Clean Air Act

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061019/...s_clean_air_act

Four years of consulations and a 40 year plan that slowly improves things?

This is going to actually improve air quality?

Whay happened to global warming? Is that the next part of the plan? Or does the prime minister not believe it is happening?

[jdobbin]

Here's what the Tories in Britain intend to do for the environment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../19/ntory19.xml

[watching&waiting]

There is no dire things going to happen any time soon. Even the doom and gloom crowd say that they are projecting 100 year in advance, so please, do not get so hoity toity about what may happen inthe next 4 years. I posted earlier that the worlds oceans have cooled by several degrees and they are what affects the climate, and even Suzuki can not expalin this as it flys in the very face of all the models that predict 100 year from now. So without totoaly saying there is no reason to react, I feel that a measured responce is a good one. There are targets in place but if we again see the further cooling of the oceans, then what should we make of that.Because then it will not be global warming but rather the pollution is bad for our health, which I readily agree with. But with all this extra greenhouse gases and we get cooling, I would say that we need a new model, don't you?

It maybe be because the ocean currents have chnged some and are not spreading the warm tropical currents as far north and that may explain the wintery cold that Europe felt last year. If this is something that may be happening then will it address warming across the globe as it is thought? The trouble is that no one knows exactly how to explain some events that fly in the face of what others have claims.

The world needs to stop pollution because it is bad for our health and kills people in the here and now. I think we need to address that long before anything a century off.

[jdobbin]

Peter MacKay called Stronach a dog while defending the bill.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

[jdobbin]

There is no dire things going to happen any time soon. Even the doom and gloom crowd say that they are projecting 100 year in advance, so please, do not get so hoity toity about what may happen inthe next 4 years. I posted earlier that the worlds oceans have cooled by several degrees and they are what affects the climate, and even Suzuki can not expalin this as it flys in the very face of all the models that predict 100 year from now. So without totoaly saying there is no reason to react, I feel that a measured responce is a good one. There are targets in place but if we again see the further cooling of the oceans, then what should we make of that.Because then it will not be global warming but rather the pollution is bad for our health, which I readily agree with. But with all this extra greenhouse gases and we get cooling, I would say that we need a new model, don't you?

Better air quality doesn't come till 2025 in the Conservative plan.

[geoffrey]

Better air quality in 2025 is much quicker than the Liberals track record. Their record is massive increases in CO2 levels and pollution. So really, this plan sounds fantastic in comparison to what the other parties offer!

[gerryhatrick]

Peter MacKay called Stonach a dof while defending the bill.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

dog, actually. But I know that's what you meant. Damn f key always getting in the way when you want that g key!

[BubberMiley]

This is the most pathetic attempt to sweep something under the carpet I've ever seen. What makes future governments--the ones who actually have to do anything--obligated to even pay lip service to what some government promised 20 years ago? They must think people are really stupid if they think this will be accepted as a plan.

[Biblio Bibuli]

The world needs to stop pollution because it is bad for our health and kills people in the here and now. I think we need to address that long before anything a century off.

BINGO !!!

[jdobbin]

Better air quality in 2025 is much quicker than the Liberals track record. Their record is massive increases in CO2 levels and pollution. So really, this plan sounds fantastic in comparison to what the other parties offer!

It isn't much of a committment to the environment.

[geoffrey]

Better air quality in 2025 is much quicker than the Liberals track record. Their record is massive increases in CO2 levels and pollution. So really, this plan sounds fantastic in comparison to what the other parties offer!

It isn't much of a committment to the environment.

Banning a couple cancer causing agents was though.

[MightyAC]

It isn't much of a committment to the environment.

No it's not a commitment at all... The plan doesn't kick in for 44 years but I fear it may immediately exacerbate the climate change problem. The amount of hot air that is sure to be expended to defend this so called green, so called plan will be immense. I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure political hot air contributes to the greenhouse effect.

[jdobbin]

Banning a couple cancer causing agents was though.

I don't think is going to help on air pollution all that much.

[geoffrey]

Banning a couple cancer causing agents was though.

I don't think is going to help on air pollution all that much.

Going to stop a few of us from dying though. Alot more than Kyoto will ever do.

[MightyAC]

Banning a couple cancer causing agents was though.

I don't think is going to help on air pollution all that much.

Going to stop a few of us from dying though. Alot more than Kyoto will ever do.

