http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/273Conservative climate change cave-ins continue Now is the time to listen to climate scientists, not activists By Tom Harris Thursday, October 18, 2007
Listening to the Speech from the Throne Tuesday, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Conservatives were copying Stephane Dion’s leadership campaign tactics of 13 months ago. In Dion’s case, he took his climate change phraseology essentially verbatim from a David Suzuki report. In the case of the Harper government, they appear to have lifted most of their assertions from a wider selection of environmental groups, but the messages are equally unfounded nonethe-less.
First, the government tells us that “Threats to our environment are a clear and present danger that now confronts governments around the world.”
“Clear and present danger” is a popular phrase used by environmental activists when speaking about climate change, Al Gore-trained Desiree McGraw of Montreal and Ralph Torrie, whose company produces greenhouse gas emissions software, being typical examples.
The most significant “clear and present danger” is widespread public ignorance of basic climate science, a problem that provides fertile ground for the unfounded eco-salvationism of opportunistic politicians and activists driving today’s agenda.
Next we are told that “This is nowhere more evident than in the growing challenge of climate change.”
The church/environmental group, Kairos, likes that one, as do many alarmists. Climate change is not a growing challenge; it is a shrinking one. As the Earth has warmed slightly in the past century, the ‘challenge’ to society is considerably less than it was during previous cold periods.
“Our Government believes that action is needed now to ensure our quality of life, particularly for those most vulnerable to health threats from the environmen--our children and seniors.”
‘Save the children and the elderly’, is a popular but misleading phrase used often by environmentalists. Neither children nor seniors are threatened by global warming. They may be threatened by funding diversions from social programmes to any “action” to avert a supposed ‘climate crisis’. And they definitely would be threatened by global cooling, something the government steadfastly refuses to plan for in their zeal to appear politically correct.
“Climate change is a global issue and requires a global solution.”
This is a nonsense line repeated often--there is no “global solution” to climate change aside from adaptation.
“Our Government believes strongly that an effective global approach to greenhouse gas emissions must have binding targets that apply to all major emitters, including Canada.”
“Greenhouse gas emissions” sounds dangerous but, in Canada and most of the developed world, it is essentially code for carbon dioxide, a benign gas the restriction of which is entirely unnecessary.
“Canada has already engaged the international community at APEC, the G8 and the United Nations and will continue to press for a new international agreement that cuts global emissions in half by 2050.”
APEC’s approach is not as bad as the UN’s (i.e. the Kyoto Protocol), much as hitting oneself in the head with a stick is not as bad as using a lead pipe, but both are based on the false premise that we need to clobber ourselves with CO2 emissions restrictions. Cutting global emissions by 50% would require global energy rationing on a scale never before seen, a ticket to mass starvation. That the government would even suggest such a strategy is wholly irresponsible.
“Our Government will implement our national strategy to reduce Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions 60 to 70 percent by 2050. There will be a 20 percent reduction by 2020.”
Like Jean Chretien’s original endorsement of Kyoto and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s 2002 promise to close all the province’s coal stations by 2007 (an impossible and dangerous objective), the Harper government is simply pandering to the green vote by setting such targets. The government knows this will not happen.
“This strategy will institute binding national regulations on greenhouse gas emissions across all major industrial sectors--with requirements for emissions reductions starting this year.”
Such a plan, carried out at levels even remotely close to those demanded by environmentalists, could only be done at a cost of tens of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Such a sell-out to political correctness would ultimately be the government’s undoing.
“Our Government will also establish a carbon emissions trading market that will give business the incentive to run cleaner, greener operations.”
This is intentionally confusing carbon emissions (namely CO2) with pollution. A carbon dioxide emissions trading market would undoubtedly make some companies and market traders rich but would do nothing to help the environment.
“Canada’s emissions cannot be brought to the level required under the Kyoto Protocol within the compliance period...”
Finally, the government says something real about the issue, devoid of rhetorical spin. The solution to the problem of non-compliance is obvious--rather than breaking international law by violating the terms of a treaty Chretien made the mistake of ratifying on our behalf, Canada must simply withdraw from the protocol. Article 27 of Kyoto states, “At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal...”
Instead of looking to replace Kyoto with alternative carbon dioxide reduction schemes, government must acknowledge that climate science is still an immature field in which our major discoveries lie ahead of us. In April 2006, 61 climate experts wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Harper requesting open, unbiased hearings into the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada--Harper ignored them. As the scientists said in their letter, “When the public comes to understand that there is no “consensus” among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy… We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue.”
With this week’s official rejection of Kyoto, now’s the time for the government to finally listen to real experts instead of the untrained environmentalists who have dominated the debate so far. Convening open, honest science hearings would be a start towards rectifying the mess left by the Liberals and initiated by Brian Mulroney at the Rio conference in 1992. Indeed, this may very well be Harper’s last chance to get Canada off the costly and useless fixation on ‘stopping climate change’, one which he used to vehemently oppose, but now appears to have acquiesced to as inevitable. It is not.
Topic: Now is the time to listen to climate scientists, not activists (Read 1187 times)