Canada blocks Commonwealth climate-change deal

[trex]

CTV News

24/11/2007

Canada is reportedly holding up a resolution at the Commonwealth summit in Uganda which calls for binding climate change targets, sources have confirmed. Environmentalists and Commonwealth sources claim Canada has problems with the resolution despite virtually all other countries in attendance, except Australia, supporting it.

CTV News reporter David Akin says many countries frustrated by Canada's stance have gone to the media in an effort to put pressure on the Canadian delegates.

"Mr. Harper presented his views (to delegates) and they weren't very well received," Akin told CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live on Friday evening.

---------------------

Leave it to Harper and his Cons to ruin our reputation as progressive leaders in the world on environment. Oh yes, they did drop the progressive part from their name. It's just one more nail in the coffin, dear.

[margrace]

Since one of my best friends has relatives in the Harper family I hope I don't hear of anyone in his family getting an environmental sickness. Its easy to ignore those you don't know.

[Wild Bill]

CTV News

24/11/2007

Canada is reportedly holding up a resolution at the Commonwealth summit in Uganda which calls for binding climate change targets, sources have confirmed. Environmentalists and Commonwealth sources claim Canada has problems with the resolution despite virtually all other countries in attendance, except Australia, supporting it.

CTV News reporter David Akin says many countries frustrated by Canada's stance have gone to the media in an effort to put pressure on the Canadian delegates.

"Mr. Harper presented his views (to delegates) and they weren't very well received," Akin told CTV Newsnet's Mike Duffy Live on Friday evening.

---------------------

Leave it to Harper and his Cons to ruin our reputation as progressive leaders in the world on environment. Oh yes, they did drop the progressive part from their name. It's just one more nail in the coffin, dear.

Not necessarily. I'd like to actually read the resolution before I make up my mind. I waded through the Kyoto Accord and through all the legalese I could see how it was a poor vehicle to "save the planet" and really based on global welfare politics.

The problem with these international resolutions seems to be that the votes are dominated by all the warm countries! Sure there are a few exceptions like Norway or whatever but by in large it always seems to be a bunch of third world tropical climate countries calling us down! Canada has different energy needs, like the need to keep from freezing!

Besides, none of these countries want us to clean up our own act. They want us to buy emission credits from them! They want the money!

I will agree that Harper's government is costing us more money. They actually are moving to have us clean up at home and this will be expensive.

The Liberals were much cheaper. In all those years they never spent a dime!

[peijay]

why is it that harper and his supporters are supposedly always right and every one else are wrong. ask Mr. Howard (harpers buddy) in Australia where his right ideas got him?

[trex]

The problem with these international resolutions seems to be that the votes are dominated by all the warm countries! Sure there are a few exceptions like Norway or whatever but by in large it always seems to be a bunch of third world tropical climate countries calling us down! Canada has different energy needs, like the need to keep from freezing!

The UK is not a warm country. It may be third-world but its not warm.

[Topaz]

why is it that harper and his supporters are supposedly always right and every one else are wrong. ask Mr. Howard (harpers buddy) in Australia where his right ideas got him?

Bad news for Harper, Australia, yesterday, voted Howard out and PM Rudd in. He's for Kyoto and against the Iraqi war, so I would think that Australia would be withdrawing their troops from Iraq. I. not sure, but I think they would leave the US and Canada against Kyoto!

[Argus]

why is it that harper and his supporters are supposedly always right and every one else are wrong. ask Mr. Howard (harpers buddy) in Australia where his right ideas got him?

Harper is not a leftist politician. These treaties are put together and voted on by leftist politicians and third world leaders who hope to make money. Think about it. Europe is ruled by the Left, and of course, they're interested in reallocation of wealth. Needless to say, so is the third world. So the third world votes for these treaties because it gets paid various environmental credits for not having industry - and for essentially doing nothing, and the Leftist politicians are delighted because it reallocates wealth to the poor. Actually it reallocates wealth to the wealthy third world leaders who then send it back to Europe to buy sports cars, palaces and investments, though.

