THE WORLD FROM BERLIN
'Canada Should Be Shunned for Kyoto Ignorance'
Canada is under fire for exiting the Kyoto Protocol just one day after UN climate talks ended with an agreement to extend the treaty. Putting financial interests ahead of environmental commitments is an affront to global climate protection efforts, German papers write on Wednesday.
Conservative daily Die Welt writes:
"Canada has become the first country to leave the Kyoto Protocol, just two days after the end of the world climate conference in South Africa. Japan and Russia want to follow. ... If it stands for anything, Durban means the complete failure of climate-protection measures at the United Nations level."
"The extension of the Kyoto Protocol is being sold as a success in Durban. But the heart of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was the commitment to targeted greenhouse gas reductions for big industrial countries. The 'extension' of the protocol in Durban happened without requiring any new emission limits. Just how much value the protocol extension will have is a question no one can answer … That's why it is no wonder that Canada announced its exit from the Kyoto Protocol shortly after Durban. Japan and Russia also have good reasons for considering this step too. After all, the Kyoto Protocol was an agreement that only imposed responsibilities on industrialized countries. But in light of the rapidly growing importance of the large developing and emerging countries and their emissions, the protocol has been outlived. … Global climate protection may be clinically dead, but the Kyoto Protocol goes on like a zombie."
The center-right daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"The decision made by the Canadian government to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol … represents a victory of reason. It shows that protecting the environment produces costs that, given concern over jobs, not everyone is willing to pay, particularly when important countries refuse to be pressured into joining environmental-protection treaties. The government in Ottawa thus deserves our praise. They have clearly shown that the Kyoto emperor is not wearing any clothes ... Canada has revealed the farce behind the international agreement, which was more of an informal arrangement than a treaty with teeth."
The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:
"The reason for Canada's exit is obvious. The country clearly missed its CO2 targets for the upcoming 2012 tally of the first Kyoto period. Instead of 6 percent reduction, emissions increased by some 30 percent -- a major blow to the country's image. The country would probably be slapped with fines or additional CO2 reductions requirements. The main reason for the debacle lies with Canada's energy policy. The oil industry is making more use of oil sands, which is environmentally costly. The country has also failed to fulfil its CO2 savings potential. Still, Canada wholeheartedly supports the global climate protocol set to begin in 2020. But how serious can this be?"
Left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:
"Canada doesn't want to play by the rules any longer. It's no banana republic, no failed state and no dictatorship in a developing nation. It's an industrial country rich in earnings, natural resources and influence. And one that, despite all this, has undercut the foundation of diplomacy and global trade -- that is, the security that internationally binding treaties are supposed to guarantee."
"It would be a fatal signal to allow Canada to get away with this. Because why should anyone adhere to a treaty when they can agree upon it with fanfare only to simply give up later? Above all it must be the Europeans who defend their basic principles, putting themselves in conflict with a trans-Atlantic partner once again. A ban on dirty Canadian oil from tar sands is one answer, while another could be general punitive tariffs for those who don't take part in climate-protection measures."
The Financial Times Deutschland writes:
 ]]>
"Canada has a reputation as the country of giant forests, clean air, clear lakes and rivers where salmon happily leap -- a unique environmental idyll. The exact opposite is true. The conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, Canada is not only showing disdain for global climate-protection efforts, but is also undermining what to date has been the only binding climate agreement. The affront against all the states and organizations that are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions could hardly be any greater."
Â
"The country should be shunned because of its ignorant stance. Europe and all the other countries that want serious climate-protection measures must put Canada on the spot. … If Canada manages to get away with it without large protests, then all the international climate-protection efforts will be threatened."
"Canada has shown once again just how often countries put their individual economic interests first, and just how casually environmental protection continues to be sacrificed."
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 24
In addition, why should Canada ruin its economy for something that is actually not been proved? No matter what the activist warmegedisnests say. The amount of carbon dioxide that the Canadians had pledged to cut comprises of less than 1% of all man made carbon dioxide in the world in a year and manmade carbon dioxide makes up less than 5% of released CO2 and that 1% is more than enough to cripple their economy. All the Canadians have done is to stop something that would have crippled their economy on the say so of bunch of idiots who are pushing their own agendas onto the rest of us. And let’s face it that 1% has not make the slightest difference at all in the world as the Kyoto Protocol has been in place since 2002 and its not made the slightest difference in the world as greenhouse emissions have gone up while the planet has been cooling so all the Canadians have done is to say enough is enough off this crap.
CERN said that CO2 isnt the cause of global climate changes...its the sun.
SO they left. Because why should they be there? Kyoto has always been a failure because America doesnt implement anything either. Neither does many of the countries.
its a non-binding agreement. PFFFFT.
~M
~M
It has nothing to do with the fact that CO2 is causing global warming. It has everything to do with the fact that the government in Canada is run by far right conservative party Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Funny to see the word "honest" used in relation to anti-science bureaucrats reneging on their commitments because they were going to fail to meet them. Denial makes it easy to avoid taking responsibility.
The World of anarchist warmegedisnests will also find that it’s far harder to bully a country than it is to bully an individual.
What an idiotic statement. And backwards.
In addition, why should Canada ruin its economy for something that is actually not been proved?
Actually, Canada is holding back its own economy by not developing new renewable technologies that would help them become world leaders in the future energy markets. Instead they choose to double down on old technologies while countries like China move into the future.
Oh, and the science is unequivocal that the planet is warming and that human activity such as the massive emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning is the major cause. Denying the science doesn't change the science. It just makes you give even more of a head start to the Chinese.
I'm sorry you are so anti-capitalism that you would help the communist Chinese government outcompete Canada, the US, the UK, and the rest of the western world.
False. They left right after the Durban conference. The fake climategate rehash was just more of the emails stolen 2 years ago and intentionally misrepresented by the fossil fuel-funded denialist industry lobbyists.
CERN said that CO2 isnt the cause of global climate changes...its the sun.
Absolutely false. And you know this to be absolutely false because you have been shown that it is false many times. Which means you intentionally repeat what you know to be false. That says a lot about you.
Another chance to see how your repeated CERN statements are false.
SO they left. Because why should they be there? Kyoto has always been a failure because America doesnt implement anything either. Neither does many of the countries.
So you admit Canada and the USA have failed to meet their own commitments. And you're proud of that? That the far right conservative political wing and their corporate lobbyists have managed to intentionally lie about the science so well that they have achieved their corporate lobbying goals, which is to keep any honest discussion of policy options from occurring? That is your position?
"It has nothing to do with the fact that CO2 is causing global warming"
The fact is, average global temperatures have not risen in over a decade. Just saying "CO2 is causing global warming", does not make it true. Warnming, scientifically speaking, means rising temperatures. There is no rational reason to think the globe is warming it the temperatures are not rising.
You can try to doubletalk that simple truth away all you like, but it will not go away. Warming means rising temps. Honest.
"CERN said that CO2 isnt the cause of global climate changes...its the sun."
That is not really true, though what they have demonstrated through scientific testing, is that a mechanism which would make that true, is quite plausible.
That there is a correlation historically speaking, between increased solar activity (periods of many sun spots and solar flares etc) and general temperature rise, had been known for some time, but that of course does not mean there is an exclusive or dominant "causal" relationship. Naturally there is some effect increased solar radiation reaching the Earth would have, but just how much is hard to pin down, scientifically.
What the recent CERN experiment showed, is that a theory which proposes that not only does solar radiation increase during periods of "active sun", but that the increase in solar activity ALSO means a decrease in cloud formation. That would mean a sort of "double whammy", since naturally, increased cloudiness reduces warming of the surface.
The tests were positive, in the sense that the basic mechanism which would result in the double whammy, by reducing cloudiness during times of high solar activity, was demonstrated to be plausible. A decrease in cosmic radiation reaching the Earth due to high solar activity was known, and now it is known that at least the precursors of actual clouds (minute clusters of water molecules) occur with increased frequency in atmosphere bombarded with cosmic radiation.
Proving that effect definitely leads to less clouds, and therefore accentuates the increased solar radiation warming during high solar activity periods, is very difficult to do, but the implication is certainly clear. And that would explain the apparent high correlation rather nicely. Solar cycles may be the truly dominant factor, with no real competition, so to speak.