What makes me laugh is that people feel compelled to back whatever their chosen party puts forth no matter how absurd. Some people actually defend Dalton McGuinty in Ontario and likewise some people are actually making excuses for this Green plan.

Staunch Conservatives must know it’s bad because all they can come up with is…uh, well the Liberals didn’t do anything. That may be true but this plan is still absolute crap.

Instead of playing party politics why don’t we try to push the government no matter what party is in to do what’s right? It’s time to push this party to do something meaningful. First, let’s all thank the government for creating some mandatory targets. Second let’s all push them for some meaningful ones that actually begin in during our lifetimes.

[Topaz]

I guess the only way I could some it up is...Rona said the Libs plan wouldn't meet its targets and with Rona's, most Canadians, won't meet 2050!!!

[geoffrey]

Going to stop a few of us from dying though. Alot more than Kyoto will ever do.

What makes me laugh is that people feel compelled to back whatever their chosen party puts forth no matter how absurd. Some people actually defend Dalton McGuinty in Ontario and likewise some people are actually making excuses for this Green plan.

Staunch Conservatives must know it’s bad because all they can come up with is…uh, well the Liberals didn’t do anything. That may be true but this plan is still absolute crap.

Instead of playing party politics why don’t we try to push the government no matter what party is in to do what’s right? It’s time to push this party to do something meaningful. First, let’s all thank the government for creating some mandatory targets. Second let’s all push them for some meaningful ones that actually begin in during our lifetimes.

Actually, personally I'd like to see major spending on the environment. Better our parks system, removing carcinogens entirely from the air, ending the toxic cloud of asthma floating over Ontario. Stopping the flaring of natural gas in human habited areas.

That'll save lives. Instead, we waste billions on paying China to increase their emissions.

It's not about being pro-CPC plan in my opinion, it's just I think we should give it a chance, considering things just got considerably worse during the much more strict liberal period.

[Argus]

Well, so far it's hard to tell. Here's my early take.

I am not a huge environmentalist, but I was hoping for better. Still, much of what government spokesmen are saying does make sense. I don't pay much attention to the opposition or environmental groups. The opposition will simply lie, no matter what. Environmental groups today seem to be made up of determined people without a single iota of common sense or interest in the real world. They want things done NOW, and they have zero interest in costs or consequences - to the point they get highly indignant if you even mention them.

Now what the Liberals did when they signed Kyoto was commit to a 6% cut - and they had 18 years to do it. Twelve years along they have done nothing, and our emissions have risen by a third. Whoops.

A lot of people seem to be forgetting this long Kyoto timetable - a timetable they praised at one point - in their rush to scream at the tories for setting a long timetable.

Why are there long timetables? Because it takes a long time to manage change on this scale. As one person said, you don't just tear down a coal plant. You need to put in place incentives and agreements to help economically support the owners of the power systems, who can then design and build a new power plant, AND THEN tear down the coal plant.

Multiply that by about five hundred thousand.

Now another thing, people are taking the dates as THE START of cleaner air, forgetting that those dates are when the reduction goals are supposed to be achieved. If you're going to cut emissions in half in 50 years (compare this to a 6% cut within 18 years as Kyoto calls for), you need to have made substantial cuts by year ten, by year twenty, by year thirty - etc.

The Liberals had 18 years to cut emissions by 6% and failed miserably. The Tories will need to cut emissions by 6% long before eighteen years, so they can go on to cut emissions by 10%, and then 20%, and then 30%, 40%, and 50% (up to 65% in the plan)

In other words, this plan, starting from scratch, is a hell of a lot more ambitious than Kyoto. But I haven't seen anyone saying that.

Politically, the enemy (that is, the opposition and environmental groups) are finding these long timetables easy to use to make a dishonest point, to claim the Tories' plan is nothing. This is because of Harper's biggest failing - the Tories' biggest failling. In their determination to have substance over style (the opposite of the Liberals) they are forgetting the brief timespan and resulting ignorance of the populace at large. They should have made some phoney promises involving big money and very quick results. It doesn't really matter that they wouldn't be honest or that they'd never spend the money. It would do for the short term - up until the next election. They need to address the environment on the same level as the opposition, ie, in a shallow way which treats the public like the idiots they are. This is how you succeed in politics in Canada. And that is what they should have done. Oh, it's nice to have an actual, honest-to-god plan which will achieve results. But politically, the plan isn't going to resonate with the brief attention spans of Canadians, and it lets' the opposition (including those idiot environmentalists - most of whom have been stooges of the Liberals via government grants for years anyway) beat them over the head in the media.

