Mimas

Harper's efforts do help Canada on the World stage.. I don't think this will make up for trashing Canada's reputation on the environmental front.

Are you kidding? Actual scientists? The most vocal opponent of Kyoto on the scientific front in Canada is Tim Ball. A guy who claims to be the "first Ph.D in climatology" in Canada, even though there have been many before him. A guy who claims to have been a professor of climatology at UofW for 32 years, which would make him a professor back when he was in high-school. According to UofW, he was a professor of geography there for 8 years. A guy who hasn't done any research in 15 years - he did almost no research before retiring anyway. A guy who takes oil money, channeled through third parties to fund his anti-Kyoto organizations and campaigns. A guy who is 67 and couldn't care less what happens a couple of decades down the road because he won't be around much longer. You call that an "actual scientist"? I call that a lunatic and a lier. Kindly direct your remarks to comments I said, not strawmen or red herrings. Kindly find any credible scientists (who don't lie about their credentials) who say that the current warming of the climate is not the result (at least in part) of human activity. Because Tim Ball is the best you can come up with in Canada.

Are you kidding? Actual scientists? The most vocal opponent of Kyoto on the scientific front in Canada is Tim Ball. A guy who claims to be the "first Ph.D in climatology" in Canada, even though there have been many before him. A guy who claims to have been a professor of climatology at UofW for 32 years, which would make him a professor back when he was in high-school. According to UofW, he was a professor of geography there for 8 years. A guy who hasn't done any research in 15 years - he did almost no research before retiring anyway. A guy who takes oil money, channeled through third parties to fund his anti-Kyoto organizations and campaigns. A guy who is 67 and couldn't care less what happens a couple of decades down the road because he won't be around much longer. You call that an "actual scientist"? I call that a lunatic and a lier.

How about your solution........ We also here arguments about how Global Warming is natural and not caused by humans. Really, their is alot more to the issue then you want to point out. If you look at the scientific literature, there are no such arguments because they don't stand up to scrutiny. Scientific journals are written by scientists, publishted by scientists and read by scientists. Nonsence does not appear in such places. All such arguments appear in newspapers and magazines which are written by whomever, published by journalists, and read by the average Joe. Similarly arguments for "intelligent design" do no appear in scientific journals because it's nonsence but a whole bunch of "Christian scientists" write in papers and scream at the top of their lungs that kids should be taught in school that the Earth is 6,000 years old. You have to distinguish between credible arguments and junk arguments. Besides, if global warming were natural, we should be part of the solution, not part of the problem. If your house were set on fire by lightning, you would try to extinguish the fire, not pour gasoline on it, now wouldn't you? As have the New Democrats, Liberals, Bloc, Communists, Marxists Leninists, and Green parties. Have you heard of spin, Warren Kinsella a Liberal strategist was the master of it. If the cons were doing nothing about it, why would they be willing to go to the table with the NDP in order to hammer out a deal. Because they have passed almost no legislation so far, which makes them look really bad. Because all three opposition parties said flat out that they will vote against that legislation. Because they know that the "clean" air act is the biggest nail in their coffin (even though Afghanistan may become bigger). Because they need the credibility of the NDP on environmental issues to make their "clean" air act at least mildly acceptable to most of the electorate. Because they need to stay in power until the next budget, so that they can buy Quebec with the surplus and guarantee themselves at least another minority.

If gutsier means a lot of posturing for the audience at home then Harper is gutsier than the Liberals.

In your case, greenhouse gases definately did not cause your damage. I'm so sorry,I didn't know. In your case, Harper has a point in treating Canadians like idiots.

Mimas, Netherlands has a population density of 466/km2 and Canada about 3/km2. (Nova Scotia has about 17/km2). Europe also has a milder climate. The northern countries in Europe have very similar climate to ours. Besides air-conditioning in the summer uses as much energy as keeping yourself warm in the winter. Also, Australia and most of the US have mild climate but they are as awful as we are in terms of GHGs. I'm not sure what population density has to do with GHG emissions though. It may have a small effect because the rural population in Canada would have to travel further for some services but I don't think that rural people's trips to the doctor would have much an impact. Besides 90% of Canada's population is within 100 km of the US border, so the population density in those areas is not that far from Europe's pop'n density. Not using coal would be a huge step in the right direction. Coal is the worst possible fuel both in terms of GHG emissions but other harmful gases and particles that are responsible for respiratory problems that affect millions of Canadians. Unfortunately, instead of going off this poison, some are still building coal power plants. Cough, cough. Secondly, if we could cut our use of electricity by 30% (which is quite reasonable), we could close all coal plants and still have some left to power cars, replace oil furnaces with electric ones, etc. Agreed. But pollution is also a political question and governments regulate it. Governments also regulate the prices of medications, financial services, , etc. In the Maritimes, governments regulate the price of gasoline. What governments need to do is to ensure that behaviours that pollute are more expensive than clean behaviours. If dumping toxic chemicals into rivers was free, everyone would do it. The reason industries don't do it is that there are penalties associated with it.

