jdobbin Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 The U.S. and Canada had to "cave" to international pressure at the Bali conference. The focus now will be on Harper's domestic policies on greenhouse gases. Ontario, B.C. and Quebec will all be pushing him on this in particular. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/stor...1a3&k=76320 The Harper government and the Bush administration caved in to international pressure at the United Nations climate change summit yesterday, accepting the "Bali road map" toward a new agreement to stop human activity from causing irreversible damage to Earth's atmosphere and ecosystems.The framework was hailed by the UN's top climate-change official, Yvo de Boer, as an ambitious, transparent and flexible solution on the road to a comprehensive treaty in 2009. It imposes deeper commitments on the richest nations to slash their contribution to global warming, as well as softer targets or commitments for developing countries to come into force after the end of the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period in 2012. With the Harper government silent, several developing countries - along with European Union members - protested, booed and resisted attempts by the United States to impose what most countries felt were unfair obligations on the developing world in the fight against climate change. The pressure eventually forced U.S. lead negotiator Paula Dobriansky to cave in and accept the consensus, allowing the Bali road map to be adopted. In a subsequent debate of Kyoto countries, Canadian Environment Minister John Baird attempted to stop members of the protocol from declaring that developed countries should collectively strive to deepen their post-2012 targets in the range of a 25- to 40-per-cent reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. But following a series of rebukes, criticism and pleas from 17 countries, Baird told the conference he would "stand down," garnering a warm ovation from delegates. Baird gave in despite the fact the Tory government has insisted that such a measure would be impossible for Canada to achieve in 12 years. The concession also meant that he had failed to achieve his main objective of getting binding commitments for major emerging economies like China and India to reduce their emissions in absolute terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 The agreement eventually happened despite Baird ducking out of meetings to obstruct things. http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=249d46...d8-6c2b15e06f2d - The Harper government is facing new accusations of sabotaging international climate change negotiations at a United Nations summit following revelations that Environment Minister John Baird did not show up for a key meeting held to resolve a negotiating deadlock.Talks at the summit remained at a stalemate early Saturday morning, as sources indicated that Canada was standing as the only country blocking stringent and binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after the end of the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period in 2012. The Harper government is opposed to recognizing scientific recommendations that industrialized countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels on the grounds that it believes this would become an impossible goal to achieve in 12 years. Environmentalists questioned whether Baird was deliberately trying to frustrate the summit. The night before, they say, he also went missing from a marathon meeting that went long past 3 a.m. The green groups said Baird sent bureaucrats to represent Canada at the negotiations, convened by a special invitation from the president of the UN summit. This, they said, would ensure that the talks remain deadlocked. "What does it say about how serious Mr. Baird is taking these negotiations?" asked Equiterre spokesman Steven Guilbeault. "Imagine, you're a junior bureaucrat, and you have in front of you the equivalent of a U.S. minister or a Chinese minister or a Japanese minister. I mean, there's a huge gap in terms of the authority, in terms of how autonomous the decisions you make can be without having to go back and consult the delegation." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 The agreement eventually happened despite Baird ducking out of meetings to obstruct things.http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=249d46...d8-6c2b15e06f2d Typical Liberal reaction,Bali ends in a positve note with an agreement the Liberals claim they wanted(but one that the Liberals were hoping wouldn't happen ) Please tell me why Bairds "ducking out of meetings" had anything to do with the agreement or how it "obstructed things." It got signed.Too bad for the Liberals. The Liberal plan for the event failed,the Conservatives once again have one up on Dion. The polls will show it. Time for the Liberals to go to plan B, and that's getting a new leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 (edited) Typical Liberal reaction,Bali ends in a positve note with an agreement the Liberals claim they wanted(but one that the Liberals were hoping wouldn't happen ) Please tell me why Bairds "ducking out of meetings" had anything to do with the agreement or how it "obstructed things." It got signed.Too bad for the Liberals. The Liberal plan for the event failed,the Conservatives once again have one up on Dion. The polls will show it. Time for the Liberals to go to plan B, and that's getting a new leader. The meeting went one day extra because of the the U.S. and Canada obstructing the agreement. Baird didn't get what he wanted but he did manage to gut a portion of what was signed and then hypocritically lamented it was watered down. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...15?hub=Politics Delegates who had hoped to launch the talks with clear targets in hand were disappointed by a deal that eschewed mention of hard numbers and replaced them with fuzzy references to reducing greenhouse gases.Canada helped gut some of the substance from Saturday's deal and then expressed regret when the final agreement was ultimately watered down even more than it had hoped. But Environment Minister John Baird hailed the talks as a positive first step toward an effective global climate treaty. "We were naturally disappointed in the language that weakened and watered down the agreement,'' Baird said. Baird would have liked to see the whole thing collapse but the U.S. was under tremendous pressure blinked and Canada joined in on signing. The Tories will now face increased pressure in Canada. They will run into climate skeptics in their own party but in the interests of expanding their base, they will have to take a position on reducing greenhouse gases. It is a position that will probably not make anyone happy. The right wing skeptics in these forums will have to look for another party if they want someone who is adamantly opposed to doing anything on greenhouse gases. Edited December 16, 2007 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 The meeting went one day extra because of the the U.S. and Canada obstructing the agreement. Baird didn't get what he wanted but he did manage to gut a portion of what was signed and then hypocritically lamented it was watered down.http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...15?hub=Politics Baird would have liked to see the whole thing collapse but the U.S. was under tremendous pressure blinked and Canada joined in on signing. The Tories will now face increased pressure in Canada. They will run into climate skeptics in their own party but in the interests of expanding their base, they will have to take a position on reducing greenhouse gases. It is a position that will probably not make anyone happy. The right wing skeptics in these forums will have to look for another party if they want someone who is adamantly opposed to doing anything on greenhouse gases. The U.S. is involved as Baird and Harper insisted. The whole process at Bali involved negotiations and give and take by everyone there. It got signed. The polls will show the Canadian public will approve. The big losers are the Liberals and only the Liberals,because they didn't expect the agreement to get signed. The Conservatives win this one,the Liberals lose. Dions plan failed. Say goodbye to Dion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 (edited) The U.S. is involved as Baird and Harper insisted.The whole process at Bali involved negotiations and give and take by everyone there. It got signed. The polls will show the Canadian public will approve. The big losers are the Liberals and only the Liberals,because they didn't expect the agreement to get signed. The Conservatives win this one,the Liberals lose. Dions plan failed. Say goodbye to Dion. The U.S. caved when it looked like they were going to torpedo the whole conference and be punished by Europe and others with all sorts of penalties. Baird did his best to obstruct a deal and now he has to come home to angry right wingers who deny climate change is happening. It must make some on the right purple in the face that the list of climate skeptics had no effect on stopping Baird from signing. Harper is no where close to majority support at the moment. After a brief blip in two or three polls over the 40% mark, he is back at his minority election result of about 36%. I doubt very much that an agreement and the footdragging that comes after it is going to result in explosive growth in the polls. Edited December 16, 2007 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 The U.S. caved when it looked like they were going to torpedo the whole conference and be punished by Europe and others with all sorts of penalties. Baird did his best to obstruct a deal and now he has to come home to angry right wingers who deny climate change is happening.... I guess that is one way to put a positive GW spin on what actually happened. Emmissions cutting will begin.....ummmm....errrr.....someday! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visionseeker Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 The U.S. is involved as Baird and Harper insisted.The whole process at Bali involved negotiations and give and take by everyone there. It got signed. The polls will show the Canadian public will approve. The big losers are the Liberals and only the Liberals,because they didn't expect the agreement to get signed. The Conservatives win this one,the Liberals lose. Dions plan failed. Say goodbye to Dion. I see, they signed and now the green crowd can all relax and confidently vote Conservative at the next election. A master-stroke example of building a bigger tent - Not! The Conservatives have zero credibility on this file. Their strategy all along has been to point to "13 years of Liberal neglect" so as to obfuscate their own inaction. After spending 2 years trying to neutralize the issue, they have closed any window to wooing the "green" vote. The Conservatives would have to come out with an extremely ambitious gas cutting policy - out-greening the greenest of greens - to make any gains from those who see the environment as a priority. They of course have no intention of doing this because they don't fear the green movement's electoral clout. For the green vote is inefficiently spread across three parties (4 in Quebec). Their strategy rests on a risky assumption that their primary opponent (the Liberals) will not be able to galvanize the green movement. It might be a good gamble, but they really have no fall-back position and have essentially gone "all-in" on this issue with a very weak hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 The Conservatives have all the credibiltiy they need. There's a global debt crunch in the works, probably heralding a severe recession or worse, possibly much worse, and the airy fairy crowd is worrying about Just how much we want to amplify the economic problems by tackling a "problem" that may or may not exist, and that may or may not have anything to do with CO2 even if it does exist. It's just astounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 Their strategy rests on a risky assumption that their primary opponent (the Liberals) will not be able to galvanize the green movement. It might be a good gamble, but they really have no fall-back