Human generated CO2 would still have the tiny effect a small increase in a trace greenhouse gas would logically cause . . but be nothing at all like the "driving" force behind any climate change in reality-land. No runaway anything, maybe half a degree difference . . As you said pfft ; )
Your statement is absolutely and unequivocally false. As has been shown many times. The average global temperature, in fact, has continued to rise. No amount of you denying that fact changes it as a fact.
Feel free to provide valid data to support your position. Be sure to tell us what blog it came from and the qualifications of the person saying it. But you won't. You'll simply quote a WSJ Op-Ed by a lobbyist lawyer who is paid by the fossil fuel lobby to keep any honest discussion of policy that might impact their profit margin.
Just saying "CO2 is causing global warming", does not make it true.
Of course not. The vast amounts of empirical evidence and experimentation, the laws of physics, and tens of thousands of measurements and studies make it true.
You simply declare that none of those data exist. That is the definition of denial.
Warnming, scientifically speaking, means rising temperatures.
Duh. And the temperatures are rising. Which you know because this has been explained many many times to you personally. You simple ignore the facts because you don't want to take responsibility for them. But your fear of "authority" (i.e., experts who know what they are talking about and have published tens of thousands of studies for all to see) doesn't make the science go away.
There is no rational reason to think the globe is warming it the temperatures are not rising.
You're a bit of a broken record here. But no matter how many times and how many ways you say the planet's temperature isn't rising, you are still wrong.
Even the denialist "skeptic" scientists agree that the planet is still warming.
So, again, feel free to present your data to the contrary, along with the blog you got it from and the qualifications of the person who is claiming what has been proven many times to be false.
You can try to doubletalk that simple truth away all you like, but it will not go away.
I don't doubletalk anything, as my history on this venue demonstrates. And I wouldn't want the truth to go away. Because the truth is that the planet continues to warm.
By the way, the whole "it isn't warming" charade is designed to distract from two absolute facts: 1) it is warming, and 2) you are trying to ignore more than 100 years of data. Both of which unequivocally demonstrate that the planet is warming.
Warming means rising temps.
Absolutely. And the temperatures continue to rise.
Honest.
Honest. The temperatures continue to rise. The planet continues to warm.
If it was, then you would be able to demonstrate that it was, by showing some sort of evidence that global temperatures have risen over the last ten years, one would naturally think. Not just some obscure yimmer yammer, but actual plain English statements from peer reviewed scientific papers that clearly say temperatures continued to rise.
(I won't be holding my breath, so to speak ; )
I've done it a million times. As just one example (follow the link):
NASA: "The last decade has seen global temperatures rise to the highest levels ever recorded."
And as I've said repeatedly, it is simply idiotic to say things like "over the last ten years" as if it didn't just demonstrate how ignorant you are of the science.
(I won't be holding my breath, so to speak ; )
Don't you think that's more than a little childish?
Okay, your turn. For once please present any source that demonstrates the planet has not warmed. Go ahead. I need a laugh.
(Note how David pulls a switcheroo, from the last twelve years or so (is), to the last hundred years (was).
I didn't "pull a switcheroo" (seriously, are you like in 2nd grade).
Fact: The planet has been warming. According to the NASA chart already presented: "Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, the surface temperature of our planet has increased since 1880."
Fact: The planet has been warming during the last 10 years. On the linked chart, hover your cursor over the circle at the 2010 temperature point. Note that despite a massive La Nina and the unusually long period of low solar activity, 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record. Not only that, the decade just ended was the hottest decade on record.
Fact: Want more? Then pick any of these NASA graphs. All show warming over the last century AND over the last decade.
There are, of course, many other groups that have measured temperature and every single one of them shows warming continues over the last decade.
The warming has stopped, for about twelve years now. That's what the UN/IPCC clan and it's followers do not want you to realize, I say. So they speak in double-talk about "warming" that does not include actual rising temperatures. Pretend warming ; )
There is no other explanation for your inability to grasp this simple concept other than willful ignorance.
But hey, go ahead, present ANY data that shows the planet has not been warming.
How many you figure been recorded, David? No one was recording them in the last warm period. That's hype, obviously. And that ain't NASA talking, it;s one small division, headed by a devout global warming fanatic . .
Meanwhile, you gleefully extol the falsehoods presented in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece written by a non-scientist lawyer employed by the biggest non-science fossil fuel-funded corporate lobbyist organization in America.
