See by implementing the Kyoto protocol, countries are spurring innovative, environmentally sound ideas which is spawning a whole new aspect for their economies, while countries that refuse to cut pollution from fossil fuels will be left behind. The evidence is already mounting.
Funny thing is, Alberta has over 3 trillion barrels of underneath her and we are still exploring and researching renewable and sustainable energy. The goverments of a lot of these countries have also issued a’1 tonne challenge’ to their citizens. Simple things like switching to long lasting light bulbs, tax credits for energy saving appliances, fuel efficient cars all make a huge difference to the overall picture.

It makes me very proud to live in such a progressive, environmentally sound society.

FACT - These gases are mainly the byproduct of burning oil, gas and coal, the mainstay of energy since the Industrial Revolution.

FACT - The invisible pollution hangs in the atmosphere, trapping heat from the Sun instead of letting it radiate back out to space. The warming is already disrupting Earth’s delicate climate system, melting polar ice and glaciers and causing droughts, floods and storms.

FACT - The United States and Australia, together accounting for some 30 percent of total emissions — have refused to sign on.

Their argument is that the treaty, by requiring greater fuel efficiency and a conversion to cleaner sources, is too costly for their economy. Canada, the only G7 nation generating budget surpluses, has implemented the Kyoto Protocol and has one of the world’s strongest economies, growning faster than that of the US.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said climate change “is going to cause difficulty, if not catastrophe” in 30 or 40 years.

He pledged he would renew efforts to coax the United States “back into dialogue.”

German Environment Minister Juergen Trittin, also in a videotaped address, scolded the United States, noting that US carbon pollution was, per capita, two and a half times that of Europe, which had equivalent living standards.

According to you guys, we cant have nuclear power, gas power, coal power or oil power….

So tell me, how SHOULD energy be generated?

Yeah, his stooges obfuscate in an effort to reduce the issue to a he-said, she-said with the stats you obligingly repeat in your response, thereby creating an illusion that it’s just an honest misunderstanding between two sides, both of whom are working within the system to try to strike the appropriate balance between profits and societal costs. But the internal audit shows that that’s not what’s going on at all.

And as for the sucker punch at the end of this post, somehow anything negative that can be argued to be the result, either directly or indirectly, of a representative of a given presidential administration, now means that all those who voted the party into office are fully supportive of it?

That’s as convoluted as assuming that all Democrats are fully supportive of marital infidelity due to the Clinton Administration!