Jump to content

Keepitsimple

Member
  • Posts

    5,774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Keepitsimple

  1. I guess we all don't bother mentioning it anymore. It's just expected that the CBC will be rooting for the Liberals.
  2. What happened to Bill Graham? Has he announced that he won't run again?....or was he just passed over. I thought he did a very good job in a tough position.
  3. In 1997, Canada, under the previous Liberal government, negotiated our Kyoto target - 6% below GHG levels for 1990 to be reached by 2012. At the time, this was thought to be very agressive and it has proven so for most of the Kyoto signatories. So here we are in 2007, 25% worse than when we started and 30% over our target. If the original goal was aggressive, what insanity would make anyone think that we could even come close to meeting our target? Saying we can even come close by 2012 makes a mockery of the original goal.
  4. Rona Ambrose is out. John Baird is in. Clean Air Act one fizzled.....or did it? Was it really bad or was it a case of mangled messages? The Conservatives had trumpeted a new approach to the environment - a Made in Canada approach. As the months passed, pressure from all sides mounted - politics were rampant. The game was afoot. Rona Ambrose attended a conference in Nairobi this past November at which she gave her first major speech, unveiling the Conservative vision. The speech clearly indicated that short, medium, and long term targets would be released early in the new year. The only date that was released was 2050 - a date that many other countries have agreed is a good final target for getting the world back on track. Critics villified her performance as an "embarrassment to Canada". Rona Ambrose is a bright person - her failing was that she was inexperienced. She was a poor PR person and coupled with that inexperience, she could not grab control of the Agenda from the PMO......and most important, the "platform" was released prematurely, without specific detailed targets. With a Liberal government, this would not have been an issue because the media would immediately buy into the promise to have targets "sometime soon". But this is a Conservative government - they shouldn't be in charge - this is a Liberal country. Ms Ambrose's speech was not widely reported except for snippets that media and critics could pounce on. I have included the speech below and ask that you reflect on it for what it is - a directional framework - a frank assessment of where we are, where we have to go, and our position on Kyoto. We are only now getting the pieces that start to build on the Framework - actual targets are coming shortly, as promised, and technology funding has just been announced. Will this overall vision gather momentum? Will it be enough? It was not one of the "5 priorities" last year....but it will be this year. Time will tell. This speech was not widely reported. If you have the time, please step back from politics and read it in its entirety - you may be surprised. It certainly didn't embarass the Canada that I know. Link is at http://www.ec.gc.ca/minister/speeches/2006/061115_s_e.htm Address to the United Nations Climate Change Conference NAIROBI, Kenya November 15, 2006 Speech delivered by the Honourable Rona Ambrose, P.C., M.P., Minister of the Environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY) Mr. President, distinguished delegates, honoured guests, ladies and gentlemen. Canada is proud to be here in Nairobi as a friend, a partner and an ally to further our international efforts to address climate change. We have come together to demonstrate to the world that an effective global response to climate change is needed, and that it is possible - to offer hope instead of fear, and to be constructive in the face of institutional, economic and environmental challenges. Canada faces these challenges with the world. In the small, northern village of Lutsel K'e in Canada's Northwest Territories, I heard from our aboriginal Dene elders who shared with me stories about the changes they are seeing in their surroundings – the change in permafrost, the impact to the migratory patterns of the caribou, and to their traditional ways of life. It is globally accepted that the Arctic is vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and northern peoples – the Inuit, First Nations and Metis – will require unique adaptation interventions. When Canada hosted the UNFCCC Adaptation workshop in my home town of Edmonton, Alberta, we heard – first hand from more than 40 countries – the same stories recounted in different ways. It's when we gather to tell our stories to the world and to one another that we truly appreciate the global nature of the challenge we face. And we thank Africa for sharing their unique story with the world. EFFECTIVE ACTION We are here to share our challenges, our successes and our hopes for the future. I am pleased to share with you Canada's challenges, our successes and our hopes. When Canada's New Government assumed office this year, we found an unacceptable situation. We found that measures to address climate change by previous Canadian governments were insufficient and unaccountable. Years after signing and ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada still had not implemented a domestic plan to address climate change. And the result is that Canada is 35% above our Kyoto target. We recognized that it was time to face up to our challenges in the most Canadian way – to be forthright with Canadians and our international partners about the results of Canada's previous efforts, and to be realistic on the progress we could make by 2012. As with any bold recognition of the truth, ours was met by resistance. But it was the right thing to do. We will not deny the obvious, nor disrespect our international obligations by paying them mere lip service with no substance. We will confront the reality of previous governments' inaction. Indeed, we have chosen real progress over delay - and transparency over rhetoric. We are taking responsibility, embarking on pragmatic solutions and finally beginning the process of putting our own house in order. This is where our challenges have turned into successes. We recognized that leadership and real action were required. And under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, this autumn our government introduced Canada's Clean Air Act; the first ever legislation by a Canadian government to address national regulations on climate change and the first to take a coordinated approach on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. We recognized that the voluntary approaches of the previous government were not sufficient and that it was time for Canadian industry to become a larger part of the solution. As such, our government is the first to move industry from voluntary measures to mandatory reductions. We are acting immediately to ensure Canadian industry