Clean Air Act

[jdobbin]

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

It is up to the Conservatives to sell that agenda. Unfortunately for them, with or without help from the opposition parties, Canadians are under the impression that they are anti-environment.

The Conservative government under Mulroney didn't have as big a problem in this as does Harper's government.

[MightyAC]

I’m glad it is a minority government or this piece of crap would be law shortly.

The best thing Harper can do is kill it before a vote. IMO Garth was turfed before the release of this act because his views on climate change and the environment are well known. He would have had to vote against it in order to maintain any integrity at all. After Garth’s suspension Cons wouldn’t dare vote against it, which puts Con MPs between a rock and a hard place. Their party is forcing them to vote in favour but by doing so they look like fools in front of their constituents. I’m sure Harper’s advisors will encourage him to scrap this BS bill and save a little face for his team.

I know that this bill was the centerpiece of the Con fall session. It was preceded by 4 announcements and it was marketed for months. It will be very tough for Steve-O to put his tail between his legs and kill the bill before a vote but it is the right thing to do.

[watching&waiting]

How dumb can the Canadian voters be? I like to think that for the most part they are very intelligent, and with that in mind I do not think that most people will be taken in by the opposition tactics of denouncing this bill. Sure the targets are well into future and any thinking person will realize that is exactly where these have to be. Since the environmentalists arguments are all 100 years in the future, then target goals in 15 to 40 years are very much inline and alos realistically achievable. This is a long term plan for a long term problem. I would have also liked to see a few more short term items, but these would be better achieved thru provincial actions as they are more localized in nature.

This bill will get the backing of more then enough MP's to get past any opposition. I would even think the Bloq would support it as it leaves the provinces room to manouver with much of the local issues. All told I think that this will take wings and fly. It is not perfect, but it is a much better solution then Kyoto ever was.

[MightyAC]

So far all 3 opposition parties have said they cannot support it.

Clean Air Act - Rocky Reception

[watching&waiting]

Do you want to bet that there will be major position changes on this. If they do not get this past, then you just wait for Harper to pull the plug on parliament and force an election, that will win him his majority. So believe me this will pass if only because the other parties would not want an election over an issue such as this, and also because they are not ready for it to be a wedge issue.

[M.Dancer]

What's not to like about a clean air programme that is designed to do nothing till we are all dead?

[MightyAC]

Do you want to bet that there will be major position changes on this. If they do not get this past, then you just wait for Harper to pull the plug on parliament and force an election, that will win him his majority. So believe me this will pass if only because the other parties would not want an election over an issue such as this, and also because they are not ready for it to be a wedge issue.

If Harper makes this a vote of confidence he is in real trouble. The environment and specifically climate change is a hot (not intended) issue. Much of Harper's support came from disenfranchised Liberals who are sensitive to environmental and social issues. A forced election on this issue will cost Harper much of the former anti-Liberal vote.

This bill has likely already hurt the cons in urban centers as well as Quebec. Putting it to a vote, even if it isn't one of confidence, can only hurt sitting Con MPs when they are forced to stand up and support it. A vote like that will add further support to the fact that Cons are not allowed to think for themselves or vote freely.

A Green Plan had the power to win a majority for the Harper and the Cons if it was well done. Unfortunately the bill missed the boat so badly it may be what costs Steve-O a house on Sussex Drive.

[watching&waiting]

Ahh but you forget that all the doom and gloom the environmentalists claim is not for another 100 years, so a 43 year plan sounds pretty good is you ask me.

[daniel]

Ahh but you forget that all the doom and gloom the environmentalists claim is not for another 100 years, so a 43 year plan sounds pretty good is you ask me.

The Conservative Tax and Budget cuts should follow the same schedule and targets as their "Green Plan".

[watching&waiting]

I think most Canadians will see that this plan does many times more for the environment then the Liberals ever did all the time they were in power. So to that end it is a non starter if you try a comparison between them. It will be very hard for any scientist to poke holes in this plan because it is based on the very basics of science and what we know of the environment.

Of course you will get those who will say that it does not go far enough fast enough, but if the environmentalist take this plan and all its targets as being met, then the 100 dom and gloom will be a 200-300 year doom and gloom. Kind of hard to find fault if it goes foward for the ten generations now isn't it.

I will most certainly be dead and gone by that time and so will my childres childrens childrens......

