Argus Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 The Liberals have dropped the carbon tax and have proposed the energy grid comprising of hydro power. This is something different from what the direction the Tories are taking.By all means don't support them if that is your bent but if don't believe that warming is happening, you can't be happy voting Tory either. Once again, you have failed to enuncate the Liberal Party's position on Cophenhagen. Is that because they HAVE no position? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Is it? According to who? Yes. The science is far newer and more nuanced, and, as with anything adopted by zealots, the science has become twisted in many ways, to suit their agenda. Milloy has raised doubts on much of the science on smoking. And when he is confronted with peer reviewed work, he raises doubts on the peer review process. I'm still waiting for cites and quotes on that. You still looking? It is well documented the use of doubt raised by the deniers on things like smoking and warming.http://www.vancouversun.com/news/book+outl...3760/story.html It is well documented that large industries make use of PR flacks to make their positions seem better, and to lobby government in order to make more money. The climate science industry is now extremely large and employs all of the same strategies. It lies fluently and withour remorse, as admitted without shame by its standard bearer Al Gore. But I'm still waiting for the cites from the numerous climate science doubters who believe cigarette smoking is safe. The tobacco companies continue to argue that their product can't be linked to individual cases of cancer in court cases now. So what? They're right. In most cases you can't prove whether a person who got lung cancer did so because of smoking or because of other reasons. Without actual citations I'm just going to write off your words as out and out fabrications which you wrote simply because you thought it made for a better case. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Yes. The science is far newer and more nuanced, and, as with anything adopted by zealots, the science has become twisted in many ways, to suit their agenda. So we can see with the people who raise doubts on the dangers of smoking. I'm still waiting for cites and quotes on that. You still looking? Think you have had one already. You just don't see happy with it. It is well documented that large industries make use of PR flacks to make their positions seem better, and to lobby government in order to make more money. The climate science industry is now extremely large and employs all of the same strategies. It lies fluently and withour remorse, as admitted without shame by its standard bearer Al Gore. And I was going to say that the same flacks are hired by the people who make denials on smoking and climate. But I'm still waiting for the cites from the numerous climate science doubters who believe cigarette smoking is safe. Don't think I made that claim. I said they raise doubts on the science. So what? They're right. In most cases you can't prove whether a person who got lung cancer did so because of smoking or because of other reasons.Without actual citations I'm just going to write off your words as out and out fabrications which you wrote simply because you thought it made for a better case. Think I did that already. Milloy's statements on smoking are there for you to look at. You just don't seem happy with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Once again, you have failed to enuncate the Liberal Party's position on Cophenhagen. Is that because they HAVE no position? One again you are deflecting from the Tories who are now in government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Oh really! Canada has a storied history of assisting developing countries, be it indirectly through various UN agencies, ad hoc via humanitarian initiatives (e.g. related to, for example, natural disasters) and directly via the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Do you consider the Canadian government’s expenditures in these regards as “wealth transfer”… and do you object to it, regardless of what labeling is attached?I note that CIDA uses the phrase, “development assistance” when referring to expenditures… or more specifically, ODA – Official Development Assistance. Would you like me to edit my previous post to change the phrase “financial support” to “development assistance”? Would that be a bit more palatable for you? Well… perhaps you’ve answered my earlier posed question as to your having objections to the example Canadian government expenditures I mentioned… you certainly can’t be in favour of anything CIDA does… or that UN agencies do on behalf of Canada’s participation… cause… that would be, according to you, “meddling and do-gooding and attempting to create culture”. Dare I say… wait for it… wait for it… that would be “nation building”!!! Hey now, I can’t be bothered to look at your posting history, so let’s hear if you’re in favour of the current nation building exercise in Afghanistan – hey? As for your reference to technology transfer, have a look at the CIDA website – there’s a great detail of project information showing exactly how assorted new technologies have been introduced into developing countries… including the related training/implementation aspects – immediate and/or phased. You’d a thunk – what a concept! You are correct it is "nation building". I am not in favour of the nation building exercise in Afghanistan. I don't have a problem with fighting terrorist organizations or wars defending against aggression. What a concept? Is the government in those countries running those programs and how is it affecting the people? You know there are some Christian organizations and their charitable efforts that I take issue with as well. they seem to assume that a nice little package of farm animals donated to a family in Nimaibia (non-existent) is a good thing. The family either eats the animals or becomes a target for thieves who will steal it from them. The government of those nations buys (or is donated for favour) all the latest gear for their own governmental use. Who has time to institute justice and the right to the sanctity of person and property for the people. This is the first concept that should be grasped by emerging nations and governments that are too eager to seize the wealth of their nations don't particularly instill that sense of security but allow incumbent governments to guard the injustices of their prejudices and biases by force. What they do is promote the power of a centralized government who will act, not in the interests of the people but in the interests of itself and the global interests that feed it. It is not charitable or fair to seize the property of someone for the benefit of someone else nor is it sustainable - that is the difference between "wealth transfer" and "development assistance/financial aid" or what ever term is used to obfuscate the reality of what is occurring. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 One again you are deflecting from the Tories who are now in government. No, actually I'm not. I'M not a party hack. I already gave my somewhat cynical opinion on what the Tories are up to with their climate stance. I merely asked you, as a dedicated Liberal, to explain on this thread about Copenhagen, what your party's stand is. So far you have evaded the question three, four times now? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 It is not charitable or fair to seize the property of someone for the benefit of someone else nor is it sustainable - that is the difference between "wealth transfer" and "development assistance/financial aid" or what ever term is used to obfuscate the reality of what is occurring. Seizing property??? Perhaps you could elaborate further and expound on the distinctions you are making between the past/existing Canadian government actions in providing "development assistance/financial support" (directly through CIDA, indirectly via UN agencies, ad hoc in response to global humanitarian needs) and what you prefer to label as "wealth transfer" via UNFCCC 'protocol' treaties. How is one distinction, as you state, "charitable/fair/sustainable"... and the other not? It might be helpful to structure your answer in a benefits realized context... who/what benefits in each respective regard. In your designs where will the "seizure" occur... who/what will be doing the "seizing"... how will the "seizing" be done? Again, exactly what will be seized - specifically, from who/what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 (edited) No, actually I'm not. I'M not a party hack. I already gave my somewhat cynical opinion on what the Tories are up to with their climate stance. I merely asked you, as a dedicated Liberal, to explain on this thread about Copenhagen, what your party's stand is. So far you have evaded the question three, four times now? I have said already. Ignatieff would restore the EcoEnergy program that the Tories wound down and move to a tax incentive program on getting cleaner energy and better conservation with present energy users to meet Canada's goal on emissions. The Tories are getting rid of those programs for unknown reasons. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1322087/ Mr. Ignatieff, in a speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade, laid out a three-pronged approach to making Canada a global leader in clean energy by investing in new technologies and new industries; by upgrading the energy infrastructure through a so-called “smart” energy grid, and by making the federal government – the nation’s largest employer and customer – a model of environmentally responsible behaviour. I have long advocated a energy grid to bring hydro energy to places that reply heavily on coal. Even for those who don't believe in warming, there is a reason to reduce to coal particulates. Edited November 1, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 (edited) Seizing property???Perhaps you could elaborate further and expound on the distinctions you are making between the past/existing Canadian government actions in providing "development assistance/financial support" (directly through CIDA, indirectly via UN agencies, ad hoc in response to global humanitarian needs) and what you prefer to label as "wealth transfer" via UNFCCC 'protocol' treaties. How is one distinction, as you state, "charitable/fair/sustainable"... and the other not? It might be helpful to structure your answer in a benefits realized context... who/what benefits in each respective regard. In your designs where will the "seizure" occur... who/what will be doing the "seizing"... how