meets short, medium and long-term emission reductions targets. Our plan recognizes the importance of a long-term commitment to reducing emissions. We will continue to take into account the well-researched advice of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, and will work to reduce Canada's absolute emissions by up to 65 per cent by 2050. But our plan also recognizes the need for urgent action so that we can finally make progress towards our 2012 international obligations. Early in the New Year, Canada will finally have short term targets and timelines for all major industry sectors. Recognizing the role for non-regulated entities such as municipalities to take on voluntary targets and receive credit for the contributions they are making, we are working with Canadians to develop a system for opt-ins and offsets to create increased opportunity for credit for early action and investments in renewable energy. Only a plan that seeks to include everyone will deliver the results Canada needs to make a difference. Our plan recognizes the importance of taking an integrated approach to ensure we address both climate change and air pollution. The health of our citizens and the health of our environment are equally important. To us, the two are inseparable and for that reason, our government has chosen to address them in unison. Our plan recognizes the Canadian context: our greenhouse gases come primarily from two places - transportation and the energy sector. Our government has invested 1.3 billion dollars in public transit, and is finding innovative ways to offer Canadians cleaner fuels. For the first time, Canada has set a target of 5 percent renewable fuel content by 2010. Our government will be the first Canadian government to introduce mandatory fuel efficiency standards in vehicles. Acknowledging the importance of technology as a solution to addressing climate change, our government will hold a national workshop to debate and discuss the governance and operational capacity of a Canadian technology fund. Canada possesses a wealth of innovative environmental technologies, practical research and constructive bilateral and multilateral partnerships. And our government has the will and the leadership to share these ideas and experiences with the world. Our plan recognizes that citizens must be a part of the solution. If consumers do not take individual responsibility for their actions and make cleaner and more environmentally friendly choices, the actions of any government will be in vain. To support our new industrial regulations, our government this year committed 2 billion dollars towards additional action on climate change, including consumer programs, energy efficiency and transportation initiatives. Canada's New Government recognizes the importance of the provinces and territories and their efforts to introduce plans to address climate change. But we also recognize that it is time we moved our country to mandatory national reductions across all large industry sectors. We know that will only be possible by building a national framework of regulations. There are some who are using the Kyoto Protocol to create divisions within our country – but we will not let that happen. Canada has one target and we all share the responsibility to work together to fulfill our obligations. Individual Canadians, municipalities, provinces and territories must all work together to address this important issue. Using market mechanisms to achieve reductions at the lowest possible cost to industry is important. And Canada's Clean Air Act provides our country with the framework for pursuing a truly flexible and effective trading system. We look to the experience of Europe and the UK, and I am pleased the EU has accepted Canada's invitation to share their experiences and lessons learned when Canada hosts our national workshop on trading in early December. It is our belief that Canada must strive to create a market that is compatible with other markets and leads to the inclusion of the United States – a country we will not criticize, isolate and exclude because they must be part of the solution. We will continue to engage our neighbour and encourage them to take on a stronger role within the United Nations process. As you can see, we have begun to work through our challenges. We can now share some of our progress and we look forward to our successes. It is through your continued support that Canada will be able to provide hope to Canadians and proof to the world that our government is finally on track to make a difference on this important issue. Our hope is that other countries can learn from the challenges Canada is overcoming. Our hope is that when countries consider future action they consider taking an integrated approach and address both climate change and clean air as Canada has – action that will ensure health as well as environmental benefits. Our hope is that we truly find an inclusive approach as we move forward. That we include, and support and encourage, instead of exclude, isolate and criticize. To those of you who might question our resolve to stand together on this urgent issue, let there be no doubt. Canada remains strongly committed to the UN process. Canada remains strongly committed to Kyoto – driven by a principled obligation for collaboration and action. And we look forward to making a significant contribution to the global efforts to fight climate change. I want to thank my Canadian delegation for their outstanding professionalism and dedication to this cause. As we seek constructive dialogue with other nations, Canada's New Government also seeks constructive dialogue with other Canadian political parties. CONCLUSION As we gather here, we are as ministers obligated to take stock of the challenges facing us, through article 3.9, article 9, and the convention dialogue. As we do this, we must ask ourselves "what has worked" and "what has not worked" under the protocol to date. There are some who fear that by admitting certain things are not working we are in effect abandoning Kyoto. On the contrary, I would challenge each of us to recognize that we are abandoning our protocol obligations if we do not acknowledge that we must make improvements. Our debate needs to be one of constructive dialogue - centered on real policy discussions, not cynicism and political expediency. Ultimately we will not achieve success by denying the shortcomings of our past approach. Rather, success lies in an open, honest and constructive assessment of where we stand today, and a determined effort to identify how we can collectively move forward to find a truly global solution to combat climate change. In Canada, climate change is the subject of vigorous debate – as it is throughout the world. In our Parliament, our government seeks open and constructive dialogue and welcomes every overture of collaboration. We seek and offer the same in the international community. Thank you.
