Manning: Environmental Portfolio and Gaffes hurt Conservatism

[Michael Hardner]

http://o.canada.com/2013/03/09/perceived-weakness-on-environment-intemperate-remarks-hurt-conservatism-in-canada-says-preston-manning/#.UTu__tayg-A

Preston Manning delivered a couple of sobering assessments to fellow conservatives Saturday, arguing the Harper governments perceived weakness on the environment is a huge liability and that the biggest weakness for the conservative movement is intemperate and ill-considered remarks.

The question everybody is thinking is "...what can be done about this ?". Is there policy room for the Conservatives to make headway on the environment ?

[ReeferMadness]

http://o.canada.com/2013/03/09/perceived-weakness-on-environment-intemperate-remarks-hurt-conservatism-in-canada-says-preston-manning/#.UTu__tayg-A

The question everybody is thinking is "...what can be done about this ?". Is there policy room for the Conservatives to make headway on the environment ?

This is a big problem for the Cons. Their red meat base doesn't even believe there are any environmental issues. All they can do is keep their mouths shut and hope nobody notices.

[Sleipnir]

http://o.canada.com/2013/03/09/perceived-weakness-on-environment-intemperate-remarks-hurt-conservatism-in-canada-says-preston-manning/#.UTu__tayg-A

The question everybody is thinking is "...what can be done about this ?". Is there policy room for the Conservatives to make headway on the environment ?

1) Unmuzzle scientists.

2) Take back the Experimental Lake Area.

3) Implement pollution-pay principle to combat rising pollution levels in Canada that contributes to climate change.

4) Reform the operation the tar sand with policies that may not be popular with businesses. But hey either you want to work to get oil from the stable country of Canada or oil from the erratic unstable nation of Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

Those are the top three that comes to my mind atm.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Sleipnir

[ReeferMadness]

1) Unmuzzle scientists.

2) Take back the Experimental Lake Area.

3) Implement pollution-pay principle to combat rising pollution levels in Canada that contributes to climate change.

4) Reform the operation the tar sand with policies that may not be popular with businesses. But hey either you want to work to get oil from the stable country of Canada or oil from the erratic unstable nation of Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

Those are the top three that comes to my mind atm.

5) Actually give a crap about something besides the almighty economy.

[Sleipnir]

5) Actually give a crap about something besides the almighty economy.

You can't reasonably separate the economy from the environment and vice-versa. The two are strongly intertwined.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Sleipnir

[ReeferMadness]

You can't reasonably separate the economy from the environment and vice-versa. The two are strongly intertwined.

Is this the old "you need a strong economy so you can look after the environment" chestnut? There are so many things wrong with that argument, I hardly know where to begin. We don't need to look after the environment, we just need to stop wrecking it.

[kairos]

The economy is built on destroying the environment, so yes the two are inseparably related.

Edited March 10, 2013 by kairos

[Michael Hardner]

1) Unmuzzle scientists.

2) Take back the Experimental Lake Area.

3) Implement pollution-pay principle to combat rising pollution levels in Canada that contributes to climate change.

4) Reform the operation the tar sand with policies that may not be popular with businesses. But hey either you want to work to get oil from the stable country of Canada or oil from the erratic unstable nation of Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

Those are the top three that comes to my mind atm.

I think that most of these may be possible, but I don't think the government will do them. The Harper government will fall when Canada is sick of the leader.

[Sleipnir]

Is this the old "you need a strong economy so you can look after the environment" chestnut?

No.

[shortlived]

I think that most of these may be possible, but I don't think the government will do them. The Harper government will fall when Canada is sick of the leader.

The key is to switch to renewable resources, and to create 0 emissions production systems. This also means setting up waste chemical banks rather than dumping into the water supply or burrying toxic waste, that is actually processing and reusing industrial waste. This means creating complimentary processes.

For instance you have lots of sulphur from oil extraction, so you need to put sulphur to use somewhere else or bank it, but it should be local. Also its not about the "Cheapest goods" but managing the cycle efficiently since money is profit not effectiveness or sustainability.

Its not complex, people just cut corners because it looks good enough (but it isn't)

If 6% of unemployed people took on 6% of GDP to be employed in making sustainable renewable cycles of industry then the economy doesn't suffer, it improves, it is just who has the hoards at the end of the day.

flattening out the super rich a little to give 6% of the population who is unemployed jobs is not a disservice.

example of complimentary industries to tar sands oil is growing natural rubber, making explosives, and health products. If those industries arn't developed the economic cycle is not developed.

Its not just making stuff to make stuff.. but if you can use sulphur as a disinfectant rather than silver then you use sulphur if you produce sulphure locally.

