3 of 8

Write now Article Tools

In retrospect, if we had known all we know now about climate science back in the 1990's, the idea of having a Kyoto Protocol would never have arisen and the world would be a better place in which to live today.

Let me recall the original objectives of the treaty which was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997.

The objective is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

Industrialized countries that ratified the agreement committed themselves to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions (essentially CO2) by ca. 5% below their 1990 baseline over the 2008 to 2012 period. The means for doing this was to encourage countries to introduce carbon taxes and/or a CO2 emissions trading scheme. This assumes that CO2 emissions are a bad thing which we now know they are not, but really are actually beneficial to mankind and the environment.

The validity and sense of the Kyoto policies rest upon very thin ice which is getting thinner as each month goes by with more advances being made in climate science. People are beginning to realize that the whole Kyoto Protocol is a scam perpetuated by a bandwagon of Greens wanting a de-carbonized Utopia, of politicians wanting to gain or stay in power, of bureaucrats first tasting a sense of importance, and business people out to make a buck from anything that moves, like the tax man with his taxes.

It is a pity that all this wasted human effort and enthusiasm about Kyoto could not be directed towards something more beneficial to mankind and the environment. Even building a few more pyramids would be better and harmless in the long term as the Egyptians found out. Alternatively the Space Program would at least provide scientific advances, or looking at priorities, why not tackle world poverty and malnutrition, and provide safe drinking water and an adequate food supply for everyone? Or is this too difficult?

The USA and Australia were the only countries wisely not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol for reason that to do so and comply (i.e., go to a de-carbonized economy) would be economically irresponsible, and that the large developing countries, India and China, were exempt from the requirements anyway.

Australia has recently (Nov 2007) had a change of government. The new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, cleverly used the global warming hysteria to help give an overwhelming victory to the Labor Party. The voters quite rightly wanted

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about The case against the Kyoto protocol?
We want to hear your view. Write now!