  5. So North America is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around us?That's an extremely self-centred opinion. You have ignored all the people in the rest of the world, the Chinese and Indians included. Do you really believe that if we didn't buy Chinese stuff, the Chinese economy would immediately stop? And what of India? Sorry, there's more to the world than North America and the Chinese are not merely drones producing stuff for North Americans. China and India are developing rapidly because individual Chinese and Indians want a better life for themselves. At present, the Chinese are building one coal generating electric station every week. Five new stations emit the equivalent CO2 as what Canada has agreed to cut under Kyoto (cuts that Canada is nowhere near meeting). I note all this because Kyoto imposes no restrictions on India or China. Don't get me wrong, Saturn. I agree that global warming is a potential and serious problem. But Kyoto is not the solution. Absolutely. It does not matter where in the world we reduce CO2 emissions. It's a global problem.If it cost $1 billion to reduce emissions in Canada by X amount, but only $500 million to reduce emissions by the same X amount elsewhere in the world, then it it would be foolish and costly to do it here. We want the biggest bang for the buck. And Keepitsimple, if you quote another text, provide a link or at least indicate that it's not your writing. People have been banned from this forum for what you did above. Here's the link: Link is at http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archives/...15/2502949.html
  6. In the Toronto area, I've heard the term "Affordable Housing" a lot. Jack Layton and Olivia Chow continue to be "champions" in this area......but I've never really quite understood what comprises "Affordable Housing" - who should get it, what form it should take, who pays for it (Municipal, Provincial, Federal). I know that in the 60's and 70's, there were blocks of apartments that were built and rented out almost exclusively to "income challenged" citizens. More often than not, these apartments became run-down and crime-ridden. I believe the Toronto Star recently quoted that 30,000 people were on "the list for Affordable Housing". If Affordable Housing is aimed at low-income people, wouldn't offering a rent supplement be more effective? Perhaps the city could "reserve" a small percentage of units in different areas so that these low-income residents are not ghettoized. Since this Blog is National, I'm curious to know if you think that Affordable Housing should be a priority (or not) where you live - and what form it should take. Different cities have different needs. I'm actually trying to learn a bit from this post........well, now that I think about it, I guess we should try and learn from every post.
  7. Here's an added thought - if we truly care about the environment, we should thank the stars that the Conservatives are in power...and here's why. If the Liberals had remained in power, the CBC and our leftist media would have continued to give them a free ride. Oh, they would have had a few complaints but for the most part, they would line up behind whatever promises the Liberals made and defend most of their actions. You need only reflect back on Stephan Dion's 17 months as Environment Minister and the Liberals overall environment progress to understand how truthful this is. They did next to nothing and yet were not taken to task in any meaningful way - and even in retrospect, the media is sparing in their criticism of Liberal inaction. With the Conservatives in power, there is undying fire and brimstone coming from all quarters. Harper boots Ambrose and appoints Baird - it's a political ploy. Harper decides to meet with Arnie the Governator to get a better idea of the hows and whys of California's green plans - John Bennett of Climate Action says he should stop meeting and start doing - it goes on and on, day after day. So all this pressure - which is really a paranoid reflex action to villify Harper and the Conservatives - is actually good for the environment. So if you want action - pray that the Liberals do not get re-elected.
  8. Let's keep going on the original question - do you agree with sending billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to foreign countries to make up for Canada's shortfall in meeting Kyoto targets - instead of investing that money right here in Canada to further our own GHG reductions? This goes to the essence of Kyoto - if you cannot support this approach, then you cannot support Kyoto. Kyoto, as presented by opposition parties and the media is an all-or-nothing scenario - black or white - for it or against it. It's unfortunate that it has become so polarized and politicized - but it's a fact. Rona Ambrose made a speech in Nairobi back in November. Following is the "embarrassment to Canada", it carries a lot of sincerity and truth if one can put aside the dogma of Kyoto. One can only hope. CONCLUSION As we gather here, we are as ministers obligated to take stock of the challenges facing us, through article 3.9, article 9, and the convention dialogue. As we do this, we must ask ourselves "what has worked" and "what has not worked" under the protocol to date. There are some who fear that by admitting certain things are not working we are in effect abandoning Kyoto. On the contrary, I would challenge each of us to recognize that we are abandoning our protocol obligations if we do not acknowledge that we must make improvements. Our debate needs to be one of constructive dialogue - centered on real policy discussions, not cynicism and political expediency. Ultimately we will not achieve success by denying the shortcomings of our past approach. Rather, success lies in an open, honest and constructive assessment of where we stand today, and a determined effort to identify how we can collectively move forward to find a truly global solution to combat climate change. In Canada, climate change is the subject of vigorous debate – as it is throughout the world. In our Parliament, our government seeks open and constructive dialogue and welcomes every overture of collaboration. We seek and offer the same in the international community.
