Photo: Beijing China
Okay, let's just kill our economy. Really, why go down slowly being suffocated by all those green bags, let's just agree with the eco-nuts, slit our wrists and bleed our economy to death.
Photo: The badly polluting oil sands....see that blue sky? Hummmm, are we being lied to?
Hey, that's another compare and contrast! China or Alberta? Who is polluting more, you decide.
The Canadian government, long criticized by environmentalists for not doing its fair share to fight against catastrophic climate change, has said its top priority at the Copenhagen negotiations is to ensure there are "commitments from all major economies" - a reference to countries such as India and China that have said it's unfair for them to stem their economic growth to deal with climate change caused largely by western economies.(bolding is mine)
Yikes, catastrophic climate change....that's enough to scare me into.....wait a minute, where is the proof? I know a little bit about modeling, and I know that no reputable scientist can predict anything beyond the range of the data. In other words, if your data is weekly, you can predict the next week pretty accurately, but not what will happen next year.
In a submission to the UN earlier this year the Harper government declared more specifically that "all parties" at Copenhagen must agree to "establish, regularly update and submit in writing . . . a long-term national greenhouse gas emissions limitation or reduction pathway for regular review by the Conference of the Parties."
But Levi said major developed economies such as Canada should avoid demanding specific emission commitments and instead work toward a "bottom up" strategy that seeks clear agreements that allow countries like China, India, Brazil and Indonesia to obtain western assistance to adapt their economies in a more environment-friendly way.
Double yikes! Levi is all for a wealth transfer from developed nations to his friends bank accounts. That is what this is, a wealth transfer scheme, notice that Levi never uses any actual DATA to support his assumptions.
"It is controversial enough to suggest that a country like India, with about 5% the per capita emissions of Canada, should take binding targets - especially given that Canada is openly walking away from its own commitments," Saul wrote in an e-mail.
"But to suggest that India should accept absolute emission targets is in another world. It leads one to think that this government is actively trying to undermine the negotiations."
Triple yikes! Notice how the eco-nuts use PER CAPITA, as a justification for India and China to continue polluting? They have billions of people so PER CAPITA, they do not pollute as much as Canada. Do they really think we are idiots?
Look at the two pictures, who is polluting the most? In the age of the internet, we get to call the "experts" out. Show us your data, not your rhetoric. We want facts, not some journalist who only talks to his/her eco-friends.
The eco-nuts want to REDRUM our economy. I want the environmentalists to start talking land mass, and trees, not this PER CAPITA garbage. It actually let's China and India pollute more, because they have more people. It makes Canada the bad guy because we have more trees than any one in the world (hint: trees love CO2) but only have 30 million people. It's a total farce.