Nope, he wouldn't. Which tells me that he hasn't parked his money in offshore trusts. But Paul Martin used these loopholes for years. Oops, I meant to say that the those running his multi-million dollar operation, whom he was not allowed to talk to, used those loopholes. He just refused to close them despite the fact that the Auditor General put them in her reports every year and told him to close them.

It's not clear to me why the federal government is involved. Shouldn't the Newfoundland government decide this? Because it is the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans that did it. The chief of mining at Environment Canada can say anything he wants. Health Canada used to say that smoking was not harmful to human health. With some lobbying and political direction, federal political appointees can say anything you want them to. Would you buy a house next door and drink the water from the well? Besides there are rivers nearby where Atlantic salmon spawn and you never know when the little ones will end up on your plate. Anyway, the act that banned this previously is a federal act, so that's why the feds are involved.

Complex issues are too far beyond your scope of thinking. I hope for the sake of your grandchildren ,you don't have children. Now go to the garage, start your car and leave the door closed. Carbon monoxide is not harmful either.

Until you can read people's responses and sources, stop telling people to back this or that up. The only reason you don't know about the solutions (or claim not to know) is because you don't want to know. Millions of articles, research papers, etc. have been written, full of solutions but you don't want to recognize that they exist. The reason Europeans use half as much energy as we do is because they have adopted some of those solutions. It's not because Europe is small, warm, has fewer native English speakers or any other silly reason you can come up with.

Just go back to the topic and find the links. They are the blue underlined strings of characters in my response. It was before you provided your links, only one of which had anything to do with Kosovo. That's exactly what I meant. Cons always try to twist reality and change the subject. When you misrepresent what your opponent says, just to avoid criticism, that's basically a lie. Nobody is accusing the Cons of not being able to meet the Kyoto targets because everyone knows that at this point even if the Greens were in power, they wouldn't be able to do it. The issue is that the Cons will do even less than the Libs (i.e. absolutely nothing) and that's their own choice. They cannot blame the Libs or anyone else for their own inaction. You CANNOT blame anyone for what you do or don't do! So stop misrepresenting the issue.

You my friend are exactly the type I'm talking about. I've read tonnes of this stuff, I know what I can do,but where is the rebuttal on the government's ideas,what is a "better" program,where is a viable solution to the government's proposal? Where is your? Easy to critize,but where is your solution that takes in environment,economics,time frame,cost,regulations,employment,ect.,ect. Your thinking that by googling 458 thousand hits on google for "conserving energy"is a solution is extremely niave and simplistic, just as most environmentalist thinking is. Environmentalists are in a hurry,2050 is too long,so set up a program that you think is better,I'm listening for the better solution, the better answer. Enough googling,time for answers. Better hurry,I'm waiting. Dear, you are just trying to argue. No matter what I told you, you'd just keep going on and on about the crazy environmentalists and so on. The "better solution" for you would be to do nothing. I hope you can explain to your grandkids some day why it was the "better solution".

http://www.pentictonherald.ca/CPstory.php?cpid=614062 And your proposal? Or are you just a armchair critic that has no idea what should be done,but just likes the idea of critisizing. My proposal? Don't dump waste in healthy lakes! Other mining companies don't do it, I don't see why this one should be allowed to. Now all the rest will follow saying that "See you let them do it. Why can't we?"

How about a campaign around accountability when the Accountability Act is a joke. A campaign around electing senators and not allowing MPs to cross the floor, followed by appointing an unelected friend to the Senate and to be a minister of a department that spends over 10 billion of our tax dollars and giving Emerson a cabinet seat to cross the floor only 2 weeks after an election. A campaign around cleaning up government and then letting lobbyists and private interests to buy votes in the House by removing restrictions on third party election spending. A campaign about giving more power to MPs because they are the democratically elected representatives of the people and then muzzling MPs and throwing them out of caucus because they have a blog (what a crime!) A campaign around not taxing income trusts and then taxing them. A campaign around banning gay marriage and then not doing it. And all that achieved in less than 10 months. Conclusion: Cons = Libs

Ottawa's attack on the environment continues. http://www.pentictonherald.ca/CPstory.php?cpid=614062

You never provided the link, if you did then provide it. As for google, I have provided more statements based on sources then you have so far, and provided ybou with four links dealing with human rights abuses in the former Yugoslavia. As for me accusing the general of being a commie, thats a nice generalization coming from somebody who has yet to accuse anybody of disagreeing with me a commie, unlike a certain other member. This is supposed to be a place for debate, not for people to act like 12 year olds and engage in constant name calling. So far your response to everybody that disagrees with you is either "Your Lying", "Shut Up", "Your Demented", or "Your Retarded". I don't see how any of this helps the forum in any way and only adds to the problems we currently have with partisan trolling, name calling, and ineffective debate. I gave you links for everything I said when you asked for sources. The fact that you didn't bother to read them means that you didn't want them in the first place. If you want reasonable debate, you should at least read sources provided by those you are debating with. So far you haven't shown any interest in doing so. I don't see how this helps the forum either.