Do you not realize that everyone can see how idiotic and intellectually dishonest that is?
You lie.
False. Read the comments.
You embarrass yourself.
CO2 makes up a tiny portion of the atmosphere. Currently about 4%, of 1%, of the air is CO2, up from about 3%, of 1% of the atmosphere in preindustrial times. Further, when global temps rise, CO2 rises naturally, so, a tiny increase in CO2 levels would happen anyway, since temps are slightly higher now.
Global average temperatures have not risen in well over decade, despite CO2 emissions from humans being at an all time high currently, and despite all the additional CO2 humans have ever generated. The theory that human generated CO2 is "driving" significant global warming, remains highly speculative at best, not "settled science".
The IPCC computer modelers have known for years that the chief leading indicator their models predicted would happen if the theory is correct (significant warming of the part of the upper atmosphere called the troposphere) has not materialized. Here is an e-mail from the recent release ("Climategate 2") which makes it quite clear they have known for years that the bulk of the scientific evidence does not show the critical rise in temps of the troposphere, which their models of runaway global warming require, to have any real bearing on the actual threat posed by that minuscule component of the atmosphere;
~
#1939 Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]
~
They know, and have known for years that the models this whole "crisis" is based on, are junk science basically. For years. When you champion that cause, you are championing a fraud, I say.
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]
Once again you lap up the intentionally false reinterpretations of out of context emails duly served up by your authority figures (aka, fossil fuel-funded denialist lobbyists).
Here's an actual explanation from someone who bothered to find out the facts.
Note: (Stolen email snippets in italics – PS) [Followed by explanation]
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.â€
• Peter Thorne, research scientist, Met Office Hadley Centre, to Phil Jones, UEA, 4 February 2005 (email 1939)
Thorne’s email repeatedly criticises the then-current draft of a report for the US Climate Change Science Programme (CCSP, now the Global Change Research Program) for over-simplifying or even dismissing the uncertainty about temperature rises in the atmosphere. This reflects badly on the authors, but also demonstrates that there are climate scientists who are critical of ignoring contradictory evidence and are not afraid to speak their minds. As urged by Thorne, the final report said: “The new evidence in this Report – model-to-model consistency of amplification results, the large uncertainties in observed tropospheric temperature trends, and independent physical evidence supporting substantial tropospheric warming (such as the increasing height of the tropopause) – favors the second explanation. However, the large observational uncertainties that currently exist make it difficult to determine whether or not models still have significant errors. Resolution of this issue requires reducing these uncertainties.â€
It's called peer review. Scientists critique the work of other scientists. Happens all the time. It helps to have other knowledgeable people look for inconsistencies, errors, and areas in need of greater explanation. And lo and behold, the final report incorporated those critiques.
On the other hand, amateur denialists lap up the falsehoods, distortions and outright fabrications handed to them by the denialist industry lobbyists, without questioning the obvious fallacies and illogic of the information presented.
Which is why amateur denialists look so silly. And the professional denialist lobby laughs at the amateurs all the way to the bank.
"However, the large observational uncertainties that currently exist make it difficult to determine whether or not models still have significant errors. Resolution of this issue requires reducing these uncertainties."
Not "settled science", as was being claimed. Not. They lied about that, and continue to lie when they say it. Just lies.
You can't possibly be this ignorant. Willfully ignorant.
Oh boy, the arrogant bully boy routine . . Woe is me ; )
What a childish cop out.
I provided factual information to counter the dishonest intentional dis-interpretation of the stolen email you cite, and you simply declare that truth is false and false is truth.
The science unequivocally demonstrates that the planet is warming. You simply deny it.
You've been given dozens of opportunities to present any source you want to support your false contention that the planet hasn't been warming. You have failed to even try.
Scientists have provided voluminous empirical data from tens of thousands of studies from thousands of scientists from all over the world over many decades based on well-established basic physics.
You provide nothing but uninformed declarations that reality isn't real because you don't want it to be.
Science: The planet is warming. Here are the vast empirical data.
John Knight: "It's all a plot by THE AUTHORITY to take away my freedoms! Elvis is Alive, I tell you! 9/11 was an inside job!! You're bullying me by proving that nothing I say is true!"
You are free to be willfully ignorant. Just don't expect everyone else to pander to your insecurities.