Just how far ahead am I going to take responsibility for?

The conservative only have to show the people that this makes those dire prediction a couple hundred more years away and I am sure they will get the voter support.

[cybercoma]

People who want to see instant results are just using the environment as a thin veil for their anti-corporate agenda.

[MightyAC]

People who want to see delayed results are just using the ecconomy as a thin veil for their anti-environmental agenda.

[cybercoma]

People who want to see delayed results are just using the ecconomy as a thin veil for their anti-environmental agenda.

You do know it's impossible to acheive instant results against something that we don't completely understand. Yes CO2 causes global warming, yes we're putting it into the air....but the actual amount the temperature will rise is unclear. There are many more factors to the climate and global temperature than just the CO2 that's put into the air. So, demanding that corporations stop putting CO2 into the air will have some affect, but how much is unknown. If instant change is achieved the resulting damage to the GDP and unemployment rates will be far worse than the unknown climate results of those changes. None of the scientists involved can accurately predict the temperature the planet is going to reach by 2050 and therefore the dire consequences are "worst case scenarios". The projections are constantly being lowered because of new technologies which reduce CO2 emissions. Passing legislation on todays worst case scenarios is stupid if tomorrow things are not going to be that way.

So it's not anti-environment to want to spend taxpayers money in the most efficient way possible and to protect people's jobs. It's not anti-environment to want to better understand the problem before potentially putting thousands of canadians out of work.

It is stupid to want to waste money and affect people's jobs when we don't even know the severity of the problem.

[Argus]

What's not to like about a clean air programme that is designed to do nothing till we are all dead?

Kyoto was supposed to take 18 YEARS for a 6% reduction, and all the environmentalists loved it.

So just how many years do you think it should take to reduce emissions by 65%?

Query: If Harper had promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% in 18 years, what would the reaction of the opposition and environmentalists be?

[jbg]

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

Because of the turn of cycles, at some point we experience global cooling. The crackpots, back in the mid-1970's planned to throw carbon black on the ice to stem "global cooling" that they were worrying about then. That takes care of the "global warming" problem.

[jdobbin]

Because of the turn of cycles, at some point we experience global cooling. The crackpots, back in the mid-1970's planned to throw carbon black on the ice to stem "global cooling" that they were worrying about then. That takes care of the "global warming" problem.

So you think the scientists are all wrong on global warming and the there should be nothing done?

[cybercoma]

Because of the turn of cycles, at some point we experience global cooling. The crackpots, back in the mid-1970's planned to throw carbon black on the ice to stem "global cooling" that they were worrying about then. That takes care of the "global warming" problem.

So you think the scientists are all wrong on global warming and the there should be nothing done?

I think he's saying the severity of the problem is not yet understood.

[jdobbin]

I think he's saying the severity of the problem is not yet understood.

And nothing should be done? Didn't Reagan think acid rain came from ducks? That is until Mulroney told him it didn't.

[cybercoma]

And nothing should be done? Didn't Reagan think acid rain came from ducks? That is until Mulroney told it didn't.

If the scope of the situation isn't understood how are we to know the best use of resources for fighting it?

That's like burning down your house to fix a leaking faucet. The faucet stops leaking, but all you really needed was a new washer.

[jdobbin]

If the scope of the situation isn't understood how are we to know the best use of resources for fighting it?

That's like burning down your house to fix a leaking faucet. The faucet stops leaking, but all you really needed was a new washer.

I'm not sure what your example means.

I don't know how much research is needed to reveal that there is a problem and point out what is causing it. The Conservatives simply don't believe it but they have no evidence to refute it. All they have done is delay the decision to really do anything until a few elections have passed.

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure what your example means.

I don't know how much research is needed to reveal that there is a problem and point out what is causing it. The Conservatives simple don't believe it but they have no evidence to refute it. All they have done is delay the decision to really do anything until a few elections have passed.

There is so much data that it's difficult to incorporate it all into one post. I'd fall asleep typing it all, but here's the gist...

We're increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, true.

CO2 traps heat and creates warming, also true.

The basic idea of trapped heat is good, if there was ZERO greenhouse effect there'd be no life on this planet. The average temperature of planet earth would be 33C colder.