So unless they suddenly get much better at explaining complex issues to the idiot public, they're not going to get any credit for this environmental plan, and will likely suffer for it instead.

[August1991]

Dobbin, your link in the OP is a Yahoo! "article" based on a CP story about political reaction to Ambrose. And Dobbin, you didn't even offer up a quote from the CP story. (Dobbin, do you use Yahoo! for understanding world events?)

Here's the CP's opening paragraph:

The Clean Air Act that the Conservatives hoped would revive their flagging electoral fortunes appears to be dead on arrival.

Ohhhkaaay. Moving right along, another link in this thread concerns Mackay calling someone a "dof".

That's it. No more links. Now I'm on my own to find an intelligent link about the Tory proposal. (NDLR: This forum is sometimes a pathetic morass of partisan debate based on absolutely no factual information. A: "You're a jerk." B: "You"re a bigger jerk". A: www.yourearealjerk.ca)

In fairness Dobbin, you did post a bizarre link to an article that highlighted a UK Tory proposal to tax air tickets:

David Cameron sought to position the Conservatives as the greenest party yesterday by paving the way for new taxes on pollution, including a likely levy on air travel.

WTF?

Well, the UK Tory link may be germane but I thought we were talking about Canada? No?

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, your link in the OP is a Yahoo! "article" based on a CP story about political reaction to Ambrose. And Dobbin, you didn't even offer up a quote from the CP story. (Dobbin, do you use Yahoo! for understanding world events?)

Here's the CP's opening paragraph:

The Clean Air Act that the Conservatives hoped would revive their flagging electoral fortunes appears to be dead on arrival.

Ohhhkaaay. Moving right along, another link in this thread concerns Mackay calling someone a "dof".

That's it. No more links. Now I'm on my own to find an intelligent link about the Tory proposal. (NDLR: This forum is sometimes a pathetic morass of partisan debate based on absolutely no factual information. A: "You're a jerk." B: "You"re a bigger jerk". A: www.yourearealjerk.ca)

In fairness Dobbin, you did post a bizarre link to an article that highlighted a UK Tory proposal to tax air tickets:

David Cameron sought to position the Conservatives as the greenest party yesterday by paving the way for new taxes on pollution, including a likely levy on air travel.

WTF?

Well, the UK Tory link may be germane but I thought we were talking about Canada? No?

Yahoo posts the CP stories that will appear in tomorrow's papers. It is often the first print report people see in regards to events in Canada. I posted it on the fly and was going to comment later on when I had some time. If I could find a print story that wasn't 12 hours later to unfolding events, I would have linked it.

If you can find an intelligent report of the Act, I'd like to see it. The CP story just had the details and the reaction.

Yahoo doesn't write their own stories, by the way.

My typo I corrected later on.

I posted the British report because the Conservatives they were to announce their own response to the environment. Since they may take power shortly, it seemed interesting to contrast.

I haven't posted any comments calling anyone a jerk nor have I said the Liberal environmental plans was a golden era.

I believe both parties have put off setting standards that other countries have already put in place. The legislation is weak and businesses are already thinking of ways to make it weaker.

[August1991]

Let me go with Bloomberg, with luck spin-free:

Canada plans to establish limits on greenhouse gases and other pollutants starting in 2010 after consulting with industry, and won't impose mandatory caps on greenhouse emissions until as late as 2025.

The Conservative Party government plans to first propose ``short-term targets'' by the spring of 2007 to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions before adopting regulations three years later, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose said in Ottawa today. Targets will be imposed after industry consultations.

That makes sense to me. I don't like the idea of regulation but I do like the idea of industry consultation. God knows the Liberals didn't even do that. They were too busy negotiating international definitions and caps.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged an environmental strategy that will include mandatory emissions standards for all major industries, to replace greenhouse gas targets set in the Kyoto treaty on climate change he claims aren't realistic. Canada's gas emissions have soared as companies expand production in the western province of Alberta's oil-rich tar sands.

Mandatory emission standards? Harper knows that's costly.

Today's announcement was too vague for Calgary-based Suncor Energy Inc. to say if it will change the company's multibillion- dollar investment plans, spokesman Brad Bellows said in an interview. The company plans by 2012 to almost double production to 500,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta's tar-like deposits.