  9. Many Canadians think that "supporting" Kyoto means making a concerted effort to reach certain targets. It is more than that....and that is why more and more Canadians are becoming skeptical of its merits. Please read on and let us know where you stand. Liberal leader Christian Dion does not want to address the most serious flaw in the Kyoto agreement. It is clear that Canada will miss its Kyoto targets by a huge margin. According to Kyoto, we are obligated to "buy" credits from "developing" countries or Russia to make up for our shortfall. This would amount to billions of dollars being directed out of the country - instead of being invested here in Canada - in our own green solution. The previous Liberal government had actually set aside many billions (not sure of the exact amount), precisely for this purpose because they knew they could not possibly meet their targets. Our left-leaning media will simply not address this directly with Dion and pin him down - will he, or will he not send money out of the country to meet our shortfalls? If he does, he should be clear. If he does not, he's violating Kyoto. On a similar front, the CBC continually trots out John Bennet, the talking head of the Climate Action Network. He consistently uses the catch-phrase that Kyoto has "flexible mechanisms that will allow Canada to meet their Kyoto commitments". Those mechanisms of course, are again, the shipping of hard-earned tax dollars to foreign countries to make up for any Canadian shortfall against our Kyoto targets. CBC of course, refuses to re-phrase their question to pin this activist down. Where do you stand on this issue? If your choice was to send billions to another country or to invest those billions in a Green solution here in Canada - what choice would you make? Some might say it is not that simple. It is that simple - because buying credits is the lynch-pin of Kyoto and if you don't agree with that philosophy, you don't agree with Kyoto.
  10. This guy does not and will not address the most outrageous flaw in the Kyoto agreement. It is clear that Canada will miss its Kyoto targets by a huge margin. According to Kyoto, we are supposed to "buy" credits from "developing" countries or Russia to make up for our shortfall. This would amount to billions of dollars being directed out of the country - instead of being invested here in Canada - in our own green solution. The previous Liberal government had actually set aside many billions (not sure of the exact amount), precisely for this purpose because they knew they could not possibly meet their targets. Our left-leaning media will simply not address this directly with Dion and pin him down - will he, or will he not send money out of the country to meet our shortfalls? If he does, he should be clear. If he does not, he's violating Kyoto. Get off the pot. On a similar front, the CBC continually trots out John Bennet, the talking head of the Climate Action Network. He consistently uses the catch-phrase that Kyoto has "flexible mechanisms that will allow Canada to meet their Kyoto commitments". Those mechanisms of course, are again, the shipping of hard-earned tax dollars to foreign countries to make up for any Canadian shortfall against our Kyoto targets. CBC of course, refuses to re-phrase their question to pin this bozo down. It's insanity. This whole "buying credits" scam is nothing more than forcing "rich" countries to increase their foreign aid.
  11. Kyoto has done a valuable service in alerting the world to an issue that deserves attention....but its political and economical framework is unworkable. Here's an article by Lorrie Goldstein - his third of three: link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/ January 16, 2007 More Kyoto crimes China, set to build 562 new coal plants, is exempt from the rules By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, ASSOCIATE EDITOR Where is the political party in Canada that will take us out of the Kyoto accord, since the deal is an impending economic disaster for us? When the Liberals under Jean Chretien signed the Kyoto accord in 1998 and, more important, ratified it in 2002, they committed Canadian taxpayers and consumers, without consultation, to one of the most radical programs for reducing greenhouse gases on Earth, with no idea of how to achieve it. Canada, the world's ninth-largest emitter of man-made greenhouse gases (2.1% of all emissions in 2000), faces cuts no other major industrialized (and northern) country agreed to -- 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 -- which the Grits had already missed by 35% when they were tossed from power a year ago. By contrast, the U.S., the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases (20.6%), refused to ratify Kyoto because of concerns about the harm it would do to its economy. China, the second-largest emitter (14.8%) and India, fourth-largest (5.5%), don't have to cut emissions because Kyoto classifies them as "developing" countries. Russia, the third-largest emitter. (5.7%) has lots of room to emit more greenhouse gases and sell carbon or "hot air" credits to other countries -- like us -- solely because its economy collapsed in the early 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Australia, the world's largest per capita producer of man-made carbon dioxide emissions because of its reliance on coal, would be able to increase emissions by 8% above its 1990 levels, if it ratified Kyoto, which it hasn't, fearing major job losses. While the nations of the European Union (14% of all global emissions) accepted Kyoto reduction targets of 8%, they insisted on being treated as a collective in order to benefit from the collapse of the East German economy after the fall of the Soviet Union. The news for Canadian taxpayers and consumers only gets worse. Even if we were to meet our Kyoto targets for 2012, which would have a huge negative impact on our economy because we're now 35% behind, it won't matter. China, India and the U.S. -- none of them restricted by Kyoto -- are planning to build more than 850 new coal-fired energy plants over the next few years. China alone is planning 562. (Burning coal emits more greenhouse gas, linked to global warming, than oil or natural gas, the world's two other major fossil fuels.) Two years ago, the respected Christian Science Monitor (CSM) did an in-depth analysis of the implications of this planned coal-fired plant construction in China, India and the U.S. It estimated these 850 plants will put five times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than Kyoto is designed to remove, even if every other country, including Canada, miraculously hits its Kyoto target. Even if new plant construction was limited to only those with a start date, it would still mean putting over twice as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as Kyoto, fully implemented, would remove. Kyoto's defenders argue developing countries like China won't be exempt from emission targets forever, but first need to be shown that the developed world, which has put the lion's share of man-made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere up to the present (85%) are serious. On that, China, has a point. But the problem is it opposes any global say over its energy policy, which it considers purely a domestic issue. Plus, sometime after 2015, the developing world is expected to produce more than 50% of all global greenhouse gases. MINIMIZE JOB LOSSES Sorry, but I'm interested in Canada reducing its own greenhouse gas (and smog) emissions through technology paid for and developed by Canadians, to minimize job losses here as we do it. I'm not interested in buying "hot air" from Russia, or convincing China to "go green" by throwing my money at it for various "carbon sink" projects. I suspect most Canadians would feel that way, if any party -- including Stephen Harper's ruling Conservatives -- honestly told them what Kyoto really says.
