Kyoto Agreement


Kyoto Agreement


     Maurice Strong, the Canadian oil billionaire, was the Secretary-General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. He also chaired the U.N. Climate Summit, the “Earth Summit” already mentioned, in Rio de Janeiro. The UNFCCC mission statement reads as follows:


     “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” (UNFCCC, 2020)


     As Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has explained, the UNFCCC misdefined “Climate Change” as something caused by “greenhouse gas concentrations” (Pielke, 2005). Pielke believes, correctly, that this faulty definition has caused many problems. In the previous chapter, we saw that a large component of climate change may be natural, yet the mission of the UNFCCC Secretariat ignores this possibility and only focusses on the human contribution, which may be small and insignificant. It also assumes the human-caused portion of climate change is dangerous, even though no evidence supporting this idea exists.

     If climate change creates problems in some parts of the world, adapting to it may be the best solution. But the UNFCCC mission statement does not include adaptation, it specifically directs the agency to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations,” which may or may not be an important factor in climate change. By adopting such a restrictive mission statement, based on assumptions that are unsupported, the UNFCCC creates unnecessary division and conflict and it removes many possible solutions to climate-caused problems from consideration. Further, their definition subjugates all climate policy to energy policy. Yet, to adapt to climate change (whether natural or human-caused) energy will always be required. The UNFCCC produced a mission statement that dictates the actions they will take, and the actions work to reduce the very thing that may be needed to solve all climate related problems, energy.

     The next big year in the human-caused global warming/climate change debate was 1998. This was the year Christine Stewart admitted to the Calgary Herald (the major newspaper in Calgary, Alberta, Canada) staff that there was an underlying agenda:


     “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, speaking to the editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald in 1998.


     This was not long after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted on December 1997. The protocol requests that “industrialized countries limit and reduce greenhouse gases in accordance with agreed individual targets” (UNFCCC, 2020). These measures would harm the global fossil fuel industry and cause many people to lose their jobs. What are the benefits? We turn again to Roger Pielke Jr., who writes:


     “[According to the IPCC] prevention of all future climate impacts is simply not a viable option. This is of course not an argument against mitigation activities, but frank recognition that under no scenario does conceivable mitigation policies alone fully address the problems to society posed by climate.” (Pielke Jr. R., 2005)


     As Rupert Darwall points out, no official economic analysis was done before the Kyoto Protocol was proposed (Darwall, 2013, Kindle 7852). None of the participating countries had any idea what the treaty would cost them, either in jobs or standard of living. They also had no idea what the benefits would be. William Nordhaus, the famous Yale economist and Nobel laureate, called the Kyoto Protocol a “conceptual disaster; it has no coherence politically or economically or environmentally.” (Yale University, 2007, pp. 131-132). Kyoto had little to do with climate change, it was mainly an enormous transfer of money from wealthy countries to poor countries.

     The climate economist Dr. Bjorn Lomborg famously pointed out that even if Kyoto was fully implemented and more besides, the difference in temperature, in 2050, would only be an imperceptible 0.2°F (Lomborg, 2011). By boxing themselves in, with their restrictive mission statement, the UNFCCC was forced to tackle the most irrelevant part of a potential climate change problem, the human-caused part.

     By February 2015, Christiana Figueres was the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC and she said this:


     “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” (Zycher, 2015)


     These anecdotes and quotes from the key political players show that the climate alarmists are less interested in “saving” us from climate change than in using the threat of a global climate crisis to create a global government. That government would then redistribute the wealth from developed countries to the developing world. By eliminating fossil fuels, they prevent the developing world from developing on their own, thus they need money from the developed world. What the climate warriors really want is a worldwide socialist government.

     Their plans do transfer a lot of money and they will kill the fossil fuels industry which provides people a great deal of freedom. After all transporting energy as diesel or gasoline is much easier and cheaper than transporting the equivalent amount of energy in a lithium ion battery. We give up our cheap fossil fuels and they take our freedom.