Bloomberg: Environmentalists Call Leaked Canada Bill Ineffective

[gerryhatrick]

Environmentalists Call Leaked Canada Bill Ineffective (Update2)

By Theophilos Argitis and Alexandre Deslongchamps

Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian environmental groups say Prime Minister Stephen Harper's clean-air bill may hurt the government's ability to regulate pollution by opening it to legal challenges, citing a draft they leaked to reporters today.

The bill would let provinces opt out of federal rules, according to the draft....

snip

``There are no hard targets'' in the leaked plan, Liberal environment critic John Godfrey said in a press conference that followed the environmental groups. The government's promise that ``there would be short-term, medium-term and long-term targets, there's no reference to that,'' he said. ``There's no reference to international obligations, no reference to Kyoto.''

The Conservatives need opposition support to pass the measures, because they lack a majority of votes in Parliament. Godfrey and the Bernard Bigras, environment critic for the separatist Bloc Quebecois party, have indicated they won't support the bill if it doesn't go far enough to cut pollution.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...mp;refer=canada

Wonder who leaked this?

It's hard to make any judgements, since it's a month-old draft. I sense that Harper probably senses the Global Warming issue could break him, so they've been scrambling since August.

[geoffrey]

How much did a much stricter Liberal policy do?

Oh wait, things got worse. Let's give this a chance.

[watching&waiting]

Gerry you are the chicken little of this site. You see the negative in everything and can not ever see the positive. Of course environmentalists will disagree with the plan. They say straight out that the only thing to do is shut down all polluters now and do not let them operate again until they can reduce the emmissions to near zero no matter what the costs. Only an idiot would think that is going to happen. This plan is just as good as any that have come across the house floor, including the Kyoto plan where the emmissions increased 27% under liberl rule. Hell even the voluntary plans in the USA did better then that.

So why do you not tell us what you disagree with and just what you would replace it with. Maybe then people will take you more seriously. So far I have heard alot of "I don't agree with it as it is not harsh enough" from a lot of blow hards, but nothing tangible that would make anyone change their point of view.

For instance would you make mandatory 25% decrease in fuel consumption for all cars and truck made over the next decade? Would you legislate cleaner gas and diesel and allow the content of resouce grade alcohol to go from 10 to 25%?

Make it mandatory for all cities to have parking on their outskirts, and only those with special passes could then drive down town while the rest have to use mass transit?

How about all factories and manufacturers, must cut emmission by 10 per year for the next decade?

You see it is not that hard to come up with ideas, but of course then we will give the reasons why all these ideas would kill our economy. But at least I would have contributed in a positive way to the subject.

[jbg]

Gerry you are the chicken little of this site. You see the negative in everything and can not ever see the positive.

I thought, from the title, the thread would not be another anti-Harper diatribe. I am disappointed.

Of course environmentalists will disagree with the plan. They say straight out that the only thing to do is shut down all polluters now and do not let them operate again until they can reduce the emmissions to near zero no matter what the costs. Only an idiot would think that is going to happen. This plan is just as good as any that have come across the house floor, including the Kyoto plan where the emmissions increased 27% under liberl rule. Hell even the voluntary plans in the USA did better then that.

The Liberals, as evidenced by such bigwigs as Maurice Strong and Desmairis, are hardly starry-eyed idealists. They use their supporters as useful idiots to advance their real agenda, pollution credit trading.

[Ricki Bobbi]

It's hard to make any judgements, since it's a month-old draft. I sense that Harper probably senses the Global Warming issue could break him, so they've been scrambling since August.

Grehatrick something tells me the Conservatives have been working on it for more than a month a couple months. Ambrose has probably been working on the plan since she was appointed to cabinet.

[B. Max]

The bill would let provinces opt out of federal rules, according to the draft....

Yeah the first one to go would be Ontario.

[gc1765]

Gerry you are the chicken little of this site. You see the negative in everything and can not ever see the positive. Of course environmentalists will disagree with the plan.

Give him a break, this is what he said "It's hard to make any judgements, since it's a month old draft." There is nothing negative in that statement. Other than that, he's simply reporting an article about how environmentalists feel. If you want to criticize anyone, why not criticize the environmentalists who are saying negative things about the plan instead?

[watching&waiting]

[

Of course environmentalists will disagree with the plan. They say straight out that the only thing to do is shut down all polluters now and do not let them operate again until they can reduce the emmissions to near zero no matter what the costs. Only an idiot would think that is going to happen. This plan is just as good as any that have come across the house floor, including the Kyoto plan where the emmissions increased 27% under liberl rule. Hell even the voluntary plans in the USA did better then that.

You did not see this in my post? It does pretty much say the environmentalists are ...... Well you get the point.