[Topaz]

Harper is not a leftist politician. These treaties are put together and voted on by leftist politicians and third world leaders who hope to make money. Think about it. Europe is ruled by the Left, and of course, they're interested in reallocation of wealth. Needless to say, so is the third world. So the third world votes for these treaties because it gets paid various environmental credits for not having industry - and for essentially doing nothing, and the Leftist politicians are delighted because it reallocates wealth to the poor. Actually it reallocates wealth to the wealthy third world leaders who then send it back to Europe to buy sports cars, palaces and investments, though.

If you are going to talk about money money then let do that. Harper's own family is in the oil business themselves, as he did admit on the CTV' interview last year. How many of the people in his party and other parties have investments in Alberta? So you can see, money is made of both sides and it shouldn't be the top reason, it has to be the HEALTH of the earth and for people who live on this earth, no matter what the name of your politicial party, you still have to breath!!!

[Argus]

If you are going to talk about money money then let do that. Harper's own family is in the oil business themselves, as he did admit on the CTV' interview last year. How many of the people in his party and other parties have investments in Alberta? So you can see, money is made of both sides and it shouldn't be the top reason, it has to be the HEALTH of the earth and for people who live on this earth, no matter what the name of your politicial party, you still have to breath!!!

Yes, industry produces wealth. If you want us to have no industry then you have to accept us having no wealth too. I'm not interested in shivering in the cold and dark, but if that's your thing then by all means move into the woods and set up shop.

The Kyoto treaty was a solution to nothing. Even those who supported it admitted it would do virtually nothing, for all the tens of billions it cost, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even if every nation on Earth signed on and lived up to it.

The only solution to greenhouse gas emissions - and that's assuming they actually are in some part responsible for global warming - which no one has proven - is to develop technology which results in cleaner energy. I'd be in favour of devoting some money to that, but not to shipping container loads of cash to third world dictators.

[Wild Bill]

The UK is not a warm country. It may be third-world but its not warm.

I said dominated, not unanimous! You can't plot a curve with only one point.

I always like to read these things for myself before I take a strong stand. It just amazes me how most people obviously don't! Everybody seems to take an almost religious approach, where they go with what emotionally appeals to them. Who would be against saving the planet? Who wouldn't want to help poorer countries?

The perpetual problem as I see it is that usually these resolutions and agreements are really long on the emotional appeal and very short on proven science. And after reading the documentation you often see that the real goal is quite different from how things are presented.

I guess I'm saying that environmental issues are more political than scientific, at least to me.

Perhaps you've also read the Kyoto Accord and can cite where I'm wrong. I'd be interested in checking my own premises.

[DrGreenthumb]

Being a conservative supporter I assume you are looking for some really strong "faith-based" scientific evidence? And the earth and universe are really only 6000 years old right?

You cons would really just be laughable if it weren't for your fascist leanings.

[Fortunata]

Yet Steve will come back from this conference and pat himself on the back, telling Canadians we are cutting edge, world leaders on the climate change issue. He does this all the time whilst wiling away precious time that we should actually be doing something positive and meaningful.

[trex]

Commonwealth reaches consensus on climate

The Commonwealth's leaders have agreed to an action plan on climate change that doesn't set out binding targets or timelines for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The statement released Saturday does call for greater co-operation between developed countries like Canada and developing nations, CTV's David Akin reported from the summit in Uganda.

"It simply calls for 'aspirational' targets. In other words, these are things the Commonwealth countries just hope will happen," he told Newsnet.

Canada opposed language that would set firm, Kyoto-style targets.

Environmentalists and Commonwealth sources claim Canada stood only with Australia in opposing firm targets.

The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said it would like to see flexible targets with more emphasis placed on improving technology to deal with climate change issues.

That is very similar to the stance of U.S. President George Bush.

Until recently, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard had been an ally of Harper and Bush on the climate issue, but he lost power in Saturday's general election. Labour Leader Kevin Rudd has promised to ratify Kyoto, something Howard refused to do. Bush refused to ratify Kyoto and Harper opposed ratification as Canadian Alliance leader.

Australia, Canada and the United States are three of the world's biggest per-capita emitters of greenhouse gases.

------------

In other words Canada, via Harper, screwed the pooch in this conference. Harper adapted a Bush-style "all or nothing" attitude. I hope he gets well paid for it.

