Bad Kanada, Bad!

Remember when Canada used to be one of the good countries (as seen from a German point of view)?

Well now those crazy canucks went and done it and have formally withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change ITSELF, just like that, and just days after that cheesy last-minute el cheapo compromise on climate change in Durban that got German environmentalists over here (and everywhere else) all hot and bothered and globally warmed up and stuff. Sheesh.

And all for the love of money!? Why those no-good-dog-sledding-pill-pushing-maple-smokers. Can you imagine that? Is nothing sacred anymore? Since when has money made the world go around, people? Oh. That long, really? Damn.

So now even the Canadians are acting like, well, Americans. Talk about the wheels falling off your dog and pony show climate change bandwagen.  What does this mean? Where do we not go from here? Like, other than Germany, who’s going to be next?

“Canada’s obligations under Kyoto would cost $13.6bn (10.3bn euros; £8.7bn): “That’s $1,600 from every Canadian family – that’s the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent Liberal government.”

5 responses

  1. Well whether one does or does not believe in the climate change theories the human race has most definitely had a negative impact on the planet earth. Hopefully governments worldwide will continue or begin to try to lessen their impact on the environment via pollution. I will say that I like your take on how you wrote your article many of the other blogs on the environment are like a pack of wolves ready to attack a reply such as mine with blood-lust in their eyes and fingers as they respond from their keyboards.

  2. The sole appeal Canada has to ideological exterminators is that it was seen as some sort of non-evil version of the US. Outside of the fact that they are a far more highly intensive user of fossil fuels than the US, and are a giant exporter of said stuff, every signature they ever put to a green sheet of paper was a huge joke anyway.

    They’d never really go along with it. At least Harper has the decency to not be as big a hypocrite as the Europeans who say that they’ll go along with it.

    And the only reason European governments are so eager to sign whatever they can tub-thump about, is because they knew it was a dead duck, but would sell well at home.

    It’s a huge joke. You can get a picture of the idiocy here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/09/durban-what-the-media-are-not-telling-you/

    “A new global temperature target will aim, Canute-like, to limit “global warming” to as little as 1 C° above pre-industrial levels. Since temperature is already 3 C° above those levels, what is in effect being proposed is a 2 C° cut in today’s temperatures. This would take us halfway back towards the last Ice Age, and would kill hundreds of millions. Colder is far more dangerous than warmer.”

    “The new CO2 concentration target could be as low as 300 ppmv CO2 equivalent (i.e., including all other greenhouse gases as well as CO2 itself). That is a cut of almost half compared with the 560 ppmv CO2 equivalent today. It implies just 210 ppmv of CO2 itself, with 90 ppmv CO2 equivalent from other greenhouse gases. But at 210 ppmv, plants and trees begin to die. CO2 is plant food. They need a lot more of it than 210 ppmv.”

    The other little trick is an old one that gets used over and over: get a whole raft of small, poorish nations to sign on knowing that it will cost them nothing, might get them some wealth transfer, and convince them that it will raise their profiles. It’s a mirror image of UN based “flavor of the week” issue activism.

    In effect, what “Kyoto” asks of Whitey is a yearly sum greater than all economic growth. In other words, the west must permanently contract, impoverish itself, and enrich the rich-in-poor-countries to “save the earth” from non-existent tidal waves.

    Got it? It’s for the children!

  3. “poorish nations to sign on knowing that it will cost them nothing, might get them some wealth transfer, and convince them that it will raise their profiles.”

    I’m not entirely convinced it would cost them nothing. The Copenhagen treaty said that the Green debt money would be used by the UN to build offices and buildings in developing nations so that the green spending could be controlled. These would be UN government offices, being built in their countries. This is a parallel government to me. And the money would have strings attached. I can’t imagine any developing country wanting to agree to a parallel government dictating how things would be done. What is the price of that?

    • Everything the UN does says the UN will build offices and control spending. It’s a boon to the elite in every podunk backwater, and the UN already functions as a parallel government in the semi-functional and dysfuntional states of the world. This is nothing new, it just expands that same gravy train.

      Think of it as “poor people in rich countries ginving money to rich people in poor countries”. It’s as true when people started using that phrase 40 years ago.

  4. You can’t compare us to Americain, just because we are right next to them, BUT you are allowed to compare Harper with Bush, because, it’s all the same lame story. We aren’t deciding for those changes, he does it all by himself without advising the country. Oh yes… he let us know, but after everything is all done… STOP HARPER

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: