This China View article gives a simple, compelling argument for why the developed world should, in the short term, carry the lion's share of the responsibility for climate change: first, we created the lion's share of the problem; and second, we have the capacity to do so while letting the developing world pull their populations out of poverty.
It also includes what, for me, was an interesting statistic. The all-time high for greenhouse gas production from industrialized countries occurred way back in 1990, at 18.7 billion tonnes. As of 2005, the second-highest year, we were emitting at an annual rate of 18.2 billion tonnes. That is compelling evidence that while some laggards (Canada) were snivelling about how impossible it would be to address this problem, everybody else seems to have been getting on with the job. While Canada's emissions went UP more than 30 per cent in that period, the rest of the developed world has held the line.
Imagine how well we could be doing if we were ALL actually trying.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
So just in case anyone wasn’t sure, a major study of almost 12,000 scientific papers on global warming between 1991 and 2011 finds less than one per cent disagree that humans are the main cause.
Published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the study led by John Cook, the Australia-based founder of Skeptical Science, confirms the debate about the causes of global warming had all but vanished in the scientific literature by the early 1990s. ...
read more
Comments
'cool' factoid
Interesting that the second most in the developed world (mostly northern hemisphere) since 1990 was 2005, a year when the northern hemisphere was very very warm. Lays waste to the excuse, "Canada is a cold country and therefore needs to use more energy," and I suppose shows that it takes more energy to stay cool than to warm up. But I should probably read the article before I speculate too much. Too late?
What "problem"?
"first, we created the lion's share of the problem[?]; and second, we have the capacity to do so while letting the developing world pull their populations out of poverty."
Okay, explain to me again how the Kyoto Accord is not a socialist wealth redistribution scheme?
Explain to me
how reducing poverty is a bad thing?
At least
Since you acknowledge that the ultimate goal of the Global Warming agenda is socialist wealth redistribution, perhaps you can give me a single example where any socialist scheme has ever successfully reduced poverty, rather than increased it?
Forgot to add
... aside from party-members, that is?
Just to be clear,
I acknowledge no such thing. The goal of reducing poverty around the world is humanitarian, not socialist. Are you telling us that you would cut all humanitarian aid and let the poor go to hell?
Heyo just figured it worth
Heyo just figured it worth pointing out that the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions....who would have thought, that by setting targets to reduce emissions that was the primary goal.....clearly not you it seems, see the post a couple down, which by the way I'll point out that the UK and Germany met their targets, and have no need to buy credits, or face punishments. Well done UK and Germany, you have succeeded in reducing your emissions, the primary goal of what the protocol was designed for.
"Okay, explain to me again
"Okay, explain to me again how the Kyoto Accord is not a socialist wealth redistribution scheme?"
OK, Mr. Harper. That is not true.
If one were to be able to meet the Kyoto GHG-reduction targets, not one penny would have to go to the developing world. This "redistribution" of which you speak is a substitution for a penalty for not meeting the targets. Simple as that.