  12. Canada is higher than all western countries? According to who? I was wrong in that statement - too quick on the keyboard today. It's difficult to compare from country to country because of all the taxes over and above Income Tax - GST, Sales Tax, Gas taxes, etc. All inclusive, there is no doubt that we are one of the higher-taxed Western countries but some of the Scandinavian countries pay more than we do.
  13. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070114/.../green_tax_poll Then they should find those fifty one percent and tax them like Christ bearing down on a sinner. I'm a little confused. If these are "hypothetical" election promises - then why is one Conservative and the other one Liberal? In general, of course someone would prefer tying a tax cut to environmental behaviour - it sounds all warm and fuzzy - like a Liberal promise should......but take a moment to think of how one could possibly define what that "environmental behaviour" should be - and how you would measure and manage it for the supposed tax benefit. This is precisely why Liberals have always talked a good game (to pander to naive voters, of course) but never delivered......and let's not forget that Canada has a fundamental problem of being one of the highest taxed Western democracies....and that affects every Canadian.
  14. The Toronto Star and their OCAP compatriots seem to do more harm than good for people who are truly in need. Their constant exaggerations only serve to turn people off. Yes, we have an issue and we will always have an issue with people who are less fortunate than others - but let's all deal with the facts so we can collectively provide the needy with a hand-up and for those who truly cannot fend for themselves - a hand-out. As an example, the Star claims that 1 of every 6 people live in Poverty. Their source, as usual, is a selective use of Stats Canada. In fact, if we use the Stats Can LICO (dubious, at best) and use the Before Tax income, you indeed come to somewhere in the area of 1 in 6. Link: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil41a.htm But now let's look at After Tax Income and you'll find that the number is actually 1 in 9. I think we could all agree that for an honest measurement of financial ability, After Tax is a better choice that Before Tax. Link: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil19a.htm This is really only one example of the selective use of statistics. Another major area of misinformation is the use of "young workers" in any Poverty measurement. I'm not sure what age should be the starting point but surely, a significant number of workers that are age 18-21 are just starting out in the workplace and it will take some time for their earning power to gain traction. Most of these are not "poor" - they are, like all of us at one time. simply starting out in life and paying their dues. Seniors (over 65) are also a "special" category. Thier requirements are different - and quite reduced. My own mother is beneath the LICO, yet she does very well and would never even consider her situation to be challenging. So what is the right number - 1 in 10? 1 in 12? I don't think it matters that much - what matters is that we recognize that there are real people behind the numbers so let's not turn people off by blowing things out of proportion.
  15. Some of you guys just think too deeply. What the heck is wrong with Harper "reaching out" to ethnic communities. If these communities are so enthralled with the Liberal "inclusive" and "big tent" approach, then they will tell him to get lost. It's true that the Conservatives used to rail against the Liberals on immigration - but only for their "doors wide open and forget about them "approach. In conjunction with reaching out to ethnic communities, the Conservatives are building a program that better qualifies immigrants, provides preparation before coming to Canada, and giving better integration support once they arrive. It's not going to happen overnight but if they get an opportunity to follow through on their vision, new Canadians will get a better shake than the "We let you in so vote for us" Liberal history.
  16. "someone said there is a possibility". My first suggestion would be to shoot "someone". The US would never arbitrarily and unilaterally pull out so there's no sense in speculating.
  17. Benny Pieser is not a climate expert. Sorry to shoot the messenger again. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser I wouldn't expect him to be a climate "expert" - that would make him biased - we've got too many of those already. This article is simply a summary critique of how the "process" is working and what the economic impacts appear to be. I won't take all his observations as gospel but it's a critique that is long overdue to be published on a more regular basis. After all, if we are asking countries to fundamentally alter their economics, wouldn't we all be wise to measure the results?
