Canada's Kyoto treaty withdrawal: "Our grandchildren will condemn us"
Canada gets two thumbs down for its inaction -- and bad action.
Environmentalists and climate experts expressed anger and deep disappointment yesterday with the results of the Durban talks -- and Canada's role in them.
Canada fiddles while planet burns
“Having seen the truly terrifying scope and speed of climate change in the Arctic, I regard any delay in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as irresponsible and inexcusable,” Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics at the University of B.C., told the Vancouver Observer.
“There is no reason to celebrate. It was a lowest-common denominator consensus, with Canada being at the very bottom of the ‘lowest’ camp. In a decade or two, our children and grandchildren will condemn us for this."
Throughout the climate talks, Canada was called out by the international community for its inaction.
Environment Minister Peter Kent said in his final statement that the government was “cautiously optimistic” about reaching a new agreement by 2015, reiterating his dismissal of the Kyoto Protocol and claiming it was neither effective nor in Canada’s best interests.
And Monday, in a move predicted for weeks, Kent announced Canada’s formal withdrawal from the Kyoto accord. For many Canadian delegates who attended the conference, the government’s position – reinforced by this afternoon’s announcement – has been seen as both a source of embarrassment and a call to action.
“It’s an extremely disappointing confirmation of something we saw coming,” said Hannah McKinnon, Campaigns Director for Climate Action Network Canada.
“This truly is a slap in the face to the international community. Canada is the first country to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. It’s a huge abdication of our international responsibility.”
Speaking to the Vancouver Observer from South Africa, McKinnon expressed her sadness at the news of Canada’s withdrawal. She explained that the conference in Durban had identified a coalition of countries who did recognize the urgency of the problem, but said that given the circumstances, it’s impossible for them to wait for countries like Canada to catch up.
“I think the world realized in Durban that they were going to have to leave Canada behind when it came to taking action on climate change, in the face of one of the most urgent crises that humanity has ever faced,” she said.
Members of the Canadian Youth Delegation, who were kicked out of proceedings last week when they stood and turned their backs on Kent, said that global leaders at the conference – not just from Canada – did little more than “lay a road map to devastation”.
"We are deeply disappointed by the end results of these negotiations," said youth delegate Crystel Hajjar.
"It is true the Kyoto Protocol survived, but we really need to question its effectiveness now that it only covers 15 per cent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions."
In an email to the Vancouver Observer, Hajjar criticized the refusal by major emitters like Canada to commit to reductions, which leaves a smaller group of dedicated signatories like the European Union see it through.
But it isn't just Canada taking the blame for a lack of action. While some see Kyoto's survival as a small success, others hold all global leaders accountable for failing to come to any real conclusions.
“This irresponsibly low ambition does nothing to solve to the climate crisis, simply delaying decisions onto time borrowed from our generation,” said national director Cameron Fenton in the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition’s final statement on negotiations.
- 1
- |
- 2
- next ›
- last page »
This is great news. The global warming eco-wacko's need to be headed off before they can cause too much damage. The recent talks in Africa supposedly ended with agreements to make legally binding rules and such. That is really a load of carp.
Before we go and obligate ourselves to sending billions, even trilliions, of dollars to other countries we need to know three things:
1 - Is there even a problem? 20 years ago the big worry was an ice age. Now it is global warming. Lately temps have been getting cooler or going flat. What we probably have is multi-decade cycles, not a long term trend in a single direction. No billions should be spent until this step is proven to be fact.
2 - If they actually prove that there is a problem, next they have to prove that man, and CO2 levels produced by man, have anything to do with it. CO2 is a trace gas. Man's effect on that trace amount is minute. If there really is something going on it is more likely a solar issue or a geological issue, neither of which would be man's fault and niether of which would benefit from redistribution of wealth.
3 - If they prove the first two things, then they really need to show that their solution has any chance at all of making a difference. What they have come up with, take our money and send it to Africa, would not do that at all. Their solution is totally inefficent, very ineffective, and outragously expensive. If you compare the cost of their solution to the cost of a few hurricanes, those hurricanes will seem like gentle breezes.
There is no way we should even consider going down the road to Kyoto or Durban.
dragos111, a representative of Barrick Gold Corp. it's understanble his happyness. Barrick Gold is killing my people in my country. Thank you politicians and supporters, and F*CK YOU CANADA AND YOUR QUEEN!
Dragos you fucking troll! We will all die because of airheads like you. You're the nutbar who claims the house is alright when it's burning down. Go travel sometime, see the pollution in China, see what our pollution is doing to Africa. Goddamn tool. I wish they could just ship people like you off to space so you can wreck a new planet and let people like us try to fix the damage on earth. You go ahead and wear your gas mask in the future, you deserve it. I actually want to breathe clean air and let my kids drink water.
Thank you for your well-thought-out input, (knuckle)dragos111.
Where do we start?
1. The Global Cooling theory was a product of the 70s, not the 90s, but I'm someone such as yourself has little interest in getting the facts straight. Then you go to say that "temps have been getting cooler or going flat" even though everyone by now knows that global warming doesn't literally mean the planet is constantly getting warmer. You even allude to this with your hurricane comment in point 3.
2. The fact that CO2 is a present in trace amounts in the atmosphere means that proportionally human-produced CO2 makes more of a difference.
3. Let's wait until it's too late then decide not to do anything because we're just going to die anyway?
Even the oil and gas people admit that climate change is happening; I guess internet article comment trolls will be the last to come around?
We Swedes intuitively like Canada. It hurts when Canda supports China and US in their blind actions to neclect the world biggest and most important issue. This morining swedish people are sending messages to another to initiate a boycott or just reduce buying Canadian ggods. The cost of pulling out from the treaty should be high. The Canadian flag has from today a stench of oil that will be difficult to wash away. The brand CANADA will have difficultiy to regain its positive recoignition in Sweden.
US has lost it's dominating posdition as a world leader. We are surprised that Canda follows.
It is difficult to know whether dragos is serious or not, but the sheer length of his comment makes me think that he is. I agree with the previous comment; we Swedes previously saw Canada as a respectable country and an example to follow. Now that respect has quickly evaporated as Canada's government abandons reason for short-term financial gain and as it resembles more and more America's 51st state.
To people who claim that global warming is not man-made, I would like to say this: If we can devise weapons of such unbelieaveble destructive power - nuclear weapons - which could blow our planet to smithereens and render it completely uninhabitable in a couple of minutes, why is it then so inconceivable that we can actually destroy our planet through other means (i e CO2 emissions)?