Is this what we expect from leadership in our country? Is this the message we want Canada to send to the rest of the world? Canada... just for the money

Edited November 24, 2007 by trex

[bush_cheney2004]

That is very similar to the stance of U.S. President George Bush.

Until recently, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard had been an ally of Harper and Bush on the climate issue, but he lost power in Saturday's general election. Labour Leader Kevin Rudd has promised to ratify Kyoto, something Howard refused to do. Bush refused to ratify Kyoto and Harper opposed ratification as Canadian Alliance leader.

President Bush can't ratify treaties....that is done by the US Senate, which flushed Kyoto down an environmentally friendy toilet way back in 1998 (vote count was 95 - 0 against ), before Bush was ever elected. Clinton and Gore also played politics with Kyoto, knowing damn well it was never going to happen.

Yes.....Canada is about the money.

[Keepitsimple]

If you are going to talk about money money then let do that. Harper's own family is in the oil business themselves, as he did admit on the CTV' interview last year.

Harper's own family? Are you implying that they are oil barons? Harper's father worked as a Chartered Accountant for Imperial Oil in Toronto until he retired sometime in the 80's. That's his only "family" association with Oil. Big Money is something the Harpers were not.

[Wild Bill]

Being a conservative supporter I assume you are looking for some really strong "faith-based" scientific evidence? And the earth and universe are really only 6000 years old right?

You cons would really just be laughable if it weren't for your fascist leanings.

You didn't specifically mention any one of us but your post followed mine. Did you aim this at me?

If you did, I'm still laughing! I'm not a conservative and I'm not religious either. I am just a guy whose first book was a science text and I've never stopped having an abiding interest in science since.

By science I don't mean botany like with David Suzuki but rather hard sciences like physics and chemistry.

Even then, I think you missed the point. Most of us don't disagree with Kyoto over global warming. We just aren't convinced by what evidence is offered that first, global warming is truly happening and second, that it is caused by mankind's actions and therefore presumably we have some control in doing something about it! These are two quite different issues. Most Kyoto supporters just roll them into one, which is a very political, faith-based and unscientific thing to do.

Near as I can figure, most Kyoto supporters have never read the damn thing (have YOU?) and are simply running on some kind of faith in the new religion of "Save the planet from evil capitalists by buying chickens for every pot in the poor, disadvantaged third world that we white folks ripped off for generations". A bit much for scientifically minded folks to swallow. I might support some kind of international agreement but not this one! If the problem is real there are far better ways to deal with it.

More simply, I'm not saying the idea of global warming and its effects is lame. I'm saying KYOTO is lame! Where is it written that this is the best and only possible solution?

A better question might be: "Why is Kyoto always presented as exactly that, the only right and true way?"

So for me at least, your straw man ad hominem attack is way off the mark. I'm not some social engineering bible thumping neo-con. I'm just a guy that would rather study electronics than left-wing economics. I'm no scientific expert but I like to think that I'm better prepared than most of the "green" folks I talk with to understand these issues.

If you haven't already, you might want to do a search on youtube.com for some of Penn and Teller's "Bullsh*t" videos that debunk the lack of true intelligence in many of these areas. They do one where at a California "Save the Planet" festival they sent a young girl around to gather signatures in support of banning "Hydrogen Dioxide" as a greenhouse menace, when anybody with any scientific wit at all would know it is simply - water!

They got hundreds of signatures, including from highly placed members of green lobby groups!

These guys are masters at debunking popular pseudo-science.

[Canuck E Stan]

You're dating yourself Bill,

it isn't Global Warming any longer,get with it.....and the new improved global warming....."Climate Change"

[Moxie]

Wild Bill wrote: Near as I can figure, most Kyoto supporters have never read the damn thing (have YOU?) and are simply running on some kind of faith in the new religion of "Save the planet from evil capitalists by buying chickens for every pot in the poor, disadvantaged third world that we white folks ripped off for generations". A bit much for scientifically minded folks to swallow. I might support some kind of international agreement but not this one! If the problem is real there are far better ways to deal with it.

