The Kyoto Protocol, if implemented, would have the opposite of its intended effect. It is irresponsible of environmentalists to put their faith in it.
This is certainly an unorthodox opinion for an environmentalist (I consider myself an unconventional environmentalist). I could very well find myself excommunicated from the ranks of the faithful for saying this, but it is grounded in a very healthy – think “heavy” – dose of skepticism and cynicism.
My problem is that I have a strong pessimistic bent; I am not influenced by the idealism that tends to affect the mainstream doctrines of environmentalism.
I’m with Flavius Vegetius Renatus, the ancient Roman writer, who said: “He who wants peace, prepare for war.”
The old notion that the more you hear people crying “peace” the more war awaits, rings true for me.
History has shown that the time of the greatest optimism in world affairs (“war to end all wars” in 1918) preceded, if not directly caused, the most ghastly war of all time – the Second World War. Ironically, the paranoia of the Cold War led to a sustained, relative world peace.
I think such Cold War suspicion would do us well regarding Kyoto.
Do some people honestly believe that the Chinese have North America’s best interests in mind? Does anyone think that Russia signed on to Kyoto because the Russian government thinks the environment is a precious commodity worth sacrificing for?
Furthermore, if we start paying developing countries for the emissions credits that Canada (especially Alberta) will need, do we sincerely think that this money, unlike all the development money that has flooded into underdeveloped countries over the past half-century, is going to be spent wisely by them, i.e. on education, democracy, clean water?
No. It is more likely to lead to aggravated governmental corruption, oppression and authoritarianism, which will only lead to more economic hardship and a degraded environment.
Furthermore, who honestly thinks that we can see 100 years hence?
Astonishingly, the Kyoto believers do. I will certainly acknowledge that the trend line of world average temperatures over the past 100 years is alarming (approximately one degree Celsius, which is a big jump). If it keeps up, we will be in serious trouble in a couple of hundred years.
But believing that a historic trend line automatically continues is as silly as believing that because the stock market increased dramatically from 1992-2000, it would continue to do so. (Millions of people made this assumption and lost their shirts.)
Of course, long-term temperature projections are scientific. Forecasts are based on computer models and hypotheses that started with Svante Arrhenius and P.C. Chamberlain, who independently postulated in the 1890s that man-made carbon dioxide emissions might influence world climate.
But is this theory predictive? It fell out of fashion from 1940-1970, when world average temperatures decreased for a while. This decline convinces me that the hypothesis is not based as much on scientific certainty as on historical observation.
I vividly remember being in grade school in 1973 or so, and hearing about the dangers of the second ice age. It shook me with unforgettable fear.
Forecasts of overpopulation and nuclear holocaust were front-page news in this same period. Today, these prophecies are either obsolete or rarely publicized.
My skepticism tells me that a few decades down the road, global warming could well have receded to newspapers’ back pages. We will still hear about the threat, but we will be immune to its gravity. In a sense, we will resign ourselves to its existence as a possibility over which we have very little personal control.
There are compelling reasons to assume that greenhouse gas reductions will eventually become as futile as nuclear disarmament. Countries consistently look out for No. 1 and the short-term, after all. But humans adapt. Most people eventually say to themselves: “If the world warms up, or the world blows itself up, I hope I find my way through.”
But when a policy, whatever it may be, hurts or makes a noticeable negative impact on the world, that’s when conflict looms.
The Kyoto Protocol, if implemented, will soon start to have the kind of direct negative consequences that will encourage western democracies to renege on the agreement. This could, in turn, create global resentment toward the West.
Here is one example: I have a friend who is an energy supply manager for a large petro-chemical company based in Alberta. He told me a few weeks ago that his job right now is to scope out alternate countries for production.
Australia, which has formally decided not to ratify Kyoto, is likely No. 1 on the list of potential countries because it has an educated and stable workforce, Australians speak English, and they have abundant natural resources (especially natural gas – a commodity likely to shoot up in price with Kyoto, because it burns so cleanly). Australia is a perfect fit for his company.
In other words, should Kyoto take effect in Alberta, this plant, along with many like it, may move to Australia, taking thousands of jobs.
Once that happens – and that’s not a purely theoretical conjecture – greenhouse gas reductions will have a palpable negative effect on Albertans, and Kyoto, not the CO2, will be the scapegoat.
Today, Canada has a choice to make between ratifying Kyoto and setting the bar so high that failure is assured, or setting the targets a little lower, and slower, so that we can meet or exceed everyone’s expectations, while confirming the scientific hypotheses upon which it is based.
My biggest fear is that backing out of Kyoto after ratifying would provide another good reason for developing countries to resent us, and all hell could break loose.
Hell on earth! Now THAT’s global warming.