will the "seizing" be done? Again, exactly what will be seized - specifically, from who/what? There is no distinction. It is wealth transfer period. There is a distinction between real aid and wealth transfer. Real aid answers an immediate threat to life and is entirely charitable not confiscatory. Wealth transfer is a continuous drain on an economy for the benefit of those who make no contribution to that economy. And yes, to tax for those purposes is a seizure of property. You need to define "global humanitarian needs". Is that like indoor plumbing and houses with electricity? Is it collecting garbage and providing potable water and toilet paper? If it is providing food then does "global humanitarian needs" mean learning how to properly form line-ups? Because from all my experiences food is produced by someone and has never been a product of lineups. I know it all sounds well and good to transfer wealth to poor third world countries. But really it is, as you say, just "nation building", unless charitably done, and if you haven't got a problem with that form of nation building then you shouldn't have a problem with anything going on in Afghanistan. Edited November 1, 2009 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 I have said already. Ignatieff would restore the EcoEnergy program that the Tories wound down and move to a tax incentive program on getting cleaner energy and better conservation with present energy users to meet Canada's goal on emissions. Okay, that's five times now you've evaded the question. Since you don't know what the Liberal Party thinks of Copenhagen, or at least, don't want to say, what do YOU think? Should we sign it? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Okay, that's five times now you've evaded the question. I thought the answer was obvious by now. Since you don't know what the Liberal Party thinks of Copenhagen, or at least, don't want to say, what do YOU think? Should we sign it? Canada should try to achieve an international agreement. This has been the policy of all political parties in Canada. No one is really sure if Harper is committed to that though. We'll see in Copenhagen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Canada should try to achieve an international agreement. This has been the policy of all political parties in Canada. No one is really sure if Harper is committed to that though. We'll see in Copenhagen. the reluctant Harper... apparently... was prodded into appearing, after all Harper to attend Copenhagen climate summit Prime Minister Stephen Harper will attend the Copenhagen climate change meeting next month after all, his office said Thursday — a day after saying he would not go. Harper decided Thursday to attend the meeting to work on a new climate change agreement after the U.S. president and Chinese premier announced that they will show up, his spokesman said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Another stepping stone... a fine comment from Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper! Who would step up to challenge Harper and the Conservatives on this... Canada, Commonwealth nations to pour billions into climate fund for poorer nations The Commonwealth plan for the so-called “Fast Start” fund calls for developed countries in the 53-nation group to spend $10 billion a year until at least 2012. The fund was announced on the second day of a Commonwealth leaders’ summit that has been dominated by climate change and an intense diplomatic effort to reach a consensus ahead of next month’s United Nations climate-change conference in Copenhagen. . . Adopting a more positive tone on the Copenhagen conference than in previous statements, Harper said the Commonwealth climate-change statement contains “all the elements” for an international accord. “The expectation is, at this point, that we will reach a meaningful political-framework agreement in Copenhagen that can lead in the very near future to a binding international legal agreement,” he said. “But I’m not going to suggest to you it’s all easy. There’s a great deal of work to be done.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 ... the Commonwealth Climate Change Declaration Commonwealth Climate Change Declaration The Challenge of Our Time1.Climate change is the predominant global challenge. We convened a Special Session on Climate Change in Port of Spain to discuss our profound concern about the undisputed threat that climate change poses to the security, prosperity, economic and social development of our people. For many it is deepening poverty and affecting the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. For some of us, it is an existential threat. 2.We reaffirm our commitment to the Lake Victoria Commonwealth Climate Change Action Plan and its further implementation, in particular by contributing to the efforts of member states in transforming their economies and strengthening the capacity and voice of vulnerable groups. 3.We recognise the unprecedented opportunity of our meeting just ahead of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen. We approach Copenhagen with ambition, optimism and determination. We welcome the attendance of leaders at the Copenhagen conference. The needs of the most vulnerable must be addressed. Their voice must be heard and capacity to engage strengthened. Many of us from small island states, low-lying coastal states and least developed countries face the greatest challenges, yet have contributed least to the problem of climate change. . . 