position and have essentially gone "all-in" on this issue with a very weak hand. Worse, they alienate a portion of their base who don't believe in global warming. They can't seem to find a place where they can straddle the fence with any comfort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 The Conservatives have all the credibiltiy they need. There's a global debt crunch in the works, probably heralding a severe recession or worse, possibly much worse, and the airy fairy crowd is worrying about Just how much we want to amplify the economic problems by tackling a "problem" that may or may not exist, and that may or may not have anything to do with CO2 even if it does exist. It's just astounding. We certainly know that a large part of the Tory base seems unhappy at the deal. Perhaps they will take their anger out on the party by not voting or voting for a true right wing party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 We certainly know that a large part of the Tory base seems unhappy at the deal. Perhaps they will take their anger out on the party by not voting or voting for a true right wing party. In your dreams, son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 In your dreams, son You've never given up on one right wing party in favour of another? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 We certainly know that a large part of the Tory base seems unhappy at the deal. Perhaps they will take their anger out on the party by not voting or voting for a true right wing party. Who's we? You and Dion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 Who's we? You and Dion? Are you happy with the deal in Bali with your position on global warming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 Are you happy with the deal in Bali with your position on global warming? Answering a question, with a question.....with all the questions you ask,you must be writing all the questions for the CBC/Liberal party? Since you stated "we know for certain" you gotta be pollster,+/_ 3.9%,19 times out of 20? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 Answering a question, with a question.....with all the questions you ask,you must be writing all the questions for the CBC/Liberal party?Since you stated "we know for certain" you gotta be pollster,+/_ 3.9%,19 times out of 20? I'll take that as no. It must be a infuriating that the Tories came on board in Bali. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 I'll take that as no. It must be a infuriating that the Tories came on board in Bali. Still unable to answer questions,only ask them,.....you're right , in this case "we" (as in) Canada came on board and "we"(as in Canada) brought along the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 Still unable to answer questions,only ask them,.....you're right , in this case "we" (as in) Canada came on board and "we"(as in Canada) brought along the United States. Of course we refer to me and Dion. What else would you think? heh It must make you explode with anger to know Canada "brought" the U.S. on global warming in Bali when so many scientists say it isn't happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 I'll take that as no. It must be a infuriating that the Tories came on board in Bali. From a non-partisan view, what is the Bali deal in a Coles notes form? If it involves money going from Canada to say China to buy Carbon credits so we can meet the target, then I wouldn't be too thrilled with it. Are all the countries of the world bound to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 From a non-partisan view, what is the Bali deal in a Coles notes form?If it involves money going from Canada to say China to buy Carbon credits so we can meet the target, then I wouldn't be too thrilled with it. Are all the countries of the world bound to it? All countries have signed on to it. No hard numbers were agreed upon but that in 2009, those numbers are to be drawn up. Several countries are continuing Kyoto objectives. Some will meet those objectives. Canada has agreed to work on getting the world on board and coming up with hard numbers. There will be additional pressure to start now rather than later to achieve those numbers whatever they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 All countries have signed on to it. No hard numbers were agreed upon but that in 2009, those numbers are to be drawn up. Several countries are continuing Kyoto objectives. Some will meet those objectives. Canada has agreed to work on getting the world on board and coming up with hard numbers. There will be additional pressure to start now rather than later to achieve those numbers whatever they are. If that's what it is, then I don't really see anything too wrong with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 All countries have signed on to it. No hard numbers were agreed upon but that in 2009, those numbers are to be drawn up. Several countries are continuing Kyoto objectives. Some will meet those objectives. Canada has agreed to work on getting the world on board and coming up with hard numbers. There will be additional pressure to start now rather than later to achieve those numbers whatever they are. So now it's Canada that has agreed(not the Tories),along with ALL countries.Did I mention ALL countries? Sorry, you did too. What does the green guy who couldn't (Dion) of the Liberal party say about Canada's signing, and signing with the United States on side? How is this environmental advancement going to help the green guy who couldn't (Dion) win the next election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 How is this environmental advancement going to help the green guy who couldn't (Dion) win the next election? CES you hit it! A great environmental credential to boast about come the elections. No wonder the Liberals are infuriated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted December 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 If that's what it is, then I don't really see anything too wrong with it. Some on the right don't want to move in any way shape or form on emissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.