Canada blocks Commonwealth climate-change deal

[Canuck E Stan]

I believe Dion's policies were too timid in the end and having seen what Arnold Schwarzenegger has done in such a short time, I believe this is what Dion should have done. California's economy hasn't shattered and it is having a transforming effect on technology and policies in regards to emissions.

Other than having Dion move to California, what has the Governator done in short order that Dion should follow?

How are issues in the land of fruits and nuts equivalent to living in Canada and relevant it's economy?

[Keepitsimple]

Dion defended his turf in cabinet. It is not an uncommon practice.

He has been on the other side of issues several times in his life. He was once a PQ supporter but eventually became the man who was behind the Clarity Act, something that Harper supported.

Actually, for all intents and purposes the Clarity Act was initiated by Harper. His Bill C341 only got to first reading before it was quashed by the Liberal majority. Liberals dithered for two more years before arriving at the Clarity Act and Dion receives more credit than he deserves. Here's a summary of Harper's bill - as usual, it's clear and concise - what you see is what you get. I'm not saying that this should have been the final version - but it captures the issue of the day quite nicely and ultimately formed the foundation for the Clarity Act

SUMMARY

This enactment allows the Government of Canada to determine

whether a referendum question in Quebec is clear and unambiguous. If

it is not, a parallel referendum will be held on the same day to ensure a

clear question on separation from Canada.

If an affirmative answer is given to a clear question, the enactment

authorizes the negotiation of separation, subject to the approval of the

rest of Canada by referendum.

It affirms that a unilateral declaration of independence is ineffective

with respect to Canadian law and does not affect the functioning of the

Canadian Parliament, Government and courts with respect to Quebec.

Quebect Contingency Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Contingency_Act

Edited November 25, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

Actually, for all intents and purposes the Clarity Act was initiated by Harper. His Bill C341 only got to first reading before it was quashed by the Liberal majority. Liberals dithered for two more years before arriving at the Clarity Act and Dion receives more credit than he deserves. Here's a summary of Harper's bill - as usual, it's clear and concise - what you see is what you get. I'm not saying that this should have been the final version - but it captures the issue of the day quite nicely and ultimately formed the foundation for the Clarity Act

The Clarity Act loosely follows the same theme but the Liberal bill had the reference points that the 1998 appeal to the Supreme Court gave it. Dion went to torpedo Bouchard on all accounts in three open letters making the case for Feds. It was an intellectual challenge that the PQ and BQ made little headway against.

I have always believed that some in Quebec would never forgive Dion for dismantling their argument for sovereignty. This was a debate that Dion took on, not Harper.

[noahbody]

This is worth watching if you haven't seen it yet. It's pt 1 of 4 of a bob carter lecture.

Not sure if you saw this request or if it got buried in the posts.

The problem with this issue is that is politicized. If scientists revert to calling those who question their theories names, it's a good indication that they don't have the strongest case. I can't see how anyone with the ability to reason would look at this situation and come to the conclusion that the world should spend trillions on it. That said, I have no problem with spending money on environmental problems such as pollution. Watch the lecture and we can discuss it. It's free.

[jdobbin]

Not sure if you saw this request or if it got buried in the posts.

The problem with this issue is that is politicized. If scientists revert to calling those who question their theories names, it's a good indication that they don't have the strongest case. I can't see how anyone with the ability to reason would look at this situation and come to the conclusion that the world should spend trillions on it. That said, I have no problem with spending money on environmental problems such as pollution. Watch the lecture and we can discuss it. It's free.

I've clicked it but it doesn't come up.

However, I have heard about Robert Carter before. The newspapers in Sydney say that he isn't considered credible on issues pertaining to climate. Moreover, he belongs to a conservative think tank that is supported by resource companies.

Like Tim Ball, he makes money giving speeches on climate.

[bush_cheney2004]

Other than having Dion move to California, what has the Governator done in short order that Dion should follow?

How are issues in the land of fruits and nuts equivalent to living in Canada and relevant it's economy?

Beats me too, but the visual comparison invoked (Dion vs. Ah'nold) brought a hearty laugh, not to mention the irony of copying what the Americans are doing for Kyoto.

Edited November 25, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[jdobbin]

Other than having Dion move to California, what has the Governator done in short order that Dion should follow?