7.We believe an internationally legally binding agreement is essential. We pledge our continued support to the leaders-driven process guided by the Danish Prime Minister and his efforts to deliver a comprehensive, substantial and operationally binding agreement in Copenhagen leading towards a full legally binding outcome no later than 2010. In Copenhagen we commit to focus our efforts on achieving the strongest possible outcome. Copenhagen and Beyond 8.A global climate change solution is central to the survival of peoples, the promotion of development and facilitation of a global transition to a low emission development path. The agreement in Copenhagen must address the urgent needs of developing countries by providing financing, support for adaptation, technology transfer, capacity building, approaches and incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and for afforestation and sustainable management of forests. . . 13.In addition, we recognise the need for an early start to the provision for financial resources. Fast start funding, constituting grant funding, should provide substantial support for adaptation, REDD plus and clean technology. We welcomed the initiative to establish, as part of a comprehensive agreement, a Copenhagen Launch Fund starting in 2010 and building to a level of resources of $10 billion annually by 2012. Fast start funding for adaptation should be focused on the most vulnerable countries. We also welcomed a proposal to provide immediate, fast disbursing assistance with a dedicated stream for small island states, and associated low-lying coastal states of AOSIS of at least 10% of the fund. We also recognise the need for further, specified and comparable funding streams, to assist the poorest and most vulnerable countries, to cope with, and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change. We recognise that funding will be scaled up beyond 2012. 14.We agree that an equitable governance structure to manage the financial and technological support must be put in place. We agree that a future governance structure should provide for states to monitor and comply with arrangements entered under a new Copenhagen agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 timely... oh ya! Arctic ice meltdown remains severe, scientist reports Studies suggesting the Arctic sea ice has made a modest recovery following its record-setting retreat in 2007 are misleading and underestimate the severity of the polar meltdown, says one of Canada's top ice scientists. David Barber, Canada Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the University of Manitoba, says satellite images used to track the overall extent of Arctic ice don't adequately perceive how weak and ''rotten'' the region's older, thicker, multi-year ice cover has become. His findings, to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, suggest a transformative change in Arctic ecosystems is accelerating and that safe shipping in polar waters during the summer and fall will begin much sooner than many experts predict. ''These are very significant findings since the scientists and public all thought that sea ice was recovering since the minimum extent in 2007,'' says Barber, an environment and geography professor with the University's Centre for Earth Observation Science. . . Barber's findings emerge at a time when federal MPs are debating a bill to rename Canada's northern sea route the ''Canadian Northwest Passage'' to symbolically bolster the country's claims to the disputed waterway. The study also coincides with rising concern about Canada's long-term environmental strategy - including mitigation of climate change impacts in the North - ahead of the international Copenhagen conference aimed at curbing global carbon emissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) the Commonwealth Climate Change DeclarationOf of curiosity. What are you willing to sacrifice in terms of government services to pay for this monstrosity? Note that I said 'sacrifice' so you have to pick something that you personally care about. Note that the full cost aid under the draft Copenhagen agreement is $10 billion/year for Canada alone.Here is a short list of programs that could be cut to save that $10 billion: 1) End of all federal programs for children 2) 33% reduction in health and social transfers to provinces 3) 33% reduction in OAS/GIS benefits. 4) 66% reduction in EI benefits So are you ready to put your money where your mouth is or are you like every other alarmist who thinks that someone else should foot the bill for your obsessions? Edited November 29, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Of of curiosity. What are you willing to sacrifice in terms of government services to pay for this monstrosity? Note that I said 'sacrifice' so you have to pick something that you personally care about. Note that the full cost aid under the draft Copenhagen agreement is $10 billion/year for Canada alone. Here is a short list of programs that could be cut to save that $10 billion: 1) End of all programs for children 2) 33% reduction in health and social transfers to provinces 3) 33% reduction in OAS/GIS benefits. 