If you want to see strong economies you have to look to how countries under sanctions like Iraq, Cuba, North Korea or Iran have faired, and how they have coped economically. Sure they tanked but they didn't tank so hard they were unsalvagable, they also refined their ability. Look to patriot or victory goods.. of WWII these are efficiencies that can also become environmental efficiencies.

The problem is the economy is developed and the people who run the economy are resistant to change. because they don't give a damn about the environment. They don't care how it is left if there is no law suit at the end of the tunnel.

Refining Co2 is the sure fire way of reducing emissions, and this means developing industries like nanocarbon fibre production, like a giant space elevator or tenis racquets, or tools, or even building materials like walls and support beams and body armour, and so on. Oxygen can be added to the atmopshere used in various pressurized uses like welding and so on, you just need to catalyze the oxygen from the carbon before it goes out. then use the carbon and use the oxygen. Its a real no brainer. You just insure that industries have all their airborne and liquid wastes converted to usable materials through micron and submicron filtering and catalytic conversion.

This is just one example.

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2009/October/09100901.asp

Investing in micronuclear reactors at large industrial sites is a way of insuring enough energy is there from clean sources to fuel these processes..

With a reactor getting that it takes 393.5 kJ/mol. isn't nearly as difficult as it seems.

or how about

heat CO2 over a catalyst of iron doped zeolite and hydrogen to produce water and ethylene

or all of the above

isntead we have

dump co2 crap into air warm planet kill polar bears... meh. oh and the give people cancer.

my gosh just think, alberta could start refining its own oil instead of transporting it 1000's of KM to be refined...!!

Edited March 10, 2013 by shortlived

[Argus]

It's funny how all this whining about the environment only seems to have started since the Tories came into power. One would think everyone was just roses and sunshine prior to that. Yet as far as I know the same rules in place when they took power are in place now. So what does that make the previous Liberal government?

As an example, the Tories have taken a lot of heat for not doing more to combat C02 emissions, while the previous government took virtually no heat for doing nothing on that file.

[shortlived]

It's funny how all this whining about the environment only seems to have started since the Tories came into power. One would think everyone was just roses and sunshine prior to that. Yet as far as I know the same rules in place when they took power are in place now. So what does that make the previous Liberal government?

As an example, the Tories have taken a lot of heat for not doing more to combat C02 emissions, while the previous government took virtually no heat for doing nothing on that file.

Liberals raised environmental "respect", through initiatives like agreeing to kyoto, and instilling a positive environmental image

I think that they grew on the environmental awareness issue....

---

copps????

????Marchi is currently serving as a Senior Fellow with the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, in Geneva.?????

Stewart headed the Canadian delegation to the Kyoto climate change negotiations and signed the Kyoto Accord on behalf of Canada.[5] She pushed for action on the Kyoto Accord, improvements in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

Anderson worked for strict conservation measures to protect fish stocks

getting an agreement with the United States under the Pacific Salmon Treaty to conserve salmon stocks and to end the destructive competitive fishing by the US and Canadian commercial fleets.

Rio Summit conventions on biodiversity and climate change. He was successful in getting the Species at Risk Act passed by Parliament and signed into law (2004)

Canadian ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in December 2002.

mproving air and water quality and established improved federal provincial cooperation on environmental issues.

, Anderson was the first Canadian elected as president of the governing council of the United Nations Environment Programme, a post he held for two years

Anderson has received a number of environmental awards, including the John Fraser Award for Environmental Achievement from the Sierra Club of Canada (2005), the Dr. Andrew Thompson Award from West Coast Environmental Law for his lifetime contributions to the environment and sustainability in British Columbia (2004), and the 50th anniversary International Conservation Award (1998) from the Atlantic Salmon Federation.

Dion was very well known for his enviornmental programme

a Globe and Mail article described Dion as being "bent on transforming the environment dossier from the traditional tree-hugger's last stand into a forward-thinking economic portfolio.".[34] Dion championed a "new industrial revolution" focused on "environmentally-sustainable technologies and products"

What has the CPC done to improve the environment over the last 8 years? Unprotecting 99% of Canadas waterways? Blocking climate change measures, and blindly standing by as industry grows and fails to modernize its technology to protect the environment?

Edited March 10, 2013 by shortlived

[TimG]

I think that most of these may be possible, but I don't think the government will do them.

Most of those "issues" are not "issues" at all. They are politically motivated noise that has nothing to do with actually protecting the environment.

For example, allowing any government employee to speak to the press without advance authorization is a policy change that has absolutely no connection to the environment. The only people who care about it are activists working within the government who wish to engage in personal political campaigns. Why would any government support this?