How are issues in the land of fruits and nuts equivalent to living in Canada and relevant it's economy?

Since California's economy is bigger than Canada's, it gives a good example of how hard targets don't kill an economy like Harper keeps suggesting.

[bush_cheney2004]

Since California's economy is bigger than Canada's, it gives a good example of how hard targets don't kill an economy like Harper keeps suggesting.

California's economy is far more diverse than Canada's. Any such comparisons are superficial at best.

[Canuck E Stan]

Since California's economy is bigger than Canada's, it gives a good example of how hard targets don't kill an economy like Harper keeps suggesting.

Hardly an answer to my questions. Don't have one?

[Higgly]

Nothing wrong with Harper's logic at the conference.

Isn't this the guy who was telling us about leadership? Here he is saying that he doesn't want to go along because the developing nations won't sign on. This is leadership? "They won't do it, so I don't wanna."?

Good grief.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Higgly

[noahbody]

I've clicked it but it doesn't come up.

However, I have heard about Robert Carter before. The newspapers in Sydney say that he isn't considered credible on issues pertaining to climate. Moreover, he belongs to a conservative think tank that is supported by resource companies.

Like Tim Ball, he makes money giving speeches on climate.

Try again. The link worked for me. Alternatively you can go to youtube and search for "Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?"

If you can discredit what is said, I'd be interested in hearing. The fact he makes very clear is that the 'rapid' increase in temperature we are seeing is in no way unprecedented, as claimed. The earth has been there, done that, several times.

Like Gore's mentor (the situation really hasn't changed since he died), he doesn't see any real cause to be alarmed at this point in time. I agree with both of them.

[Riverwind]

Here he is saying that he doesn't want to go along because the developing nations won't sign on. This is leadership?

Actually that is a sign of leadership because everyone else seems to be insisting that a GHG treaty without binding targets for big emitters would accomplish something. Harper is standing up for common sense.

Incidentally, US will never sign onto a treaty that excludes China and India even if the Democrats win the White house and the Senate. Harper helped the Commonwealth avoid committing to an intransigent position that would be barrier to eventual US participation - another sign of leadership.

[Higgly]

Actually that is a sign of leadership because everyone else seems to be insisting that a GHG treaty without binding targets for big emitters would accomplish something. Harper is standing up for common sense.

Does Kyoto not have binding targets? What am I missing?

[Wild Bill]

If the right would get actual scientists with published and academically repeatable results, I'd pay attention. Instead, we have the same people behind the "smoking is harmless" science from years ago trying to drive home their point. They used to call the medical professionals who kept linking smoking to illness "hysterical."

Still curious. HAVE you ever actually read the Kyoto Accord?

[jdobbin]

Hardly an answer to my questions. Don't have one?

In what California has done?

[jdobbin]

Still curious. HAVE you ever actually read the Kyoto Accord?

Word for word. Have you?

[jdobbin]

Actually that is a sign of leadership because everyone else seems to be insisting that a GHG treaty without binding targets for big emitters would accomplish something. Harper is standing up for common sense.

Incidentally, US will never sign onto a treaty that excludes China and India even if the Democrats win the White house and the Senate. Harper helped the Commonwealth avoid committing to an intransigent position that would be barrier to eventual US participation - another sign of leadership.

The U.S. will never sign on to anything is regards to emissions with the present government even if every country was a participant.

Also, Harper is insisting everyone come to the table because in the mean time, he can avoid doing anything domestically on the issue.

[Pliny]

Given that Dion opposed doing anything about climate change when he was in the cabinet, and that when he became environment minister he did nothing, does he really have any credibility on this issue except to the slavish Liberal supporters like you?

What do you mean Dion did nothing as environment minister? He named his dog Kyoto.

I see you have conveniently forgotten that.

[jdobbin]

Try again. The link worked for me. Alternatively you can go to youtube and search for "Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?"

If you can discredit what is said, I'd be interested in hearing. The fact he makes very clear is that the 'rapid' increase in temperature we are seeing is in no way unprecedented, as claimed. The earth has been there, done that, several times.

Like Gore's mentor (the situation really hasn't changed since he died), he doesn't see any real cause to be alarmed at this point in time. I agree with both of them.