  18. Today, the Toronto Star published a front-page article entitled "Jailers fear PM's Justice overhaul. The article states that the document is dated January 24, 2006 – the day after the Conservatives won the election. Obviously, it was in the making several months before. Since the Civil Service is theoretically non-partisan, the document had to have been requested by the political masters of the day, the Liberal Party. Not surprisingly, its “recommendations” refute each and every Conservative policy and thus was clearly prepared as Liberal electoral fodder. During the election, the Liberals were caught flat-footed by the public demonstration of support for Conservative crime and sentencing initiatives. As a result, the document appears to have been kept under wraps due to the fear that the Liberals would be viewed as soft on crime. To my mind, the article highlights a fundamental problem that hopefully has been somewhat addressed by the Accountability Act – and that involves the politicization of the Civil Service for partisan purposes. Finally, owing to the dubious origins and authorship of this year-old document, one has to question why The Star would give the article front-page, top-of-fold coverage.....but I can guess - they're just a teeny-weeny bit biased. Here's the Link and the article: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/169976 Jailers fear PM's justice overhaul TheStar.com - News - Jailers fear PM's justice overhaul Tonda MacCharles Toronto Star OTTAWA–Federal government proposals to get tougher on criminals would hit aboriginal people the hardest, violate Charter rights of inmates, and likely not make for safer streets, says the agency that oversees federal prisons. Underlying some of the agency's criticism is concern about dramatic increases in the prison population that would result from the Conservatives' approach. Among the targets in an analysis prepared by Correctional Services Canada's strategic policy division are proposals for mandatory minimum sentences and for the so-called three-strikes law, key elements of the Tories' law-and-order agenda. The analysis says minimum sentences don't have a deterrent effect and drain away funds available for social programs that prevent crime. The proposal for a three-strikes law – designating as a dangerous offender anyone convicted of a third violent or sexual offence – would have a "disproportionately higher impact" on native people, the analysis says. The analysis took aim at almost every law-and-order promise that would affect prisoners made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives during the election campaign a year ago. The final version of the document, obtained by the Star under Access to Information legislation, is dated Jan. 24, 2006 – the day after the Conservatives won the election. It outlined "considerations" for the new government on each of its proposed policies, as well as advice on the "direction/way forward." The final document and its early drafts contain several blacked-out sections. But the public servants' critique appears to offer more ammunition to the government's critics. Only two crime bills have passed – tougher penalties for street racing and a watered-down version of the promised restrictions on conditional sentencing or "house arrest." The rest of the Tories' promised measures are either stalled in the minority Parliament, or still to be introduced. But Harper appears undeterred by either opposition or concerns of the public service, naming law and order as still among the government's priorities. Here are some key excerpts from the bureaucrats' analysis: On mandatory minimum prison sentences, legislation which the Conservatives have introduced for gun- and gang-related crime, and promised for serious drug offences, and for crimes committed while on parole or for repeat offenders: "Research shows mandatory minimums do not have a deterrent or educative effect." It notes the United States is moving away from mandatory minimum sentences, and embarking on reforms to improve parole to ease crowding and reduce incarceration rates. It says "increased incarceration reduces funds available for social programs that prevent crime." On Harper's promise to repeal statutory release, the legal right to early release for prisoners who serve two-thirds of their sentences, upon good behaviour: Such a proposal would have a huge impact on prison populations. The document says two-thirds of all federal offenders released in 2004-05 were statutory releases, with generally few problems. In the last five years, it said, only 3 per cent of offenders out on statutory release saw their freedom revoked "for a violent offence." The biggest advantage, it suggests, is the ability of correctional authorities to supervise the inmate in the community for the last third of a sentence. Impact on aboriginal offenders is flagged. Without statutory release, it says, they would "be further delayed in their return to the community, preventing them from benefiting from more culturally appropriate interventions." On promised consecutive sentences for multiple violent or sexual offences: "Credible research shows that longer sentences do not contribute to public safety and may actually increase the risk of recidivism (repeat offences) for some offenders." On promises to kill the "faint hope" clause that allows inmates sentenced to life a possibility of bidding for parole after 15 years in jail: The analysis makes clear that most eligible offenders do not bother to apply. Of those who have ultimately won parole, only a handful have been returned to custody. (As of Dec. 2004, there were 712 eligible lifers, it said. Since 1991, when the "faint hope" clause became available – access to it was tightened in 1997– 118 of 145 applicants were successful in winning parole, and of those, 17 were returned to custody for breaching the conditions of their release.) On Harper's suggestions that a Tory government would take away voting rights from federal prisoners: The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld prisoner-voting rights as "unfettered." On a proposal to automatically designate as a "dangerous offender" anyone convicted of a third violent or sexual offence (sometimes called the "three-strikes" bill): The bureaucrats' analysis says because aboriginal offenders have a higher rate of conviction for assault and related offences, the proposal could have a "disproportionately higher impact" on natives. A "dangerous offender" designation draws an indefinite sentence, and the offender can't apply for parole until after at least seven years in custody. On restricting access to conditional sentences (also known as "house arrest"): Conditional sentences are imposed in fewer than 5 per cent of all cases, have reduced admissions to provincial jails by 13 per cent with no negative impact on crime rates, and "generally worked well and garnered praise from sentencing experts around the world," said the bureaucrats. As it turned out, the combined Liberal, Bloc Québécois and New Democratic opposition succeeded in substantially amending this bill, and a watered-down version passed the Commons and Senate. A source told the Star yesterday that without the amendments, the law would have had a huge impact on provincial jail populations. After last week's cabinet shuffle, Harper repeated his resolve to push ahead with the law-and-order agenda. But he is clearly frustrated with the kind of advice his government has received from the public service. On Sunday, asked what he'd learned as prime minister, Harper complained on CBC Radio's Cross-Country Check-up of the "practical" difficulties of working with bureaucrats. Harper said the most difficult thing he had to learn as prime minister "is dealing with the federal bureaucracy." It is a question of getting "the bureaucracy moving in the direction you want them to move while not becoming ... captive of them. ..." A call to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day's office was not returned.