The 'polluter pay principal' sounds great in practice until you realize that there is no way to come to agreement on what the 'costs' are. Environmental activists love to attribute every bad thing to "pollution" (no matter what the science actually says) and pick whatever random numbers they need to justify whatever tax they want to impose. A better name for this policy is the 'tax stuff we don't like' policy. This is not an environmental policy - it is a taxation policy.

As for the oil sands: environmentalists want them shut down so actions taken by the government will be ignored until that happens. There is nothing a government can practically do to prevent criticism from these types of people unless it wants to shut down operations and give up the revenues and jobs that come with it.

Edited March 10, 2013 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

It's a fact that Environmentalists do not like Conservatives - regardless of their stand on the environment. The Left wing will never like the Right wing - or even the center for that matter.....and I'm not talking the Green Party - but groups like the Sierra Club and their ilk. In fact, Canada has a great story to tell on the environment - but the media and the Eco-nuts will not let it be told. This is the next big task for the Conservatives. Let's put Harper aside for a moment and look at Canada as a whole - and compare it to other countiries:

1) Canada has gone miles to reduce and almost eliminate the use of coal - and replace it with much cleaner Natural Gas. Coal is the dirtiest of fuels. China and India each have well over 300 coal facilities that are currently on the books to soon be built - that's in addition to thousands that already exist.

2) Canada - mostly Quebec and BC, use a lot of Hydro power and actually export power to the US to reduce the US consumption of fossil fuels.

3) Canada is continuing to convert oil usage to Natural Gas. Heck, we've even got wind farms in Ontario but I wouldn't rave about that.

Instead of hailing these virtues as an example of reasonable stewardship, the eco-nuts would focus of the Oil-sands - an area of less than 200 square kilometers that produces one-tenth of one percent of the world's emissions. Exporting oil to the US and the Pacific rim will displace some of the much more carbon intensive coal that those countries are using.

If the eco-nuts truly wanted to make a carbon difference - as opposed to a political/social engineering difference, they would accept the incremental steps that can be accomplished to reduce the world's dependency on coal. But they don't.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

You can't reasonably separate the economy from the environment and vice-versa. The two are strongly intertwined.

Most economists regard the environment as being external to the economy, as if the economy existed in a bubble. If anything the two are being forcibly separated by something that more closely resembles religious delusion and faith.

Liberals raised environmental "respect", through initiatives like agreeing to kyoto, and instilling a positive environmental image

Did you notice they were still every bit as instrumental in the near complete destruction of fisheries and oceans on both coasts? That had as much to do with corruption and tilting playing fields in the direction of lobbyists working for the stinking putresent rich.

The Liberals are pigs too - always have been.

[ReeferMadness]

The Liberals are pigs too - always have been.

True enough - but the Cons have taken it to a whole new level by muzzling the scientists.

[TimG]

We don't need to look after the environment, we just need to stop wrecking it.

The problem is who gets to decide what "wrecking it means"? Environmentalists arrogantly assume that their definition is the only definition that matters. But there are many legitimate opinions based on different cost benefit trade offs. For example, most environmentalists don't seem to have a problem with the destruction caused by building places for people to live (probably because they know they would get zero political support if they did) but they make a big deal about the often less destructive processes of resource extraction.

No matter what humans do they will change the environment. The only debate we can have is about what changes are reasonable and what are not. The idea that we should change nothing is absurd and impossible.

Edited March 10, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

http://o.canada.com/2013/03/09/perceived-weakness-on-environment-intemperate-remarks-hurt-conservatism-in-canada-says-preston-manning/#.UTu__tayg-A

The question everybody is thinking is "...what can be done about this ?". Is there policy room for the Conservatives to make headway on the environment ?

Conservatives making headway? With who... what audience are you presuming the Conservatives could target? Which itself presumes on the greater of, do Conservatives even give a damn? There's certainly no shortage of, 'not giving a damn examples'... we've touched upon, quite literally, dozens throughout assorted MLW threads.

Manning certainly hasn't been pushing this theme anywhere I'm familiar with... I'd like to be corrected on that, I doubt I will be. If Conservatives suddenly have an awakening, if they are suddenly reborn, if they finally begin to realize they actually need 'public support' to help champion their fossil-fuel driven utopia..... based on history and past performance, who will believe any of their miraculous turnaround to be sincere?

[Bryan]

The difference between Liberals and Conservatives with respect to the environment is the Conservatives are just more honest. Liberals know all they have to do is keep repeating the same lines over and over again, and they'll get away with not actually DOING anything. By telling the truth that they are not going to do a lot of these expensive things, the Conservatives make themselves easier targets for criticism.

