Global Warming=Global Hysteria

It seems that the global warming craze is starting to have drastic effects worldwide. In Paris:

Even the Eiffel Tower is out to save the planet.
On Thursday evening, as scientists and officials put finishing touches on a long-awaited report about global warming, the Paris landmark will switch off its 20,000 flashing light bulbs that run up and down the tower and illuminate the French capital's skyline.
The Eiffel Tower's lights account for about 9 percent of the monument's total energy consumption of 7,000 megawatt-hours per year.

I am so thankful the Frogs are willing to turn off the lights for 5 minutes. For FIVE minutes??? Then I get to this:

Residents of a suburban London district will soon pay annual parking fees based on how much carbon dioxide their cars emit, penalizing owners of gas guzzlers.
Richmond council west of the capital agreed on Monday to levy a sliding scale of charges based on emissions, meaning the biggest polluters will pay 300 pounds (almost C$700) a year for the privilege of parking outside their homes.

Parking?!? A tax levied for parking outside your house? I understand that these cars are also driving through the suburb, but I think the focus is still wrong here

"Climate change is the defining issue of our age - it is clear that we must all change our behaviour to combat its effects," said Serge Lourie, leader of Richmond Council. "For our council this is just the first step in a long process that will see us bring forward policies to move our borough and council to lower carbon emissions."Cars with smaller engine sizes will receive a 50-per-cent discount on the current $230 cost of a parking permit. Cars with larger engines will have to pay higher prices.

The best part of this story, which to me is the best quote of all.

Environmental groups supported the move but called for further measures to be taken. Emily Armistead of Greenpeace said it was a major step toward getting fuel-sapping vehicles off the road.
"We cannot continue to drive gas guzzlers," she said "They are absolutely unsustainable. I completely applaud measures that try to tax them off our roads."

Sound familiar? Let's tax these evil evil people who insist on driving those gas guzzlers. Meanwhile China, lets take a look at China:

In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from China were about 54% of the USA emissions. China is now building on average a coal-fired power plant every week and plans to continue doing so for years. Some predictions are that China will emit more greenhouse gas than the USA in 2 or 3 years.

What does Kyoto say about China?

China, India, and other developing countries were exempt from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change.

Just so I'm clear on this, China, whose production of greenhouse gas emissions, which is 2nd to the U.S is exempt, but yet everywhere else people are getting taxed because of a car. How does this make sense? Oh and about the U.S. not joining with the rest of the world on Kyoto, lets look a couple of facts:

As a developing country, China is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol, the pending international agreement to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. When President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol two years ago, he portrayed China's exemption as a serious flaw. The protocol has been embraced by most other big nations, however, and only requires ratification by Russia to take effect.

Not only that but as I have already posted here on the website, in 1998 the Senate passed legislation that would keep the U.S. from signing any treaty which did harm to the economy.

Whereas the Senate strongly believes that the proposals under negotiation, because of the disparity of treatment between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and the level of required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs, or any combination thereof

Hmm 1998, wait that was President Clinton.

A 1998 study by the Energy Information Administration estimated trying to meet the Kyoto standards would cost the U.S. economy about $400 billion a year, mostly by hugely increasing the cost to consumers of electricity, home heating oil, and gasoline.

Clinton had two years to get on the bandwagon, but knowing that it would cost America so much, he decided to not sign the treaty. Who would have thought he would use it as political ammo years later.