Canada's national sport (behind curling) is America-bashing; and if you venture into sub-catagories, right behind "Foreign policy, criticisms of..." you would find "Enviornment; US destruction of..."!
Which makes this morsel all the more ironic:
Canada defended its leadership of U.N. talks on fighting global warming on Monday despite admitting that Ottawa will not meet its own goals under the Kyoto Protocol.
Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, who is chairing the May 15-26 meetings in Bonn, has suggested that Kyoto should be softened for Canada in a second period from 2012 saying Ottawa had no chance of reaching its goals.
"We have very onerous targets that were set for us, negotiated for us," Ambrose told a news conference of Canada's goals under Kyoto, which entered into force last year.
"We will have great difficulty in meeting those targets. We believe they are unachievable," she said of Canada's Kyoto goal of cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases from factories, power plants and cars by 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
When the Americans say these goals are unreachable, we are chastised as evil polluters of Gaia bent on the destruction of the world. Canada gets off a bit more softly, but not entirely:
Environmentalists said Canada was not the right nation to try to persuade other nations to rein in fossil fuels.
Ambrose "must live up (to Canada's Kyoto goals) or stand down," said Jennifer Morgan, climate policy director of the WWF environmental group. "Vague statements about 'commitments to international efforts' are not serious."
Hey Jenny - welcome to European-style diplomacy - it's all about vague statements ! Concrete action is usually left to us vulger Americans. And speaking of which, it seems as if we will lead the way, as usual:
The United States pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, saying it would cost jobs and wrongly excluded developing nations from a first round. Washington is instead making big investments in new technologies, ranging from hydrogen to solar power.
Actually ,we were never in Kyoto (Bill Clinton signed the treaty, but Congress rejected it 98-0. Ah, bipartisanship!). We saw through this BS years ago...
Fools, Part II: Those willfully blind Europeans, again:
The European Union said Monday it will propose a "bold package" of incentives, possibly including security guarantees, to persuade Iran to accept international oversight of its disputed nuclear program. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana made his comments a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected any economic and political incentives that required Tehran to stop enriching uranium, a process that many experts consider a first step toward producing nuclear weapons.
What flippin' cowards...still trying to buy off Tehran, one day after this:
...on Sunday Mr Ahmadinejad said the Europeans "know that any proposal that requires a halt to our peaceful activities will be without any value".
He said Western powers "behave like masters who still believe they are in the colonial era".
And when the war on Europe begins, I guarentee we will still hear words like this:
"We have said over and over again that we think a diplomatic solution is a good way, and we are going to continue on that line and ... we are going to prepare a very serious package that will make it difficult for them to say no," Solana said ahead of a meeting of EU foreign ministers.
Maybe they should beg for Ahmadinenjad's forgiveness for their colonial past, or better yet, show their multicultral values by converting to Islam!
And those security guarentees? Would the United States be forced to sign a type of non-aggression pact? And pray tell, who would enforce it? Would we be forced to wait until Iran nukes Israel for Europe to free us from our obligations under their treaty?
I can see Hillary Clinton getting her signing pen ready as we speak...