But I will grant that this is not common knowledge.
...The single most important part of the protocol is a twist that's seldom mentioned in public: Canada's target is a five-year average, not a goal to reach by the end of the Kyoto period.
"We can't just hit the target once at the end of the period," said economics professor Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph. "If we are 100 megatonnes over in the first year, we have to be 100 megatonnes under the target another year to offset the first year."
Kyoto measures carbon emissions in megatonnes, or millions of tonnes.
Canada's average emissions over Kyoto's full 2008-2012 measuring period must be 26-per-cent below today's level.
I know this because Andrew Coyne mentioned it on the At Issue Panel but it not something that gets talked about very often. People usual quote the 2012 date as the be all and end all not stating that the targets actually start in 2008.
...Politicians are soft-selling Kyoto to Canadians with overly optimistic numbers, glossing over the hard truth that in the coming five years, Canada is legally required to stop using up to half the gas, oil, gasoline and coal it currently uses.
The huge scope of the task has persuaded many veteran climate scientists that Canada has little chance of reaching its targets. But many other countries are in the same position.
Comments (7)
It’s true, but because it comes from McKitrick, it will be dismissed out of hand by the usual suspects. He’s a holoc—- er climate change “denier”, you know.
http://www.takenbystorm.info/
Posted by Alan | April 5, 2007 9:47 AM
Posted on April 5, 2007 09:47
So, I guess it’s time to keep ignoring the whole thing eh? Now, where is my GM catalogue? There was a nice Escalade I saw….
Posted by Greg | April 5, 2007 10:09 AM
Posted on April 5, 2007 10:09
I just had a scarey thought. Remember in WWII when all things were rationed because they were needed for the war effort? Is this whole kyoto thing really just a sneaky way of getting us to ration energy so it can be stockpiled for the coming WWIII? Our entire economy is so energy dependant compared to the 1940s a world war would totally devastate the country and economy to the point we couldn’t even keep going for long. Our refineries are pretty much running at max all the time to keep up to the demands (look what happens with one refinery fire or hurricane) Imagine what a sustained world war would do to the energy supply.
Posted by TJ | April 5, 2007 10:21 AM
Posted on April 5, 2007 10:21
“So, I guess it’s time to keep ignoring the whole thing eh?”
Well, no, unless you’re 5 years old. There are many good reasons not to pollute. It’s just that the Church of Climate Change isn’t one of them and it isn’t in our best interest to retard the economy in a vain effort to get that darn sun to stop being so darn hot. Apparently it’s all or nothing for you. Luddite or jet-setter. In the real world, there is such a thing as a happy medium, at least for those of us who haven’t taken the Cross of Kyoto and set off to joust with the sun.
Posted by Alan | April 5, 2007 10:28 AM
Posted on April 5, 2007 10:28
Alan, it doesn’t come from me. Article 3(7) of The Kyoto Protocol says the total allowable emissions over 2008-2012 is our Kyoto target (94% of 1990 emissions) times 5.
Posted by Ross McKitrick | April 5, 2007 1:39 PM
Posted on April 5, 2007 13:39
Might as well. If the zealots are going to sabotage everything that’s not pure enough, I see no point in wasting any more time.
Posted by lrC | April 5, 2007 2:58 PM
Posted on April 5, 2007 14:58
So, I guess it’s time to keep ignoring the whole thing eh? Now, where is my GM catalogue? There was a nice Escalade I saw
Sure. Other than contributing a little bit to smog if you happen to live in a very large city and you drive it on maybe 5 days a year when there’s a smog alert, you won’t be doing to slightest bit of harm to anything except your pocketbook.
Remember in WWII when all things were rationed because they were needed for the war effort? Is this whole kyoto thing really just a sneaky way of getting us to ration energy so it can be stockpiled for the coming WWIII?
Good observation. Like WWI and WWII, you are the victim of a war ostensibly against some kind of alien enemy (the Kaiser, Nazis, CO2, whatever) but which is actually waged against your freedom and your savings by your own government. “For your own good”, you understand.
People who hate the thought of working in a normal job building and selling normal things to normal people - without coercion - loooove the idea of a good, old-fashioned war. Fighting foreigners, drugs, obesity, CO2, poverty, it really doesn’t matter. Lots of government jobs and government contracts for the connected and the crafty, and you can always demonize your victims by calling them unpatriotic, heartless, greedy, whatever.
Posted by Anonymous | April 5, 2007 7:30 PM
Posted on April 5, 2007 19:30