I do not mind Gerry and I do find him funny sometimes, but I was pointing out here that he could use a more open approach in many things and he should maybe also include what he believes would be b etter answers to things. Being the constant critic and never giving altenatives has probably made him a target more then necessary. I though my post was pointing him to a better way. I am sorry you feel otherwise.

[gerryhatrick]

Gerry you are the chicken little of this site. You see the negative in everything and can not ever see the positive. Of course environmentalists will disagree with the plan.

Give him a break, this is what he said "It's hard to make any judgements, since it's a month old draft." There is nothing negative in that statement. Other than that, he's simply reporting an article about how environmentalists feel. If you want to criticize anyone, why not criticize the environmentalists who are saying negative things about the plan instead?

Don't sweat the trollers and baiters.

[jbg]

Grehatrick something tells me the Conservatives have been working on it for more than a month a couple months. Ambrose has probably been working on the plan since she was appointed to cabinet.

Don't know of that poster.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Gerry you are the chicken little of this site. You see the negative in everything and can not ever see the positive.

w&w to be fair Grehatrick only does that when talking about the Conservative Government, Party and/or Stephen Harper.

When it comes to anything done by the Liberals or NDP the double-standard comes out.

Any other poster with Grehatrick's history of abuse, baiting and trolling wouldn't definitely have been dealt with. But such is life. A message board associated with a publicly-funded university shouldn't be expected to be neutral or apply the rules evenly. Should it?

[watching&waiting]

RB

I do think that Gerry has been issued some warnings and even though he believes I am baiting him, I was really trying to encourage him to post in a style where he would give his answers the the questions and problems and not just take others quotes. It was not to humiliate him in any way.

He has the right to support his liberal agenda, just as others will have the right to their own as well. It is just we all have to recognise that, and live by it. Sometimes when the argumments grow more heated, certain improper personalities come out, and that is where most have problems. I have at one time or another steps on the toes of others on this site with my view opposing theirs, and some times it was heated, but we never got to name calling etc, and now I may find that on some other topics these same people are inline with my own thinking, so it only goes to show you that there are many prospective views to almost any topic and there may even be several right or good answers to it. Not all are cut and dried. I will admit to looking at past posts to see what the general thinking behind somebody is before I would ever comment on his style or about him. Which was what I did here. Now he does not have to take it to heart and I would not be hurt by that, as I do not have the right to force him into anything.

[gerryhatrick]

[

Of course environmentalists will disagree with the plan.

There's a plan? That's the first I've heard of it.

[Ricki Bobbi]

RB

I do think that Gerry has been issued some warnings and even though he believes I am baiting him, I was really trying to encourage him to post in a style where he would give his answers the the questions and problems and not just take others quotes. It was not to humiliate him in any way.

He has the right to support his liberal agenda, just as others will have the right to their own as well. It is just we all have to recognise that, and live by it. Sometimes when the argumments grow more heated, certain improper personalities come out, and that is where most have problems.

I don't see him getting warnings.

Of course he has the right to support his agenda. He doesn't have the right to break the rules of the form. Examples of his malfeasance? He starts multiple threads on the same topic, cross-posts time after time. Swears and insults other posters.

Those are the sorts of behaviour I take offence to. That sort of behaviour shouldn't be the outcome of publicly spent money.

I have the right to mention these concerns. Not breaking any rules by doing so.

[gerryhatrick]

I don't see him getting warnings.

Individual warnings are given as PM's Ricki, you know that. Why would you expect to be seeing any I might have received?

One warning we both received in public was to "cut out the insults and off-topic personal banter", remember?

Take a look at this topic, as an example. You and W&W appear to be writing a book of insults and off-topic personal banter together. You need to relax and stop taking my criticism of Harper so personally.

[Ricki Bobbi]

One warning we both received in public was to "cut out the insults and off-topic personal banter", remember?

Take a look at this topic, as an example. You and W&W appear to be writing a book of insults and off-topic personal banter together. You need to relax and stop taking my criticism of Harper so personally.

That was an interesting "warning". You swore at me and we were treated 'equally'. I don't quite understand how that one worked. Yet again another example of the special status you have on this board.

If you want to hijack the board for your Harper-hatred don't expect to get a free ride of it. Should public money go to pay for it? Absolutely not.

[gerryhatrick]

If you want to hijack the board for your Harper-hatred don't expect to get a free ride of it. Should public money go to pay for it? Absolutely not.

It sounds like you want the board closed down.

[Ricki Bobbi]

It sounds like you want the board closed down.

As long as the rules of the board are applied equally to all posters it is a good place and a worthy use of public money. Inequal enforcement of the rules implies that public money is being used for partrisan purposes in a supposedly non-partisan forum.

