For Canada (with the GHG emissions some 25% above the 1990 levels as of 2005,) that means 41 to 55 percent emission cut in 12 years. Considering that by 2020, Canada's population will be at ~37 million (compared to ~27 million in 1990), that would require much higher reduction per capita. But even if all that is achieved, the results won't be as impressive as the earth-worshipers think.
Let's not forget - Canada's contribution is only 2%. Thus, a 41 to 55% cut would only represent a 0.8 to 1.1% reduction in global GHG emissions. Even if the climate change was truly man-made, that would hardly make any difference. (Especially if at least one of the major pollutants that's been left out increases its GHG emissions.) However, the main cause for the all the weather deviations we get is the Sun.
(CNSNews.com) - According to a new study on global warming, climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia found that the climate change models based on human influence do not match observed warming.Thus, instead of driving Canada into a recession, striving to slash per capita emissions by about 2/3 by 2020, John Baird should have drafted a plan to reduce air pollution; encourage green technologies and work out a strategy to make an average small-town household less dependent on cars. At the very least the government could do more to strengthen traditional families, so there wouldn't be that many single-adult households. Instead however the eco-crooks demand that we overtax our industries (as if the high Canadian dollar wasn't enough) and waste tens of billions on phony "carbon offsets" that won't make the air any cleaner.
"Our findings basically are that fingerprints - that is to say the pattern of warming - that's predicted by greenhouse models does not match the fingerprints of observations, so there is a disconnect between greenhouse models and the actual reality of observations," Singer told Cybercast News Service.
"This means that the greenhouse effect - while real - is not very important in producing climate change," he said. "It's a lot smaller than what the models calculate."
Now here's my problem with this approach. For the poor, the amount of energy they use is minimal. Side effect of being poor. They don't have much to do that is energy-intensive, like drive twenty minutes on the highway to get to a job. The rich, on the other hand, can pay the tax (let's put aside criticisms that many of these offsets are bogus and just take them at face value), and can continue to consume energy at whatever rate they please.It's so tempting to link Kyoto to some sort of Orwellian conspiracy to keep people busy and oppressed (except that instead of a permanent war with Eurasia and Ostasia, there's fight against global warming). But I guess the explanation is much simpler. Some guys are going to make plenty of money on carbon offsets and other scams alike. At the expense of our tax funds and our jobs.
The vast majority of the people in the middle -- the vast majority who all own TVs and drive cars to work and live in detached homes with central air conditioning -- those people have to choose as well in this carbon neutral world. But they don't really have a choice, do they? If they were so wealthy that they could pay the 20% or more surcharge to buy offsets, then they wouldn't be middle class. On the other hand, what can they reduce? Refuse to take jobs that can't be reached by bus, only live in multi-family apartment units, make do without air conditioning -- sounds like a major move down the social ladder.