[Sleipnir]

Most economists regard the environment as being external to the economy, as if the economy existed in a bubble. If anything the two are being forcibly separated by something that more closely resembles religious delusion and faith.

I agree, it equivalent to saying - let's talk about the water molecules, but leave out the oxygen molecules.

[Sleipnir]

The difference between Liberals and Conservatives with respect to the environment is the Conservatives are just more honest.

That explains why they're not talking much at all.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Sleipnir

[ReeferMadness]

Most of those "issues" are not "issues" at all. They are politically motivated noise that has nothing to do with actually protecting the environment.

For example, allowing any government employee to speak to the press without advance authorization is a policy change that has absolutely no connection to the environment. The only people who care about it are activists working within the government who wish to engage in personal political campaigns. Why would any government support this?

Well, that's your view. International science organizations disagree with you. But I'm sure you know best, right?

The 'polluter pay principal' sounds great in practice until you realize that there is no way to come to agreement on what the 'costs' are. Environmental activists love to attribute every bad thing to "pollution" (no matter what the science actually says) and pick whatever random numbers they need to justify whatever tax they want to impose. A better name for this policy is the 'tax stuff we don't like' policy. This is not an environmental policy - it is a taxation policy.

Industry doesn't want to pay full costs for damages? Fine. There will be no costs if there are no damages. The solution is easy.

Just fix it. If your product releases SO₂, remove it from the atmosphere. If your fracking releases chemicals deep underground, just clean them up. If you dig up the earth to get coal, make the place look exactly as it did before when you leave. If you contaminate a watershed, clean it up before the water reaches someone's drinking water downstream.

See, no problem.

[TimG]

Well, that's your view. International science organizations disagree with you.

The scientist quoted in the article is a member of the Green Party and plans to run in the next federal election. Your link seems to prove my point that the people complaining are government employees with a political agenda and there is no justification for them to talk to the media.

Just fix it. If your product releases SO₂, remove it from the atmosphere.

A hypocritical and self serving platitude. Do you pay the cost for your CO2 emssions? How about the cost of disposal for the waste that you generate? Are you willing to pay to replace the roads use use and knock down the building you live in when you are done? I suspect you are expecting the government to take care of that for you. Do you support policies that require every person pay 100% of the cost of the pollution they generate? If not why not? Why are companies that operate in Canada the only entities which you think should pay for pollution?

The fact is we choose to change nature all of the time. Change is not necessarily bad. Why do you think you are entitled to decide which changes are acceptable?

Edited March 10, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

The scientist quoted in the article is a member of the Green Party and plans to run in the next federal election. Your link seems to prove my point that the people complaining are government employees with a political agenda and there is no justification for them to talk to the media.

To anyone else who might be paying attention: read the article - it's doubtful TimG did. The scientist he is referring to (Andrew Weaver) is just one of a list of scientists and science reporters referenced. In addition to the scientists who feel they are being muzzed, science reporters are reporting that it is harder and harder to get access to Canadian scientists.

Your characterization of this article is so dishonest, it's obvious that you can't refute its point.

A hypocritical and self serving platitude. Do you pay the cost for your CO2 emssions? How about the cost of disposal for the waste that you generate? Are you willing to pay to replace the roads use use and knock down the building you live in when you are done? I suspect you are expecting the government to take care of that for you. Do you support policies that require every person pay 100% of the cost of the pollution they generate? If not why not? Why are companies that operate in Canada the only entities which you think should pay for pollution?

The fact is we choose to change nature all of the time. Change is not necessarily bad. Why do you think you are entitled to decide which changes are acceptable?

I have made serious attempts to limit my ecological footprint. I cycle to work, drive little and make a concerted effort to consume as little as I can. I would be happy to support carbon taxes and other pollution taxes that would repair or otherwise pay for the damage that my behaviour causes.

And what about you?

[ReeferMadness]

No matter what humans do they will change the environment. The only debate we can have is about what changes are reasonable and what are not. The idea that we should change nothing is absurd and impossible.

I don't know anyone who has ever suggested that "we should change nothing".

There is, however, a lot that we can do to limit the deleterious effects on the environment. For starters, we can stop obsessing about the GDP. GDP is simply a measure of how much money was spent, not what value was achieved for it. Measuring an economy on the basis of GDP is like measuring a party based solely on the amount of money you spent hosting it.

Another thing that we can do is proper accounting of our natural world. The world is a finite place. When we extract minerals from the ground or cut down trees, we're not creating something from nothing. We are taking something that that something will not be available to our children. Accountants would say we're drawing down an asset. Natural world accounting should also take into account the damage we're doing to the water, air and ecosystems. That's pretty hard to do when people won't even admit there is damage being done.