[watching&waiting]

Gerry I am not baiting you or even insulting you. I have said in many posts you right the right to your opiions. You just dislike I I point out when you trip on your opiions as when you put so much effort in the polls and when as polls do change, it was that wher you felt insulted. I do not make polls. I also used that as a way to show you why you should never put faith in most polls. You see that differently. I caqn accept that. But by extention you will have to accept my position as well.

I have never received a warning at all. I have never been so outwardly rude or insulting to any member here to have deserved any warning. If you are anable to accept critisim or deb ate about the thinsg you post, then you should really think about not posting them. While our views probably will never be the same, I would like to think we can at least debate about their differences, in a calm unemotional manner.

I am 55 years old and maybe that is where we do not see eye to eye. I have learned in life that many people will be different then me. I celebrate the differeces, where you still wnat to fight to change them. I may be wrong, but that is a quick take on this.

[gerryhatrick]

Gerry I am not baiting you or even insulting you. .....

I have never been so outwardly rude or insulting to any member here to have deserved any warning.

You seem still hurt by my general comment against "baiters and trollers" in another thread. In that thread you were among them, calling me the "chicken little of this site" and claiming I "see the negative in everything and can not ever see the positive." I make no apologies.

I am 55 years old and maybe that is where we do not see eye to eye. I have learned in life that many people will be different then me. I celebrate the differeces, where you still wnat to fight to change them. I may be wrong, but that is a quick take on this.

You assume to guess my age as younger than you, perhaps thinking an older person has more maturity and wisdom. I'm old enough to know that's not true. Sometimes age just makes people urmudgeonlyand foolish.

About you, I cannot comment. I don't know enough. About me though you are completely wrong. I do not "fight to change" people. On the issue of Global Warming, for example, I do not expect change from people. I am of the opinion that there's a segment of society that cannot deal with the magnitude of Global Warming. They cannot face it, so they will never stop their denial. Even if they accept that it's happening, they can never accept that we are causing it because that frightens them to the core. Their minds protect them from the reality. My treatment of such people on this forum is dismissive exactly because I know nothing will change them.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You seem still hurt by my general comment against "baiters and trollers" in another thread. In that thread you were among them, calling me the "chicken little of this site" and claiming I "see the negative in everything and can not ever see the positive." I make no apologies.

Why should you? You have free rein to break the rules of the site. Just use it and be happy. No need to rub everybody's nose in it.

[geoffrey]

[

Of course environmentalists will disagree with the plan.

There's a plan? That's the first I've heard of it.

No plan is better than the Liberal plan that saw emissions skyrocket and billions go overseas to China and Russia... where their emissions skyrocketed as well!

What great things Kyoto has done for Canada, it's put us in a state of perpetual ignorance about how much Kyoto has failed everyone. How much the Liberals failed everyone on the environment. How much better a meager CPC plan is than anything the Liberals have ever come up with... ever.

[gerryhatrick]

[

Of course environmentalists will disagree with the plan.

There's a plan? That's the first I've heard of it.

No plan is better than the Liberal plan that saw emissions skyrocket and billions go overseas to China and Russia... where their emissions skyrocketed as well!

The Liberals are not in power any longer. At least they tried, and would no doubt try harder than the Conservatives are now.

The Liberals took initiatives to promote individual improvements, and to some extent they were successful. That is on record. The area that caused the increase was primarily Alberta, if you get my drift.

In any event, it's time to stop talking about the Liberals and start demanding that our NEW government do something about the problem.

[cybercoma]

In any event, it's time to stop talking about the Liberals and start demanding that our NEW government do something about the problem.

You still haven't been clear on what "something" is. What exactly are you demanding the government do? Create a carbon tax, shutdown the oilfields and kick automakers out of the country by placing restrictions on their business?

[gerryhatrick]

In any event, it's time to stop talking about the Liberals and start demanding that our NEW government do something about the problem.

You still haven't been clear on what "something" is. What exactly are you demanding the government do? Create a carbon tax, shutdown the oilfields and kick automakers out of the country by placing restrictions on their business?

Actually cyber I have spoken about it on the forum before. I've had the exact same demand made of me elsewhere.

I will answer each of your concerns in order:

A carbon tax of some kind is certainly in order. Any less is not taking the problem seriously. There needs to be a non-market incentive to conserve, right away.

The oilfields don't need to be shut down, but expansion should be halted immediately and a lot of money needs to be spent on making them less polluting.

And your concern for automakers is unfounded. If you were informed about automakers you would know that gas milliage regulations aren't an extreme burden to adopt. The companies who do best in it are the most profitable.