Kyoto: "socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations"- Harper

When our beloved Prime Minister Stephen Harper, essentially opted out of the Kyoto Protocol which was ratified by Canada in 2002, it couldn't have come as a big surprise. Can anyone really blame him? I mean, he is a politician; lying, cheating, and being deceitful is what politicians get paid to do. What other options did he truly have? With Canada currently being approximately 30% over our target emissions, what else could he have done but sign onto the Asia-Pacific Partnership or the 'anti-Kyoto partnership' as some like to call it?

To understand the entire situation, it's important to lay out the facts about Kyoto vs. Asia Pacific

Canada in Kyoto
-An agreement to limit the exposure of GHG's (greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere in the battle against global warming (climate change)

-Canada ratified Kyoto December, 2002
-The agreement was that Canada would cut GHG emissions by 6% from the 1990 levels by 2012 (563 megatonnes/year)

Canada in Asia-Pacific

-An agreement for the same objectives
-Includes the 6 biggest contributors to GHG's in the world (almost half), including two countries that hadn't ratified Kyoto; Australia, USA, China, India, Japan, Korea
-No real targets; all countries set their own emission targets

...What really sounds like the better deal?

The idea of climate change seems to be just another thing that is not being taken seriously by anyone, but everyone should be aware of the Stern Report. It assesses global warming from an economic perspective urges countries at act NOW, before it's too late.

Personally, the Asia-Pacific Partnership sounds like an attempt at being noble over not being able to keep up with Kyoto. It is no surprise that countries like the US, which spew about 24.3% of the world's GHG's into the atmosphere would want to be a part of such a light-hearted deal, but by placing Canada in that same category, it simply seems like another move made by the U.S's 51st date. We've already jumped on the "War on Terror" bandwagon. What's next? Canada's support in the invasion of Iran?

Harper announced that his plan was to cut Canada's emissions by 60-70% by 2050, but does this even sound reasonable for a country that couldn't even cut its emissions by 6% in 16 years? We've heard promises like that before from our Prime Minister before. Does anyone recall the income trust fiasco?

While some are praising Harper, calling him a "bridge builder," I don't think of this as anything more than a desperation move, and a well-planned political move. With less than two weeks to the upcoming election, and the 'going-green' movement becoming an important platform, Harper clearly had some sort of strategy going into this election, but I can hardly call a move like this chivalrous, or smart even. Harper didn't even sincerely mention failing Kyoto targets, thus, instead of trying to sidestep the issue by replacing Kyoto with another agreement, he should have taken responsibility for it, and admitted that this was his only option. But instead, as politicians do, he, very tactfully, announced that there was ""an emerging consensus on the need for a new, effective and flexible climate change framework." In laymen's, "I failed the first time. This is my second attempt."

I don't think anyone appreciates the political mumbo jumbo that Harper continues to dish out, thus, I've decided that until Harper can really pull through with his promises, or admit his shortcomings, I'm ready to join the `Down With Harper' movement this election.