About 80% of the extra CO2 comes from combustion of oil, coal and gas and the other 20% is created from deforestation and other land changes in the tropics. (Trees obviously absord CO2, the way we breathe oxygen. Less trees to absorb CO2 means higher concentrations in the atmosphere.)

Nearly 55% of released CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and forests. The remaining is added to the atmosphere and is creating the higher concentration. CO2 concentrations have increased about 31% since pre-industrial times.

It's hard to understand what will happen with temperatures since we've only used thermometers globally for about 150 years. The world's oldest recorded thermometer is in England and dates back to 1659. What they use to figure out the temperature is ice core samples (which only gives you an idea of the temperature at that piece of ice) and tree rings which grow wider in warmer weather (but they're very much regional and don't take into account temperatures at night or through the winter because trees generally don't grow at these times). So, our ability to tell weather patterns accurately is really limited to the past 150 years; however, the studies have shown a slight decline in temperature from 1000-1900. There is no denying that centuries before the 1900 were much cooler.

There were two periods where global temperature show up in the 150 years that we have recorded, once from 1910-1945, then again from 1975 to today. The concentration and increase in greenhouse gas at the beginning of the century were nothing compared to the concentrations we're looking at today, but the global temperature rose and roughly the same rate.

So here's the thing, to understand the problem we need to know what the temperature will be into the future (this is why skeptics often say we can't forecast tomorrow's weather let alone decades from now) and to do that we need to know what the greenhouse gas emissions will be like.

In the primary scenarios estimate emissions in the year 2100 to be anywhere from 4.3 Gt carbon to 28.2Gt carbon. That's too broad a spectrum to make any assertions with certainty, furthermore we need to know how much does CO2 affect temperature. We know CO2 traps heat and increases temperature, but global temperature is not directly related to CO2 alone. The computer models have a hard time handling particles in the atmosphere, water vapour and clouds, which all have a cooling effect.

There are many factors that counteract the "worst case scenarios" that environmentalists our touting as our fate and very little is known about them. The globe may not warm to the degree that many of these people are claiming.

So, if there's so much uncertainty, why should we waste billions of dollars on programs now that we may come to find have had no affect later? Isn't better to more fully understand the scope and severity of the problem before dumping money into it? Everyday there is new studies showing that the global temperature is not rising as drastically as first thought and everyday there are new technologies developed because of people's sense of panic about global warming.

Heck, the worst case scenarios don't even take into consideration the hybrid cars that are on the market today. They don't take into consideration the advances in fuel mileage automanufacturers have made. Energy saving lightbulbs and energy efficient furnaces and appliances were never taken into consideration. These things are becoming common-place and the "doomsayers" are quoting facts that don't take these things into account.

The problem is enormously complicated and a lot of pieces to the puzzle are still unknown. Global warming exists, CO2 does trap heat and we are creating CO2, but how much the earth's temperature will rise and what our CO2 concentrations will be like in the future, no one knows; however, everyday new technologies are doing their part to reduce CO2 and perhaps science will find some factor that will inhibit the earth's temperature from rising to catastrophic levels.

Global warming is a problem, but the situation is not as bleak as those with an agenda would have you believe. Drastic measures that could have serious consequences to our economy and standard of living are nto yet necessary.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Nice post Cybercoma. However I think that we should in fact dump a lot of money into the problem. The funding should go to scientific research. We need to understand the problems we face and determine a course of action instead of the knee jerk political reactions that are so common.

The simple fact that governments utilize reactionary solutions should give us some pause for thought.

[jbg]

Nice post Cybercoma. However I think that we should in fact dump a lot of money into the problem. The funding should go to scientific research. We need to understand the problems we face and determine a course of action instead of the knee jerk political reactions that are so common.

The simple fact that governments utilize reactionary solutions should give us some pause for thought.

I agree that we shouuld dump a lot of money into the program, though I disagree as to where it should go. It should go towards Liberal-friendly corporations, such as Power Corp., in the form of emissions-trading profits.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

JBG you seem to think scientific investment is a waste of time, why is that?

[cybercoma]

Nice post Cybercoma. However I think that we should in fact dump a lot of money into the problem. The funding should go to scientific research. We need to understand the problems we face and determine a course of action instead of the knee jerk political reactions that are so common.

The simple fact that governments utilize reactionary solutions should give us some pause for thought.

YES! Thank you!