Leaders debate Aug 6

[Keepitsimple]

I just did. Read my post. He told a lie. (at least one)

OK - so Harper didn't lie on income-splitting - the other guys did - that's done. Now - on to the environment. Harper said that emissions are being reduced. You may not like the context - but they are being reduced. Since 2006, they have gone down substantially. Just because there's a slight uptick in a year or two doesn't mean that an overall sector by sector approach is failing. It's mostly accurate to say that we might not reach our targets - but wrong to say that we haven't accomplished a reasonable level of reduction. If some people think the oil industry needs regulations - then they should concentrate their fire on Obama who has yet to commit to a North American strategy that would allow Canada to take coordinated action. He's still trying to catch up to Canada in moving away from coal. So - you say it's a lie that Canada has reduced it's emissions since 2006?

Link: http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=en&n=CCED3397-1

[On Guard for Thee]

OK - so Harper didn't lie on income-splitting - the other guys did - that's done. Now - on to the environment. Harper said that emissions are being reduced. You may not like the context - but they are being reduced. Since 2006, they have gone down substantially. Just because there's a slight uptick in a year or two doesn't mean that an overall sector by sector approach is failing. It's mostly accurate to say that we might not reach our targets - but wrong to say that we haven't accomplished a reasonable level of reduction. If some people think the oil industry needs regulations - then they should concentrate their fire on Obama who has yet to commit to a North American strategy that would allow Canada to take coordinated action. He's still trying to catch up to Canada in moving away from coal. So - you say it's a lie that Canada has reduced it's emissions since 2006?

Link: http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=en&n=CCED3397-1

C'mon now, all your gov. produced chart which says is emissions are't going up as fast as they might have done, d you are trying to flog that as an actual reduction. Not too sure about your income splitting quip either.

[Smallc]

C'mon now, all your gov. produced chart which says is emissions are't going up as fast as they might have done, d you are trying to flog that as an actual reduction. Not too sure about your income splitting quip either.

Have emissions gone up, or down so far?

[Shady]

I don't care whether emissions go up or down. It's not a priority for me.

[Smallc]

I don't care whether emissions go up or down. It's not a priority for me.

Me neither, but it's important to point out that Harper was not in fact lying.

[BC_chick]

Harper did better than I thought he would. Mulcair was trying too hard to be the anti-Angry-Tom: talking slow and 'remembering' to smile awkwardly. Trudeau was a mess, it's like he had his goody-bag of points to pick and he'd throw them out whenever he could with little care as to whether or not what he was saying had any relevance. And he interrupted all the time which seemed to me his sense of entitlement shining through. Then it all ended with "well I'm a Trudeau" so I'm ready for the job. Gag.

Elizabeth May clearly won that debate and by landslide. She was in a league of her own, she sounded intelligent and in touch.

My riding is 90% going NDP so I think I"m going to vote Green this time around. I'm impressed.

[The_Squid]

They are down ever so slightly with an increasing trend. A slower production in the tar sands has helped slow down the increase a bit lately... but they are still increasing, which is the issue.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=en&n=FBF8455E-1

Canada's emissions growth between 1990 and 2013 was driven primarily by increased emissions from the fossil fuel industries and transport. Emission reductions from 2005 to 2013 were driven primarily by reduced emissions from the public electricity and heat production category.

Harper didn't lie... he just hasn't done anything about emissions. The Provincial governments have been the leaders on this, if at all. Our target is still way out of reach.

[waldo]

He's still trying to catch up to Canada in moving away from coal.

nothing the Harper Conservative government has done in regards to coal regulations has had any impact on the current status of coal in Canada... when you speak of "Obama trying to catch up to Canada", what you mean is "trying to catch up to Ontario".

[waldo]

Now - on to the environment. Harper said that emissions are being reduced. You may not like the context - but they are being reduced. Since 2006, they have gone down substantially.

Link: http://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=en&n=CCED3397-1

Me neither, but it's important to point out that Harper was not in fact lying.

just another in the long line of Harper porkies! Per the most recent Canadian National Inventory Submission to the UNFCCC (April 17, 2015):

of course... the real focus should be on the failure of Harper Conservatives to meet... to even come close... to past target commitments made!

Edited August 7, 2015 by waldo

[Keepitsimple]

C'mon now, all your gov. produced chart which says is emissions are't going up as fast as they might have done, d you are trying to flog that as an actual reduction. Not too sure about your income splitting quip either.

Go back and read exactly what Trudeau and Mulcair have said - then get back to me. Can't be any clearer than their own words.

[Keepitsimple]

nothing the Harper Conservative government has done in regards to coal regulations has had any impact on the current status of coal in Canada... when you speak of "Obama trying to catch up to Canada", what you mean is "trying to catch up to Ontario".