It is working now. He is one of the little ice age theorists.

Here is what Tim Lambert has said:

http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/

Here's the commentary from Australia to Carter:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0...5-27197,00.html

Carter claims that "no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998". This is a pernicious misrepresentation of the facts: 1998 has been the warmest year on record in the past 150 years so it is misleading to pick that one year and say the planet has cooled since.

The longer-term trends are clear, and 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) are the warmest on record since 1850. The years 2001 to 2006 include the globe's second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh warmest years. The planet is not cooling. Carter asserts "lower atmosphere satellite-based measurements show little if any global warming since 1979". This is incorrect.

It was thought the warming detected at the Earth's surface was not matched in the lower atmosphere. However, it has become clear this was a result of data and analysis errors, now corrected. The 2006 US Climate Change Science Program report contained these new findings. Importantly, one of the contributing authors to this report was also lead author of the original paper on which Carter seems to base his outdated argument.

Thirdly, many sceptics assert that solar activity has played a greater role in explaining temperature increase over the past 100 years.

Although natural variations in the sun's activity have affected some of the warming we've observed (included in climate models), human-induced emissions have had a much greater influence.

I don't know about you but the global cooling theory is not supported by the facts and if that is what the Tory contention is, I doubt it will convince most of the Canadian public.

[noahbody]

What do you mean Dion did nothing as environment minister? He named his dog Kyoto.

I see you have conveniently forgotten that.

I always thought a good cartoon would have been Dion's dog Kyoto taking a dump and Dion saying to Harper "Aren't you going to clean that up?"

[Riverwind]

Try again. The link worked for me. Alternatively you can go to youtube and search for "Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?"

Excellent videos. His argument is basically:

1) climate change is real and we better prepare for it

2) there is no empirical evidence that the current climate change trends are statistically warmer or faster than events in the past.

3) the GHG science is based largely on computer models that do not include the effect of significant natural phenoma such as water vapour or sun spots

The issue comes down to how much trust you want to put into the computer models. You also have to remember that the computer models were developed by scientists looking to prove that climate change is a serious problem so they would likley assume that any results that showed something different were wrong and would tweek their model accordingly.

[Pliny]

In the seventies when we were going through global cooling there were many solutions to keep the glacial ice packs in check. There was a plan to take soot and spread it across the frozen lands so that the heat from the sun would not be reflected by the whiteness of the snow and ice and the blackness would absorb some of the heat. Who knew that thirty years later we would have global warming.

We can all do something about global warming by not making it a political issue. People naturally like order, hygiene, good health and a clean environment. The entrepreneur that discovers there is a clean source of energy will market it. There may be some resistance from oil interests which include government, and I am sure there will have to be devised a method of taxation before anything can be implemented to replace lost oil revenues, but politicians and oil interests will only hinder technological and innovative advances unless there is something in it for them.

The Liberals should never have signed on to the Kyoto accord, I haven't read it word for word as some have here but I do know it has nothing to do with helping the environment. It has to do with wealth transfers and political demagoguery.

Is it all a big conspiracy? No. Stupidity and greed explain it all much better than conspiracy.

[Riverwind]

Here's the commentary from Australia to Carter:

This guy's counter arguments based on incorrect facts that have already been acknowledged to be wrong (i.e. 11 of last 12 years are the warmest on record). There was an error in the satellite data which forced the GW advocates to restate their numbers (the warmest years on record were in the 30s). He also makes the rediculous claims that computer models are not used as predictive tools - the computer models are essential to GW activists and are the basis for all of the calls to action because the current rate of warming is not any more significant than what has occurred in the past. Edited November 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[Pliny]

I always thought a good cartoon would have been Dion's dog Kyoto taking a dump and Dion saying to Harper "Aren't you going to clean that up?"

Good one!

Or even a yard full of dumps and instead of cleaning them up buying some carbon offsets from Ethinopia, with tax dollars of course!

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. will never sign on to anything is regards to emissions with the present government even if every country was a participant.

The US would never sign on to anything resembling the Kyoto Wealth Transfer Program with past governments either....Kyoto was defeated in the US Senate in 1998 (95 - 0). But the US still managed to reduce the growth in emissions better than Canada's Liberal government which did ratify the treaty.

Imagine that....