Ignatieff and Kyoto

via Warren.

Here's a comment on Kyoto that Iggy made just around the corner from me...

On the environment, he said the Liberal party should push environmental policies beyond the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. Ignatieff said he supports the protocol but it has become a problem for Liberals.

"I think our party has got into a mess on the environment," he said. "As a practical matter of politics, nobody knows what (Kyoto) is or what it commits us to."

He said the Conservatives are having a field day with the record of protocol targets missed by the previous Liberal government.

"We [the Liberal Party] think Kyoto has been an asset for us. It's actually been a huge political liability."

He's partly right on his last point... Kyoto IS a liability, but not for the same reasons you think Iggy. I've been saying that for a while now. With I partially agree with some of his conclusions, I disagree on his initial position.

Kyoto, as has always been my opinion, is more of a liability than a benefit to us, OR THE WORLD for that matter. I'll have to look for the link, but another blogger I read yesterday (UPDATE: it was Xavier R. Dubé) made some really good points that concur with my accusations that Kyoto is about wealth re-distribution, NOT actually reducing greenhouse gases.

A commenter replied to my "Rona shouldn't resign" post the other week that he supports the idea that we should be paying to assist third world nations reduce their greenhouse gases. But Xavier pointed out that most of those nations ALREADY HAVE VERY LOW EMISSIONS, so reducing further them takes little effort on their part. Those nations are then free to trade their extra emission credits to the polluters of the first world... AT A PRICE.

Our government is right, I think, to pull out of Kyoto altogether. We have NO PLAN, and the kind of nation that we have handicaps us RIGHT FROM THE GET GO! We are a HUGE nation, the second largest on earth... our present means of transportation kills our chances for emission reductions. Since the 1990's, the target date from which we're to reduce our emissions, we've significantly increased the number of vehicles on our roads. Also, we're a COLD WEATHER nation... we have to generate massive amounts of heat each winter, which again kills us. Sure, our industry could seek to reduce emissions, and I'm all for that... but a "made in Canada" solution could tackle that.

Thirdly, the Kyoto Protocol itself points out that there are huge amounts of emissions from NATURALLY OCCURING "SINKS", which are calculated out of each countries emissions totals so as to reflect an accurate total of man-made emissions. How much greenhouse gases is our planet naturally emitting? Can anyone point me to a good reference for this data? (Speaking of which, have you heard the any of the Kyoto supporters discuss that fact? I know I haven't, and I'd like to know that information, so if anyone knows, I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction) What percentage of the total emissions is man-made? If it turns out to be a mere 10%, then WHAT GOOD WILL OUR TOKEN EMISSION REDUCTIONS DO? And if that's the case, other than providing employment to the environmental lobby, what's the point of Kyoto?

Iggy also pointed this out... "As a practical matter of politics, nobody knows what (Kyoto) is or what it commits us to." The details of how enforcement will work STILL AREN'T SET YET... what if they come back and say it will cost $10 million dollars for every percent that we're over our target by? WE'D BE SCREWED! Better to pull out NOW, when we KNOW we don't have a chance of meeting our targets, than remain and get nailed by yet to be determined punishments!

And I really (genuinely!) appreciate his honesty here... "We [the Liberal Party] think Kyoto has been an asset for us. It's actually been a huge political liability."

Kyoto itself is a liability Iggy, but not just politically for your party.


ps to commenters - this post is NOT meant to be "anti-Liberal" or "anti-Iggy", I'm just pointing out the comments that Iggy made that raised some more questions in my head. Just trying to raise some legit Kyoto questions, not trying to attack the Liberals... today... ;-)

UPDATE: Thanks for your help Xavier, I went looking for your post, but didn't have a clue who it was, and I'd likely have never found the article again.