Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
carbon offset / trading greenhouse kyoto climate model Inconvenient Truth bio fuel ipcc Glacier

Marx Would Have Loved Kyoto

Investor’s Business Daily – February 12. 2007

This is a very powerful article (opinion) that says that there is no reason for nations to spend huge amounts of money on global warming.  It quotes Canada’s leader (who is struggling to make environmental commitments) as saying it is actually a socialistic scheme of wealth redistribution.

Canada’s new leader is taking heat over an old letter saying Kyoto was a “socialist scheme” to redistribute wealth on a global scale.

Harper described the Kyoto Protocol as “a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.” He voiced his support for the “campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord,” an agreement he said was “based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate trends.”

Agreeing with him are 60 leading scientists who in April wrote Harper an open letter, published in the Canadian Financial Post, asking him to keep his pledge to review Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

“Global climate,” said the scientists, “changes all the time due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’

“If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

The simple reality is that no nation can continue to grow economically without its emissions growing. It is also true that Kyoto is a recipe for global poverty. The annual loss for the U.S., according to the U.N.’s own figures, could be as high as 1.96% of GDP.

Today’s $1.3 trillion economy would take a $260 billion hit every year — totaling more than $11 trillion by 2050.

“Global warming is a false myth, and every serious scientist says so,” Klaus told Hospodarska Niny, a Czech Republic economics newspaper. “It’s obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.”

So it is with global warming, Klaus notes. The green leftists, such as Al Gore, say “debate is closed” because continued critical scrutiny of their faulty ideas is the one thing they know the other side has going for it.

Read the IBD opinion here

Similar articles that you may enjoy:

Comments are closed.