  19. 1. We have all saw the latest report posted here on other threads that came out stating humans are increasing the levels of carbon dioxide occuring naturally, and accelerating climate change. This means climate change can be slowed and stablized by lowering GHG emissions. 2. That point by the NP is a red herring, and/or a strawman propaganda technique. The second point that it is Kyoto destroying the EU is refutted in their own words: The Biggest factor in it its potential failure is greed: The next factor is: and another factor is: The EU is having to go it alone, because other countries like Canada are not living up to the signed agreements. And because of greed and cheap manufacturing corporations are moving to countires that have no envirnmental regulations and cheap slave labour. Again, this not Kyoto's fault but the fault of the some countries, and peoples, in world for not caring neough about destoying the world all in the name of profit, and I don't want to change my life style selfishness. TheThe Stern Report out of Britian, should be paid attention to, and the recent report out of the USA linked in the other enivronmental thread here I believe this article from the Financial Post is nothing other than propaganada in trying to bolster Harper et als indecent perceptions regarding climate change and global warming, and is trying to support the useless Clean Air Act, obliquely.
  20. I didn't see the Mercer/Dion piece "live" but played it on my computer from the CBC/Mercer site. I'm a Conservative and although I despise CBC's bias, I didn't find this clip to be anti-Harper. I did however, find Dion to be straight from Dullsville and I can't for the life of me, see how people could vote for this guy if they are looking for a leader. If you haven't seen the Harper/Mercer clip on the Accountability Act - take a look - it's pretty funny. Bear with it for a moment because it starts out looking quite serious but that's part of the ploy. Here's the link - just click on the Accountability video: http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/
  21. I hope Canadians are starting to wake up to the fact that we cannot blindly follow Kyoto - we must develop our own effective "Made in Canada" plan. Putting aside the Kyoto scheme for wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries, we cannot continue to chase poorly conceived targets that were abandoned by the Liberals and are now utterly unachievable. Here's an important article from the Financial Post but before you read it, please read what I think is a very good summary of Kyoto - excerpted from the National Post: Climate change is an inevitable reality. Climate has been changing since long before the dawn of man, who surely could have played no part in the last half dozen ice ages. The critical questions are to what degree human activity is influencing the climate, and how far that activity might be modified to change that climate's future course. If we are truly in for a period of significant climate change -- man-made or otherwise -- the best "solution" is to rely on piecemeal human ingenuity, not grand top-down political solutions of the type that have always and everywhere failed in the past. Whatever the facts of climate change, drastic political action at a global level -- which isn't going to happen -- would achieve little or nothing. Drastic action at a national level would be sheer insanity. Now, here's the "Kyoto Sinks Europe" article: Wednesday » January 10 » 2007 Kyoto sinks Europe: Billions in costs make it more and more unlikely that the EU can continue to go it alone slashing carbon emissions BENNY PEISER Financial Post Tuesday, January 09, 2007 A political drama is unfolding in Europe over the future of its Kyoto strategy. Its outcome will shape the future of climate policy and international negotiations for years to come. At the heart of the escalating confrontation lies Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and mounting concerns about its prospective failure. The crisis centres on a fundamental conflict between economic realism and environmental idealism, between national interest and green ideology. It has exposed the increasing tension between Europe's green enthusiasm and the realization that its unilateral framework comes at a hefty cost that is beginning to erode the economic stability of a waning continent. Carbon trading is the EU's principal strategy for meeting its Kyoto target of reducing CO2 emissions by 8% by 2012. The scheme was launched two years ago in the hope that it would achieve what more than 10 years of political commandeering had failed: significant reductions in CO2 emissions. Instead, year after year, most EU countries continue to increase their greenhouse-gas emissions. Rather than proving its effectiveness, the trading system has pushed electricity prices even higher while energy-intensive companies are forced to close down, cut jobs, or pass on the costs to consumers. As the reality of economic pain is felt all over Europe, deep cracks in its green foundations are beginning to become apparent. Gunter Verheugen, the EU's industry commissioner, has warned that by "going it alone" Europe is burdening its industries and consumers with soaring costs that are undermining Europe's international competitiveness. Instead of improving environmental conditions, Europe's policy threatens to redirect energy-intensive production to parts of the world that reject mandatory carbon cuts. Verheugen's warning reaffirms what U.S. administrations have been saying for many years. It is aimed at the rapidly evolving challenges posed by Asian competitors such as China and India that are set to overtake Europe's sluggish economy within the next couple of decades. Indeed, Europe's imprudent