Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Back Printer Friendly Version

Friday, March 25, 2005

Kyoto - Its Politics and the UNO

by StFerdIII

The last newsletter outlined in brief form the problems with Kyoto’s science. Basically the United Nations took the 1995 scientific study on global warming, which clearly stated that scientists did not know IF there was global warming and if there was, IF human kind was responsible. Further the 1995 scientific study said clearly that climate variables were too complex to make general statements that the temperature was cooling or warming due to mankind’s CO2 and methane emissions.

Canada has incredibly committed to reduce its CO2 and Methane emissions by 30 % from 1990 levels. Humans only account for 5 % of total CO2 emissions and Canada accounts for 2 % of that total. The costs to implement Kyoto are about C$20 billion per year to reduce CO2 and Methane by 0.1 % of the total yearly emissions -- A factor so negligible that it is scientifically irrelevant.

Hhhmmm sounds logical.

Kyoto is not science, it is a political program to 1) allow national governments the power to increase taxes and manage energy dependent industries; 2) force richer countries to give foreign aid to poorer countries and; 3) Allow the Europeans to wipe out the energy cost advantage enjoyed by US business. It has nothing to do with the environment.

Toronto will suffer heavily from Kyoto - which officially begins in 2008. But between now and then watch taxes go up and regulatory costs. According to a Canadian government study Kyoto will cost Canada from 2-6 % of its GDP per year beginning in 2008. Other key predictions are from the Canadian Federal Government is that by 2012: - Kyoto would increase gas taxes by 30 %
- There probably will be an SUV tax
- 30.000 steel jobs will be lost in the GTA-Hamilton area
- Farms and livestock will be reduced
- Auto industry will contract by 13 %.
- Steel costs shall increase by 9-15 %
- Iron and steel smelting will contract by 20 %
- Iron ore mining will decline by 30 %
- Rubber plastics manufacturing will decline by 15 %
- Electronic products will contract by 17 %

There will be a huge economic impact on Toronto and the GTA.

Most of the industrial decline is due to higher taxes, energy costs and regulatory costs. It is expected that value added taxes on energy consumption will increase for all goods and services. As well the government is already discussing mandated restrictions on transportation, utility and hydro plant building and the development of oil reserves. For instance it wants to switch the shipment of goods from trucks to shipping, canals and railroads. Given that the vast preponderance of shipping is done today by trucking and the rail network is not extensive, it is unclear if the government has properly forecasted the economic costs of forcing uneconomical and often times impossible shipping restrictions on business. The government has hinted that it might mandate that trucks cannot use the main highways at certain times of day and that forced car pooling might be feasible as well as entrance tolls to cities.

By 2010 when Kyoto fully kicks in, a typical Canadian family of four will face a tax increase of $4400, and the general economy will suffer from excess costs in real terms of at least $40 billion per year. These costs were never disclosed to the Canadian public nor reported by the mainstream media. There was absolutely no parliamentary debate or hearing into Kyoto. Kyoto was even signed before an implementation plan made to describe how Canada would cope with such economic dislocation. The current government plan on implementation consists of 50 power point slides with vague bullet point remarks such as ‘turn down the thermostat, fill the dryer’. Such a lack of detailed planning is strange from a department with 4.000 employees looking at an internationally binding agreement that will cost anywhere from C$20-75 Billion per annum.

Instead Canadian politicians have focused on the sacrifices needed without revealing the economic costs to their citizens. The Government has resolutely demanded that Kyoto “must become a national project, calling upon the efforts and contributions of all Canadians, in all regions and sectors of the economy – producers and consumers, governments and citizens.” Such rhetoric sits uneasily with many who must pay the costs of such a program or question its necessity. The opposition leader in Canada’s parliament queried the necessity for a system of wealth transfers to other countries given Canada’s peculiar, industrial, geographic and energy configuration, “…He is the Prime Minister of the second largest country in the world, a northern exporting country of immense distances that has an energy requirement for transportation, an energy requirement for heating just for survival, an energy requirement for manufacturing, and processing that is particular to the country and requires a particularized approach to CO2 emission limits.” Such national peculiarities militate against a one size fits all environmental solution on climate change. However, no logic can dissuade the buying of votes.

Because Kyoto affords governments at all levels an unheard of opportunity to increase taxes, they will fill the airwaves with rhetoric – love, save the world, green areas for your children, clean air [Kyoto has nothing to do with SMOG an entirely different problem], let’s get back to nature and so on.

Next time someone mentions what a wonderful grouping the United Nations is, ask them about the Kyoto protocol and about the UN’s role in Iraq.

Kyoto is your first United Nations mandated tax and another step to a World Government.

Welcome to ‘Post-Modern’ Canada.

--------------------
1. Analysis and Modeling Group [AMG], As Assesment of the Economic and Environmental Implications for Canada of the Kyoto Protocol, Government of Canada, November 2000, p. 60
2. AMG p. 59
3. AMG p. 59
4. Levant p. 148
5. Minister of Transportation, David Collenette, February 28th announcement on a potential reconfiguration of transportation regulations to decrease CO2 emissions, reported in the National Post and Toronto Star.
6 AMG, p. 88
7. Government of Canada, Climate Change Draft Plan, 2002.
8. Governor-General, Speech from the Throne, Ottawa, September 30 2002.
9. Preston Manning, Leader of the Opposition, Hansard, November 26 1997