It's sometimes amazing how politically paid scientists raise voice against global warming and thus telling how Kyoto accord needs to be fully implemented. Aside from the ideological point of view, there is a question if current Kyoto efforts mimic the environmental experiment of Karl Marx.
Kyoto accord would have had a damaging on the economy. In a matter of decades, the average income would be 30 percent less than today. On the other side, Kyoto accord ignores the potentials of job growth and its creators don't actually quite understand the economics and other cost-benefit methods of how to cure global warming. In the last year, environmental crusaders have offered very poor track on global warming. If we take a closer look at the nature of the Kyoto, then we quickly see that it was based on contradictory and selective scientific evidence, underpinning one side of global warming and tentatively neglecting the other side of climate trends. If you were in Sweden a month ago, then you'd see that there were hardly any signs of global warming as the temperature got below -20°C.
Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural cause. A decade ago, if we knew what we know about global climate then Kyoto would be completely unnecessary. Activists, Marxists, socialists of all parties and anti-globalists fanatically tell public that humanity driving on the path towards destruction as the catastrophe is looming. Neither of these arguments of fear is justified which means that they're based on a purely ideological level.
In the global field, the EU has pledged to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases and has failed to do so. Canada pledged to cut the emissions by 6 percent from 1990 to 2012. According to the statistics, the emissions are currently 35 percent above the forward target. Luckily without Kyoto accord, in the U.S. has emissions per capita have been reduced and there's a forward trend of a diminishing curve. The index value of greenhouse gas emissions per dollar in 2003 was less than 80, taking into account that the index emission level in 1990 was 100. There is, however, empirical evidence, that no nation can achieve or sustain the economic growth without the growth of emissions. According to the figures of the UN, the loss of the U.S. GDP would be as high as 1,96 percent which means that today's 1,3 trillion economy were hit by 260 billion USD every year, totaling more than 11 trillion by 2050.
What is then the passion for such features as environmental alarmists propose?
Nothing else but the redistribution of wealth and income which is equal to the re-invigoration of Karl Marx's Communist manifesto.
The Kyoto accord is similar to LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty) which would establish an international UN-corrupted agency regulating 70 percent of the earth's surface, placing seabed mining, fishing rights and deep-sea oil exploration under the control of a global bureaucracy such UN. Thanks to his wisdom, President Reagan was smart enough not to sign the treaty which would inevitably streamline the redistribution of wealth and income, the main goal of Karl Marx.
One of the greatest politicians of all time - Vaclav Klaus - recently perfectly told the truth of UN global warming report when he said that "it was the result of a group of "politicized scientists" who decided the results of the report before they began their investigation."
Global warming is an inclined full-blown myth and every serious scientist knows that very well. The leftists have popularized the question of environmentalism and blinded the scientific evidence and research about the question. Environmental change is due to naturally given causes of change. Saying that human impact has devastated the environmental diversity is either a politically supported question or the quotation marred by ideology. In fact, the greatest polluters of all times were communist plans and actions thanks to the ideas of Karl Marx.
As abovementioned, Kyoto accord would punish the advanced economies that foster innovation and growth with all various sorts of taxes and regulations. Would poor countries, mostly socialist (Marxist) dictatorships, really benefit from Kyoto? The answer is no. Kyoto accord would let them soak-up the foreign aid in the name of "development incentives". Such foolish UN efforts would inevitably lead to more corruption in those countries and would make them even poorer and structurally less reformed as their economies remained closed. What's actually the aim of foreign aid? It's the re-introduction of planning as the resources received from foreign aid are not determined on the basis of market capacity but rather on the basis of political preference.
Karl Marx once wrote that the goal of communism is to enforce a system that extracted from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Today, the nations in transit are still paying the price of Karl Marx and Communist manifesto. Now think about it. Kyoto accord says the same thing and it is thus a modern version of Marx's Communist manifesto.