Last I checked - Ontario was part of Canada..........

[PrimeNumber]

Last I checked - Ontario was part of Canada..........

But still has nothing to do with Harper himself. Coal is still very much alive and well out in Sask and Alberta. His buddy Brad Wall in Sask isn't stopping that anytime soon. We'll see if Notley makes a dent in the remaining coal fire plants in Alberta.

[Smallc]

But still has nothing to do with Harper himself.

And realistically, how much should it have to do with Harper? The environment is, generally, a provincial responsibility.

[waldo]

And realistically, how much should it have to do with Harper? The environment is, generally, a provincial responsibility.

oh my! Please... educate yourself! Start with the National Energy Board, Department Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Canadian Forest Service, Canadian Polar Commission, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Meteorological Service of Canada, Geological Survey of Canada, Environment Transport Canada, National Water Research Institute, Natural Resources Canada, Sustainable Development Industry Canada, Renewable Energy National Resources Canada, Worl Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation Data Centre, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency, Parks Canada, etc., etc., etc.

[waldo]

Last I checked - Ontario was part of Canada..........

somehow in your zeal to pumpHarper, you overlooked just where coal reductions were initiated... where the only past/current impacting changes with coal have come from Ontario. I appreciate you have no problem with Harper continually speaking of provincial initiatives as his own... as is, apparently, your way as well!

[cybercoma]

Elizabeth May clearly won that debate and by landslide. She was in a league of her own, she sounded intelligent and in touch.

Not only did she handily win the debate, she also had the best closing statement.

[poochy]

I sure haven't. It's pretty well known we have one of the lowest youth voter turn outs of the developed countries.

We have heard about the power of the left wing youth vote in every recent election, and it's made no difference.

[poochy]

And lets not for get lies about the environment. May picked exactly the right moment to roll her eyes and shake her head when Harper replied to her question saying that Canada's CO2 emissions are being reduced, when we all know they are in fact increasing.

If you can argue that a 3% yearly increase in health spending is a cut, aka a reduction, then I suppose someone could argue our C02 emissions are also being reduced, even if they aren't, but they actually are.

Edited August 7, 2015 by poochy

[poochy]

Have emissions gone up, or down so far?

He seems to have this problem, often.

[waldo]

If you can argue that a 3% yearly increase in health spending is a cut, aka a reduction, then I suppose someone could argue our C02 emissions are also being reduced, even if they aren't, but they actually are.

no - emissions have not been reduced!

and again, any discussion of Harper Conservative emission reduction must start with/include the many failed promises/commitments to meet... to even come close... to past emission reduction targets.

[Shady]

We don't need to worry about reducing emissions. Our emissions are nothing compared to most other countries. It shouldn't be a priority at all. When Mr. Mulcair claims that there's no choice between the environment and economic growth, he's either lying or completely ignorant.

[Freddy]

We don't need to worry about reducing emissions. Our emissions are nothing compared to most other countries. It shouldn't be a priority at all. When Mr. Mulcair claims that there's no choice between the environment and economic growth, he's either lying or completely ignorant.

We should triple our emissions.

[waldo]

We don't need to worry about reducing emissions. Our emissions are nothing compared to most other countries. It shouldn't be a priority at all. When Mr. Mulcair claims that there's no choice between the environment and economic growth, he's either lying or completely ignorant.

standard denier talking point! Well done. Again, the comparable level of Canada's emission reduction (relative to China, the U.S.) isn't the salient point. The symbolism of Canada meeting it's target commitments is profound within the community of world nations... notwithstanding the direct correlation that Canadian emission reduction should associate to more sustainable energy development/policy - the principal offering that Canada can provide to the world as distinct from Harper Conservatives approach to unfettered mega-developments intended to delay developing countries from reducing their dependencies on fossil-fuels... intended to delay developing countries from increasing their reliance on alternate energy pursuits.

Edited August 7, 2015 by waldo

[waldo]

We should triple our emissions.

of course this would dovetail quite nicely with the Harper Conservative strategy/intent to ignore any past emission reduction commitments made

[Moonlight Graham]

May won, Justin looked weak and way in over his head, Harper and Mulcair stood their ground.

I knew Justin wasn't the most informed guy in politics but I was surprised how utterly clueless he is on just about every issue. The contrary, May showed intelligence and a well-read grasp of the issues. Coming in to the debate I was thinking either NDP or maybe Liberal in order to get rid of the corrupt garbage that is the CPC, but now I'm crossing the Liberals off the list as any possibility and I'll give the Greens another look, while NDP remain an option.