I concur, Kyoto is nothing but a mathmatical formula. Debit this country and credit that country and at the end of the day there is no reduction in pollution. However, consulting scientist and echo terrorist would make a fortune out of the propaganda called Global Warming. It was and is a sham, a scam to give billions of dollars to those that are trying to have global warming declaired a FACT. It isn't, it's fast becoming the religion of those who lack adequate Grey Matter.

[Leafless]

Bad news for Harper, Australia, yesterday, voted Howard out and PM Rudd in.

I suppose like some U.S. citizens Australian voters are fed up hearing about Iraq and think PM Rudd is going to make the difference.

And how did Rudd pull this off:

During the election campaign, Mr Rudd's "me-tooism" in closely imitating Mr Howard's policy pledges became an issue, though political observers concede that the tactic proved highly successful.

But PM Rudd himself, could closely resemble our own nerdy opposition Liberal leader Stephane Dion:

Even now, the words most commonly used to describe Mr Rudd are "nerdy", "bookish" and "bland". There is none of the knockabout barbecue banter that has helped countless politicians court middle Australian votes in the past.

While he didn't put a foot wrong during the campaign, Mr Rudd became an unwitting international celebrity when a video clip - watched by millions on YouTube - showed him excavating wax from his ear during parliamentary questions and popping the morsel into his mouth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...1/24/woz524.xml

He's for Kyoto and against the Iraqi war, so I would think that Australia would be withdrawing their troops from Iraq.

This of course mirrors faulty Federal Liberal ideology here in Canada and we should be glad we currently have A PM that will not sell out Canada's economic future.

[jdobbin]

Dion comments on Harper's climate deal.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

ion told CTV Newsnet on Saturday that Canada has blocked what would have been a significant deal setting out greenhouse gas emissions targets by Commonwealth countries. He and other critics say the Conservative government used its clout at the summit to stop environmental progress.

"We want our country to be part of the solution, not part of the problem," Dion said.

"With Mr. Harper, we will not be part of the solution, it is clear."

I think Harper is hoping no one will notice that "aspirational" means "in your dreams."

[Canuck E Stan]

Dion comments on Harper's climate deal.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I think Harper is hoping no one will notice that "aspirational" means "in your dreams."

Nothing wrong with Harper's logic at the conference. Dispute the common sense in his statement.

Commonwealth steers clear of binding emissions targets

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper insisted any reference to binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions be deleted because the call for committing to such targets would not apply to all major polluters.

"What we were dealing with here was an initial proposal that would suggest binding and absolute targets on some countries and not others. And Canada has been insistent now at three consecutive international forums that we need one effective international protocol that ultimately involves action by all major emitters," he said.

And as for Dion...

"I particularly wish to applaud Mr. Rudd for his determination to restore Australia's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol," Dion said.

Has anyone told Dion that Kyoto died and was buried.What a goof.

[jdobbin]

Nothing wrong with Harper's logic at the conference. Dispute the common sense in his statement.

And as for Dion...

Has anyone told Dion that Kyoto died and was buried.What a goof.

Harper's logic is that it will take years to get a world-wide committment and during that time, he doesn't have to do anything.

[noahbody]

Harper's logic is that it will take years to get a world-wide committment and during that time, he doesn't have to do anything.

I guess if you're right, Canada will be well ahead of the world when the next cooling phase has these same scientists setting targets for increasing Co2 levels.

[Canuck E Stan]

Harper's logic is that it will take years to get a world-wide committment and during that time, he doesn't have to do anything.

And your solution? How about the Liberal solution...other than referring to the buried and dead Kyoto.

While the 90+% of those responsiible for the global problems aren't involved in the solution,Canada is to be a major player with their minor role in the problem?Let's get the big boys taking care of the issues first.Their commitment will immediately cover anything we could do on the short term and have greater effect in the long term.Again I ask,what's your and the Liberal party's solution that would get actual immediate solutions to climate change?

[jdobbin]

I guess if you're right, Canada will be well ahead of the world when the next cooling phase has these same scientists setting targets for increasing Co2 levels.

It is the right wing's lack of belief in emissions that is behind the reluctance to do anything at all.