unilateralism is not only constraining its trade and industry; worse still, it has led to a significant slowdown in European R&D budgets, a sliding trend that is hampering the development of low-carbon technologies. The ETS's malfunctioning is partly due to an inherent flaw that allowed member states to allocate more emission permits than European industrial plants actually needed. Although Europe's energy utilities receive carbon permits free of charge, they have passed on the market price to industry and private consumers. In consequence, Germany's energy costs rose by almost ?6-billion ($9.2-billion) in 2005, a price tag that is expected to double in the next couple of years. The cunning strategy ensured that power companies reaped billions in windfall profits. And yet without the massive sweetener, Brussels could not have gained the support of industry for this risky scheme. The dodgy bargain ended in political fiasco: Last year, the trading scheme nearly collapsed as carbon prices crashed. In a desperate attempt to salvage an increasingly volatile system, Brussels has now slashed 7% from the National Allocation Plans recently submitted by EU member states from the second phase (2008-12). The decision has been greeted with irritation and sheer anger in many European capitals as the damaging consequences become apparent. Germany's Economy Minister has called the cuts "totally unacceptable" and Berlin is threatening to challenge the decision in court. As far as the imminent future is concerned, one thing is patently clear: After years of inflated promises that the Kyoto process would not upset their economy, European governments are beginning to realize that the era of cost-free climate hype is coming to an end. In its place, concern is growing that key industries and entire countries will pay a devastating price for Europe's reckless Kyoto craze. The stakes are particularly high for Germany. Despite its customary role as environmental cheerleader, it has been hit hardest. Brussels bureaucrats have slashed more than 30 million tonnes from its annual carbon permit. It faces up to ?3.5-billion in fines if it cannot bring down emissions by 2008. Germany is extremely vulnerable to imposed energy caps. It is strongly opposed to plans for replacing its coal-fired power plants with gas-fired facilities, as such a move would only increase its already precarious dependency on Russian gas imports. Furthermore, successive governments have agreed to shut down all nuclear power plants, which account for a third of Germany's electricity generation. The Greens' anti-nuclear achievement has thus turned ideological triumph into an energy nightmare. To make matters worse, Germany's industry bosses have warned that they will not proceed with billions in intended energy investments should the government lose the bitter dispute with the European Commission over slashed emission credits. The EU has made clear that it will not yield to German demands, as this would destabilize its fragile trading scheme. However, should German companies be forced to buy carbon credits at higher prices, it will simply remove funds and economic incentives that the government had hoped would be invested in alternative technologies. As the price for electricity, goods and services continue to rise and Asian competitors catch up with Europe's lethargic economy, the public is beginning to question Brussel's unilateral climate policy. According to a recent EU poll, more than 60% of Europeans are unwilling to sacrifice their standard of living in the name of green causes. As long as advocates of Kyoto got away with claims that their policies would not inflict any significant costs, many people were tempted to believe in improbable promises. Now that the true cost of Kyoto is starting to hurt European pockets, the erstwhile green consensus is unravelling. Oblivious to its deepening isolation, Europe is trying frantically to salvage the political capital it has invested in the Kyoto process. China and India have consistently ruled out participating in a global emissions trading scheme. It is unlikely that their booming economies and growing consumer demands would cope with energy restrictions on their development. Just the thought of allocating carbon credits for up to two billion potential middle-class consumers makes the mind boggle. In recent weeks, even U.S. Democrats have cautiously started to lower expectations. They now concede that even under a Democratic administration, the United States is unlikely to join any international climate regime that would exclude Asia's looming superpowers and burden its economy with unilateral obligations. Political realists have absorbed these sobering developments. There are signs that they are preparing the public for the EU's ultimate exit from Kyoto-type treaties. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Chancellor Angela Merkel's climate advisor during Germany's EU and G8 presidencies, has suggested that G8 countries as well as China and India should adopt their own, national climate goals and policies, a loose road map that could replace the fading Kyoto treaty after it runs out in 2012. What then are the chances that Europe's flagging climate policy will survive? The prospects are rather bleak. It remains unclear, however, whether the disarray over Kyoto and its rickety emissions-trading scheme will discourage others from getting their own fingers burnt. - - - - Benny Peiser is a researcher at Liverpool John Moores University in the U.K. and is the editor of CCNet. © National Post 2007 Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved. Links: both articles can be found under FP Comment at: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/section...tion=FP+Comment
×
×
  • Create New...