Bryan Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Ignatieff's (failed) leadership campaign included a promise of cap and trade. Dion won, and ran on the "Green Shift" in 2008. After that, Ignatieff said the green shift was dead. Well, it's back: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/liberals-significant-climate-plan-cloaked-in-silence/article1968885/ This would cut Canada’s emissions to 118 million tons (Mt) a year by 2050, which is significant given that our 2008 emissions were 734 Mt. With all of the current policies in place federally and provincially, Environment Canada estimates that our emissions will reach 785 Mt by 2020. In other words, getting on track to meet the Liberal party’s goals would require a significant change of course. Significant change in course is an understatement. Let me guess, his first step would be to shut down the oil sands, and introduce a carbon tax? Followed by what. cap and trade? I can't wait for the next round of "Tax on Everything" ads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Yikes. If we thought gas prices are high now, just wait until Ignatieff gets a hold of them. Hmmm, let's see, he's gonna cut supply, and tax production. Oh well, the semi-recovery from the recession was nice. Time to kiss it goodbye. At least global temperatures will be one billionth of a degree cooler. Well, in 2050. If you can find a way to measure the impact of this that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 To change our carbon output from 700+ MT to 100+ MT would totally destroy our economy. Plus, our carbon output, despite the "evil lizard" reputation the Libs and NDP'ers try to hang on us, isn't quite at 2% of the world's output. Get China and India on side first, then we can talk. Not to mention the US. Obama has mandated "new technology vehicles", well except for his and his guards, of course. But the US overall is terrible. Why in hell should we destroy our economy looking at those FACTS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSLiberal Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Red Rover, Red Rover, we call Chicken Little over! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 "I'll come over...But I'll only answer 4 questions that have been vetted by my representatives!!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 "I'll come over...But I'll only answer 4 questions that have been vetted by my representatives!!!" Compared to other forums I visit, this one seems to require really polite language. So let me say your efforts here do not inspire me at all. Saying it more plainly would risk my continued presence. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 To change our carbon output from 700+ MT to 100+ MT would totally destroy our economy. True. This platform is talking about "by 2050" though. First, it's important to realize that nothing any politician in 2011 promises to happen by 2050 has any chance of actually being carried out, even if that politician sincerely wants it to happen. Second, it's all a matter of technological change. By 2050, our civilization will be unrecognizable to the people of today because technology will have altered it so profoundly. Our CO2 emissions may well be down a lot by then anyway, or they may be up a thousandfold but be prevented from having any climactic impact, depending on what kind of technologies we develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) True. This platform is talking about "by 2050" though. First, it's importa..nt to realize that nothing any politician in 2011 promises to happen by 2050 has any chance of actually being carried out, even if that politician sincerely wants it to happen. Second, it's all a matter of technological change. By 2050, our civilization will be unrecognizable to the people of today because technology will have altered it so profoundly. Our CO2 emissions may well be down a lot by then anyway, or they may be up a thousandfold but be prevented from having any climactic impact, depending on what kind of technologies we develop. Mrs. RNG worked in a cancer clinic for 13 years. From the time she started till she retired, there were no eurika moments but there were billions of 10%'ers. That is it it now 10% better than it was a year ago and now it is 10% better than then and again and again and not saying cancer still isn't really scary, but it is way, way better than it was. And I think the same about green energy. So I have overall hope for the world, but little hope for a FUNDAMENTAL BRACKTHROUGH. Cold fusion ain't going to happen any time soon. Hydrogen fuel cells probably won't happen, but even if they do, where do we get the hydrogen? That's something the treehuggers keep avoiding. Things will get better. We will fight and moan and carry on but electric cars will become more common and finially, I hope, common sense will prevail and we will build nuke plants but not on fault lines. Life goes on. Edited April 4, 2011 by RNG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 True. This platform is talking about "by 2050" though. First, it's important to realize that nothing any politician in 2011 promises to happen by 2050 has any chance of actually being carried out, even if that politician sincerely wants it to happen. Second, it's all a matter of technological change. By 2050, our civilization will be unrecognizable to the people of today because technology will have altered it so profoundly. Our CO2 emissions may well be down a lot by then anyway, or they may be up a thousandfold but be prevented from having any climactic impact, depending on what kind of technologies we develop. Exactly. Ignatieff is blowing hot air here. Harper haters have been decrying all of his "once the deficit has been tackled" promises and yet the Liberal leader comes out with a 40 year environmental plan that means absolutely nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Get China and India on side first, then we can talk. Not to mention the US... This should be easy enough to do. Charge an export tax to any country that refuses to get with the program and use that to develop new greener energy technologies. We're the one's in the driver's seat here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 We're the one's in the driver's seat here.ROTFL - the delusion of the enviro set is unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 ROTFL - the delusion of the enviro set is unbelievable. Ever heard of OPEC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Get China and India on side first, then we can talk. Not to mention the US. Right on! Canada can't possibly be a LEADER on anything! We have to FOLLOW other countries in what they do because we're totally dependent on the scraps they throw us in every decision Canada makes... (sarcasm intended) pssst, you might want to check out what China is doing in this regard, you might be in for a surprise... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Right on! Canada can't possibly be a LEADER on anything! We have to FOLLOW other countries in what they do because we're totally dependent on the scraps they throw us in every decision Canada makes... (sarcasm intended) pssst, you might want to check out what China is doing in this regard, you might be in for a surprise... Just like being a leader in banning landmines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Ever heard of OPEC?What relevance does that have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 What relevance does that have? Being in the driver's seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Being in the driver's seat.Which is why I laughed at your previous suggestion. I suggest you do some research into the current economic reality before making such rediculous claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Which is why I laughed at your previous suggestion. I suggest you do some research into the current economic reality before making such rediculous claims. So you're trying to tell me that being in possession of a scarce commodity doesn't impart any amount of control as far as price goes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) So you're trying to tell me that being in possession of a scarce commodity doesn't impart any amount of control as far as price goes?I am saying that Canada has nothing that can't be gotten elsewhere and refusing to sell it would hurt us more than it hurts our intended target. Edited April 4, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 I am saying that Canada has nothing that can't be gotten elsewhere and refusing to sell it would hurt us more than it hurts our intended target. You also said to do some research into the current economic reality and the reality is that we're consuming the planet out from under ourselves - perhaps that's our real target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Yikes. If we thought gas prices are high now, just wait until Ignatieff gets a hold of them. Hmmm, let's see, he's gonna cut supply, and tax production. Oh well, the semi-recovery from the recession was nice. Time to kiss it goodbye. At least global temperatures will be one billionth of a degree cooler. Well, in 2050. If you can find a way to measure the impact of this that is. If a lot of people don't abandon your way of thinking, no one will be alive in 2050 for it to matter! If Iggy is serious about carbon taxes, then there's still some hope to avoid total climate catastrophe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 If a lot of people don't abandon your way of thinking, no one will be alive in 2050 for it to matter! If Iggy is serious about carbon taxes, then there's still some hope to avoid total climate catastrophe. Huh? Ignatieff is going to save the world with carbon taxes in Canada? Not bloody likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) If a lot of people don't abandon your way of thinking, no one will be alive in 2050 for it to matter! If Iggy is serious about carbon taxes, then there's still some hope to avoid total climate catastrophe. Not to disagree with you, because for the most part you are right, but this thread is a farce because Michael Ignatieff said no such thing and in fact the absence of the whole "carbon tax" issue NOT being "in" is the "issue" that's being chased here... As Ignatieff correctly stated it's NOT an issue to be addressed while Canada has deficit spending and should only be looked at seriously once the current deficit spending has been slain... Edited April 4, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 If a lot of people don't abandon your way of thinking, no one will be alive in 2050 for it to matter! If Iggy is serious about carbon taxes, then there's still some hope to avoid total climate catastrophe. As I have said in other threads, Canada, even with it's evil oilsands produces, in total, 2% of the world's carbon dioxide. Even if we banned all cars, all power plants, all industry and killed all the farm alimals that breath, it would still be like a fart in a hurricane. We should destroy our economy for a useless symbolic effort? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Not to disagree with you, because for the most part you are right, but this thread is a farce because Michael Ignatieff said no such thing and in fact the absence of the whole "carbon tax" issue NOT being "in" is the "issue" that's being chased here... As Ignatieff correctly stated it's NOT an issue to be addressed while Canada has deficit spending and should only be looked at seriously once the current deficit spending has been slain... It looks like a strategy of trying to give an impression that there is a Green Policy....but I guess it's better than nothing! If Ignatieff was really serious about the Green Shift, he wouldn't have punted it away two years ago. The problem is that few, if any politicians have any real core values when it comes to issues. Every issue is a matter of weighing the cost of keeping the promise vs. the number of votes it will pick up. So, to get any politician to get serious about the environment, there has to be a groundswell of support...and one that is significant enough to counter the groundswell of money from the energy companies....before there is a chance of it becoming policy. 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.