I feel sorry for the Suncor PR guy but at least he was, what's the word, honest. Ambrose just said she's going to consult with the industry. What could he say? Well, he could have said that he looked forward to the consultations.

No Kyoto

Opposition parties complain that the Conservatives have abandoned the Kyoto pact, which the previous Liberal Party government ratified in 2002. The treaty required Canada by 2012 to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels. Instead, they've risen 35 percent, the environment ministry says.

Shocker! Kyoto was thankfully dead anyway.

BTW, is anyone aware that official worldwide CO2 emissions are lower now than they were in 1990? Why? Because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and East Bloc. China hasn't yet made up the difference and anyway, CO2 emissions should not be measured in years but rather in decades and centuries.

Nonetheless, I suspect the Opposition parties will make alot of noise about Kyoto.

First Step

The government today took the first step toward implementing its plan by introducing amendments to the country's environment protection laws, which it claims will strengthen federal authority to regulate air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

That bill would let provinces opt out of federal rules while designating smog and greenhouse gases as ``risks to the environment,'' opening the way for them to be regulated.

...

The government also plans to amend legislation that would give it more power to regulate products such as thermostats to increase energy efficiency, and will begin regulating by 2011 fuel consumption of motor vehicles.

This is interesting, and makes sense.

Bottom Line

Based on initial media reports, I thought about switching my vote from Tory to "someone else" based solely on this issue. I have no fear in saying that I'm an environmentalist - a rather strong one. For the moment, I'm waiting to see what this all means. But IMV, it doesn't look bad at all, despite what the opposition is claiming.

Points?

First, the Tories are going to have come up with a serious plan but for an initial idea, created under tremendous pressure, this is not bad. It makes sense.

Second, greenhouse gases are a serious problem but nothing we do in the next 5 years will matter. We have to think about 50, 100 years or more. Waiting 5 years or so to get it right is sensible - heck, we've waited 15 years. What's 5 years more?

Third, I'm relieved about the provincial aspect to pollution regulation. Much pollution is local. Improving air quality in Toronto will simply raise Toronto property values. IOW, if you don't like Toronto's air - move out of the city and buy a house in Kingston. This is a question for the Ontario government to decide - not the federal government.

Fourth, I prefer a market solution such as Mulroney and Bush Snr negotiated for sulphur dioxide and acid rain in North America. It takes time to solve intelligently environment problems and Mulroney and Bush Snr had known each for years when they did their deal. I'm hoping that the reference to "industry consultation" means exactly that.

Fifth, the world got control of CFC emissions and lead emissions. We don't hear much now about the ozone layer (global pollution) or about lead in children's blood (local pollution).

If you think the environment is just another Leftist way to be anti-America, you're wrong. CFCs and lead were real dangers. They're not now because governments solved the problem. If you think the greedy Right will never protect the environment, you're also wrong. CFCs are no longer used and rich countries don't put lead in gasoline. Right wing governments solved the problem.

Final Bottom Line

I'd prefer better. The Tories should have known that this is important. But for getting thrown in the deep end, this ain't bad. As a plan for the future, it even makes sense.

Ambrose is going to take tremendous heat but what she's done is smart. I wonder how much of the heat will be due to the fact she's a woman. Our society is such that she's perceived as the easy target. Sad.

[jdobbin]

The Liberals did consult business:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/timeline.html

The Conservatives at one time opposed emission standards.

The Conservative plans like the Liberal one sets the timeline way off into the future and leaves plenty of room to water down provisions later on.

[Borg]

No matter how strong - weak or what ever - this bill is, there will be some who complain it was not tough enough.

As long as no money leaves this country to buy carbon credits - none!

Nothing like financing a third word country with my dollars.

We are stilll doing less polluting than several others and I suspect we will continue to be a minor player on the world stage.

Borg

[jdobbin]

We are stilll doing less polluting than several others and I suspect we will continue to be a minor player on the world stage.

I think we can safely say this bill is dead on arrival. A minority government won't be able to get it past a majority of MPs.

And it can be voted down without defeating the government and initiating an election.

[Argus]

Worryingly for the government, the impression has already taken hold that the Conservatives are not serious on the environment, and when Ambrose says the Clean Air Act represents a "very ambitious agenda," people smirk.

But one wonders if any of the so-called climate experts flapping their gums about how industrial polluters have been let off the hook have actually taken a good, long look at the numbers.

Opposition emitting hot air