Sure they did. Haha.

I'm guessing you have all the answers then as to how we can meet Kyoto without hurting our economy. Since you aren't as "retarded" as Harper thinks, why don't you tell us how to do it. It must be awfully simple then right. Stop calling people liars, and instead bring up how we could have easily met the Kyoto targets. Honestly, bring something to debate instead rambling, try actually bringing about constructive debate. In a democracy people from different viewpoints are allowed to make their views known, including yours whether you like it or not. Back up your statements. I'm still waiting for you to back up your statement about what a Canadian General said regarding Kosovo. Once again back up your statements instead of making claims that could very well be false. I haven't seen you backing up your statements even once. You can't even show a single credible source that found evidence of genocide in Kosovo. And you want me to dig up something I heard on radio months ago. If you really want it, dig it up yourself from the CBC archives. And I gave you an article with the general's thoughts. I'm surprised you haven't accused him of being a commie. If I thought that you had the slightest intention to follow any advice on conserving energy, I would give you some. But since I don't think you do, I won't waste my time and let you learn how to properly use google.

There is a tonne of papers/books written on the issue. But if you can't be bothered to read them or recognize that they even exist, that's your problem, not the environmentalists. PS. There are 458 thousand hits on google for "conserving energy". There are tons more for conserving electricity, gasoline, etc. Don't tell me that the Liberals have taken away your internet access.

LIEs, SPIN, BS. 2) The Libs did little. 3) The Cons are not blamed for not meeting the targets. They are blamed for destroying the little done by the Libs and for doing absolutely nothing besides blaming the Libs. 4) The Cons just designated 2 clean, fish-bearing lakes to be destroyed and used as a dumping site for toxic waste from the mining industry. It's the first time in Canadian history that a government designates healthy lakes for destruction to convert it into a dumping ground. That make sense to you?

There really are no realistic answers at the present time when world air pollution increases proportionally to ever increasing world population. Mandatory birth control would make more sense to me rather than waste tax payers money buying useless carbon credits. I think supporting the Conservatives clean air bill attacks the countries most important form of pollution, smog. Turning a blind eye to developing nations and their pollution does not make sense. The Cons clean air bill does nothing for smog for the next 20 years. Turning a blind eye to the worst polluter of all - the US - makes no sense either. US (and Canadian) emissions are 7 times higher than those of China and more than 15 times higher than those of India. I don't see why you complain about them when the US is an order of magnitude worse.

So you believe that it is realistically possible to reduce our pollution by 40% in five years and 1.5 months? No, but this is not an excuse to increase them by another 40%. Oh we could meet are kyoto protocol agreements, Give me alot of Ammo and I'll go kill 15 million people...but the question is what can we realistically be expected to accomplish in the next six years with out paralizying our Country. We can realistically reduce emissions by 10-15% from current emissions. That will still put us far from our targets but it is still a huge improvement compared to increasing emissions by 10-15% which is what will happen under the Cons. But see they are the ones who are presenting themselves as a bastion of environmental support, they too were worse failures, because they whitled away so much time. Just ignore what they present themselves as. We know what they did. I am not here to support the conservatives environmental policy, I just want to see the environ back into the mental policies of the granola munchers. Blah

There were plenty of reasons (political and economic) but genocide/ethnic cleansing was not one of them. And in each case the right pushed then to do it much harder than anyone else.

Listen, Kosovo is NOT Bosnia. Now go back to your links and find anything about a genocide in Kosovo. The truth is that under 500 bodies have been found and that about a third of them were Serbs (Serbs were just over 10% of the population). This is over a 2 year period of fights between the KLA and Serbian police. Undoubtedly, people got killed but that's hardly a genocide. On top of that, Kosovo is a land of drugs, illegal weapons and human trafficking and in places like that lots of people get killed for obvious reasons. As a matter of fact, NATO bombs killed about 2000 people. And many more thousands will die of cancer (primarily leukemia) due to exposure to radioactive depleted uranium. A good friend of mine who lived in a town 100 km outside of Serbia died of leukemia at 22 in 2002. Her town had radioactive levels of 10-20 times the acceptable levels. As far as I am concerned, if it wasn't for that DU from American bombs, she would most likely be alive today. So you can twist reality all you want but facts are facts and there was no genocide in Kosovo. And there were no WMDs in Iraq. Now you can read up and educate yourself on the Kosovo conflict or you can bury your head in the sand and recite Albright's speeches about the genocide that never happened. It's up to you.