Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Yeah, this will be tossed pretty quickly. You’d think they would be grateful.
UPDATE: Maybe I should have read more closely, turns out that what they seek is a declaration from some international outfit with no enforcement power. To that end:
“The petition urges the Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to declare the United States to be in violation of the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.
It also wants the Commission to recommend that the United States adopt mandatory limits of its greenhouse-gas emission and join international efforts to curb global warming.
And it wants the Commission to declare the United States should help the Inuit adapt to unavoidable impacts of climate change.”
What’s more, the article (at the fault of the ICC, not Breitbart) claims that:
“Rising emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases primarily caused by burning fossil fuels are expected to warm the Arctic about 4-7 C (7.2-12.6 F), about twice the global average rise, over the next century, the ICC report concluded.”
Which, though it acknowledges this level of warming as particular to the Arctic, is still at the very least toward the steep end of the warming predictions currently circulating.
If scientists can respectably disagree on the issue of climate change, whether or not it is happening, the extent to which it is anthropogenic, etc… I think it would be preposterous for a pseudo-court to find proximate cause or cause in fact (or whatever sort of tests a pretend court might use) here. If they want to pin it on not ratifying Kyoto, then I would have to point out that countries that did ratify Kyoto are not meeting their targets, and even if they had, and we had as well, the overall scheme of Kyoto is insufficient to effect the changes that its proponents seek.
At the base of it, this is more than likely a bunch of do gooder lawyers (and other do gooder types) exploiting a potential sob story to make a political statement using (emphasis on using) these Eskimos (yeah, that’s right, I said it).
If your environment and livelihood was being destroyed by a foreign government you might consider it a violation of your human rights too.
Libertarian ideals say I have the right to swing my arms as much as I like, until I hit someone else in the nose.
As 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution, the USA is now hitting people in the nose.
That's where common decency and law must step in.
See, that's the part that you just don't understand, the science just is not that simple. To put it in your terms, people (the serious ones at least, not the "CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW!" hysterical types who claimed that it caused last year's christmas tsunami) are projecting possible nose hitting 100 years from now, and the size of the blow is entirely debateable if it will occur at all. Get thee to a library! Start with Lindzen, then Bjorn Lomborg, maybe Peter Huber for some light reading, and then maybe some Julian Simon. Expand your mind, challenge your paradigms, do all that stuff that liberal folk claim to be fond of doing but generally resist.Post a Comment