4) 66% reduction in EI benefits So are you ready to put your money where your mouth is or are you like every other alarmist who thinks that someone else should foot the bill for your obsessions? ... $10 billion/year... for Canada alone? And here I misread that article's statement suggesting that amount was across the full 53 member Commonwealth nation complement... and that individual countries contributions haven't been determined yet. I must have a dated link/article - could you provide your source for Canada's contribution... uhhh... Canada alone? however, if I'm actually correct (rather the linked to article I referenced was correct), I eagerly await your adjustments to possible social program impacts. It is heartening to recognize your readiness, your eagerness, to value equate Canada's social programs as a trade-off to actually ensuring greater, more impacting aspects of AGW climate change are addressed... impacting aspects of AGW climate change, that if left unaddressed, of course, would have a most dramatic impact to the concept of social services - outright - and abilities to fund and manage them! perhaps the Harper Conservatives can help answer how Canada's contributions will be managed - will be funded... I understand they're quite adept at deficit management... of course, presuming some percentage of contribution might be deficit impacting. Hmmm... I wonder if there are other options... than, as you state, ending all programs for kids - my gawd, man... think of the kids... think of the kids! Hey now, let's not have some wag jump in and suggest deniers would purposely fear-monger around funding contribution commitments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) ... $10 billion/year... for Canada alone? I said:"Note that the full cost aid under the draft Copenhagen agreement is $10 billion/year for Canada alone." 0.5%-1% of GDP is the blood money being demanded - 0.7% is about $10 billion/year for Canada. Here is the draft text: An assessed contribution from developed country Parties based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, GDP, GDP per capita, the polluter pays principle historical responsibility of Annex I Parties, historical climate debt, including adaptation debt, amounting to [[0.5–1][0.8][2] per cent of gross national product] at least [0.5–1 per cent of GDP]].The % of GDP is really a deceptive figure because it makes people think it is small number but federal government spending is only 17% of our GDP so 0.7% of GDP is 4% of the federal budget being pissed away on nothing.All the Commonwealth announced is fund that will last 3 years and the UK has committed 1.3 billion. Canada's contribution would likely be comparable. So answer the question. What would *you* sacrifice to pay for your obsession? Edited November 29, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 ... the Commonwealth Climate Change Declaration All the Commonwealth announced is fund that will last 3 years and the UK has committed 1.3 billion.Canada's contribution would likely be comparable. even though you originally acknowledged the Commonwealth Climate Change Declaration related links (by quoting the single sentence reference to "the Commonwealth Climate Change Declaration", you immediately jumped into something beyond... over and above... the Commonwealth Climate Change Declaration. Glad I could get you to actually, with your latest post, give it passing notice. as for the bigger picture, you're quoting from draft negotiating text... that in itself... is simply a reference starting point for negotiations. Of course, that particular clause you reference, accepting to draft status and pending negotiation... that particular clause is but one of multiple alternatives, that in itself, has multiple options (themselves comprised of multiple alternatives), some complimentary, some cumulative (by optional choice) and some distinct. Notwithstanding, the actual draft negotiating text clause you quote, in itself, has allowance for adjustment to the %GDP reference... as in, if it's ultimately aligned with the final 'Copenhagen protocol declaration', the resultant percentage allotment... will be subject to negotiation. As an aside, I understand the draft negotiating text speaks to other, shall we say, more creative funding avenues vis-a-vis public/private pursuits... just sayin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) Notwithstanding, the actual draft negotiating text clause you quote, in itself, has allowance for adjustment to the %GDP referenceAnswer the question. What you would sacrifice to pay for the Copenhagen agreement as specified by the draft and therefore plausible requirements?Evading the question simply confirms what I suspected. You are all talk. You just want to feel good because the government is 'doing something' about this alleged problem but you are not willing to sacrifice anything significant to pay for it. Edited November 29, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Answer the question. What you would sacrifice to pay for the Copenhagen agreement as specified by the draft and therefore plausible requirements? Evading the question simply confirms what I suspected. You are all talk. You just want to feel good because the government is 'doing something' about this alleged problem but you are not willing to sacrifice anything significant to pay for it. no evasion - do you have anything beyond your sock-puppet