signed Kyoto in the late 1990s, but neither the current Conservative government nor their Liberal predecessors met targets. Kent says the move saves Canada $14 billion in penalties for not achieving its Kyoto targets."
It is now clear that Kyoto is not the path forward for a global solution to climate change; instead, it is an impediment.
Here's the bottom line accounting to Canadian accounting:
To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of:
o Either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads.
o Or, closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory and building in Canada.
The cost of not taking this type of radical and irresponsible action?
The loss of thousands of jobs or the transfer of $14 BILLION from Canadian taxpayers to other countries – the equivalent of $1600 from every Canadian family — with no impact on emissions or the environment.
The Canadian government admitted Kyoto is worse than useless and ineffective mechanism to control pollution, and merely results in vast transfers of wealth. They called implementing Kyoto "a radical and irresponsible action' (my emphasis).
In addition to the political costs, the science is junk. Here are four reasons:
1. Climategate. Emails from Climate Change researchers have revealed a disturbing amount of data manipulation and collusion. These emails are available online, and known as Climategate I and II, and greatly undermine not merely the scientific foundations, but the very credibility of the process.
2. CO2 irrelevance. Several recent studies have demonstrated that not only is CO2 a very ineffective primary factor, but even as a secondary factor its effects are so small, as to be in the noise level - too small to measure any consistent effect. Specifically, 95% percent of greenhouse effect comes from water vapor, and less than 5% comes from CO2. Small increases in CO2 levels did not lead to excess greenhouse heating (primary effect) or increase in amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (secondary effect). Extremely high levels of CO2 may have a stronger effect, but anthropogenic increases of CO2 are utterly insignificant. The studies suggested a revealing alternative to explain heating and cooling - the activity of the Sun. I see excessive focus on people as a manifestation of the same self-absorption that impelled people to cling to the geocentric view of the world, despite evidence to the contrary. The sun is heating the plant, much more than cars or factories. It was a useful question to ask, but now we know. It's not a politically convenient answer, there's far too much desire to tax people in other countries to accept it.
3. Non-uniformity. China and India are exempt from Kyoto, and its successor was not uniformly applicable either.
4. Non-compliance. Last and most damning piece of evidence, which dispels the fairy tal, is that out of the countries that ratified Kyoto only Lithuania has come close to implementing the requirements of Kyoto. Canadians have now joined Russians and Japanese in officially rejecting Kyoto. Official rejection of Kyoto is not required, however, because the law has no teeth.
Kyoto and its successor are first a foremost a means of taxation across borders. That's why it is a good thing that the UN conference appears likely to disband without saddling the West (unlike 'developing' nations which recently refused to invest in EU) with a successor to the Kyoto protocol.