speculation to fix the actual costs Canada will be asked to commit to... you do realize it's called a DRAFT text for a reason, right? You do realize actual negotiations will be involved, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) You do realize actual negotiations will be involved, right?So would you support Harper if he comes home and says he refused to sign a deal because it was going to be too expensive for Canada? You know you would not no matter what the facts were.Answer the question or let your silence demonstrate that you are hypocrite that does not even believe your own words. Edited November 30, 2009 by Riverwind Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Steve has been feeling the heat... Canadian parliament votes for deep CO2 emissions cut Canada's parliament on Tuesday passed a motion urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority Tory government to adopt a deep carbon dioxide reduction target at upcoming international climate talks. The motion calling on the ruling Conservatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels was supported by all three of Canada's opposition parties, 137 votes to 124. Canada may tweak emissions goals before Copenhagen Canada may make minor adjustments to its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions before climate talks in Copenhagen next month, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Sunday. Mr. Harper told reporters on the sidelines of a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago his country believed it was essential to keep Canadian targets in line with those of its neighbor, the United States, because of the close integration of their two economies. . . On a per capita basis, Canada is one of the most polluting countries in the world, emitting 19.8 tonnes of greenhouse gases per person annually, second only to the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted November 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 (edited) Steve has been feeling the heat... Canadian parliament votes for deep CO2 emissions cut Canada may tweak emissions goals before Copenhagen I hope this means that you are proud of our Prime Minister.....after all, it was our targets that the US seem to be following......although neither is yet passed into law - and hopefully, they never will. It's interesting how the Alarmists keep harping about Canada's per-capita emissions. Germany is smaller than Southern Ontario yet its total emissions are almost twice that of our entire country.....and really, take a look at all these self righteous countries and what they've done to reduce their emissions .....virtually all of them are standing still, just like Canada. We all know that the European Union got a boost with the fall of communism and the closing of so many dirty state factories - that's why they chose 1990 as the start year - to dupe the unsuspecting West.....but after their free ride for the first couple of years through that accounting trick, they did virtually nothing for years and only in the last year or two have any started to make any progress. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why a relatively wealthy country with 30 million people spread over 3 million square miles uses more energy per capita than countries where people are squeezed into apartments and dense cities. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita Edited November 30, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 as for the bigger picture, you're quoting from draft negotiating text... that in itself... is simply a reference starting point for negotiations. Of course, that particular clause you reference, accepting to draft status and pending negotiation... that particular clause is but one of multiple alternatives, that in itself, has multiple options (themselves comprised of multiple alternatives), some complimentary, some cumulative (by optional choice) and some distinct. Notwithstanding, the actual draft negotiating text clause you quote, in itself, has allowance for adjustment to the %GDP reference... as in, if it's ultimately aligned with the final 'Copenhagen protocol declaration', the resultant percentage allotment... will be subject to negotiation. As an aside, I understand the draft negotiating text speaks to other, shall we say, more creative funding avenues vis-a-vis public/private pursuits... just sayin.Answer the question or let your silence demonstrate that you are hypocrite that does not even believe your own words. you keep frothing and gnashing about asking for an answer to a question you proposed, one you can't even fix to actual final negotiated costs... no matter how hard you attempt to fear-monger with ridiculous over-the-top reference to the need to eliminate/reduce social programs to allow Canada to align with other countries in helping to fund mitigation of mankind's contribution to global climate change. 'Think of the kids', 'think of the kids'... bleats Riverwind! here's a return question for you - what negotiated dollar cost amount, one that will reflect Canada's contribution commitment, will be too high... for you to support? What's your limit? What's the negotiated dollar cost amount that will have you foaming at the mouth... bad mouthing Harper, for agreeing to such a commitment? What's your limit? 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.