Mulroney says: "It's the environment, stupid!"

[rbacon]

Is Mulroney still working for the Powercorp Family Compact along with Chretein, Martin and the Rae family.....

[Vancouver King]

I won't be buying any green proposals from an Environment Minister who said, "We are on track to meeting all our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol but not the targets." - Rona Ambrose, Nov. 12, 2006

[geoffrey]

Is Mulroney still working for the Powercorp Family Compact along with Chretein, Martin and the Rae family.....

You know it.

[Argus]

I will give the CPC that they introduced sticter regulations on toxic chemicals... however that is hardly groundbreaking... the EU did the same thing this week.

And what did the Libeals do in 12 years?

Exactly.

That's why Dion can't campaign on environment, eventually Canadians will wake up to the complete failure he and his party were in that regard. The Liberals cannot be voted for if you care about the environment, the CPC... well, if you hold your nose maybe.

Canadians are idiots, and Dion most certainly will campaign on the environment. Like Afghanistan, they have divorced themselves of any responsibility for the failure of Kyoto. What the Tories have to do is hit Canadians over the head with a big, blunt Obvious-stick. If I was creating the tory advertising campaign I'd show Chretien proudly signing Kyoto, and big flashbulbs going off, then a series of pictures and videos of him, Martin and Dion making smiling pledges about Kyoto. All the while a big red line would be moving up diagonally across the screen signalling how our emissions went up, moving further and further away from their pledged goal.

[Argus]

Dion can play the watermelon (green/red) card but it won't work.

It appears to be working so far in Quebec.

[Argus]

You're right, global warming is a 100 year problem. Except what we do today is what affects the problem in 100 years. What we do in 50 years affects the problem in 150 years.

I think it was 14 years ago Jean Chretien said "What we do now will affect the problem in 14 years" and Paul Martin said "So let's party!" and Chretien said "Yeah, in 14 years it'll be someone else's problem anyway! Hahah!"

[August1991]

If I was creating the tory advertising campaign I'd show Chretien proudly signing Kyoto, and big flashbulbs going off, then a series of pictures and videos of him, Martin and Dion making smiling pledges about Kyoto. All the while a big red line would be moving up diagonally across the screen signalling how our emissions went up, moving further and further away from their pledged goal.

I have to agree.

The question is not between Plan A and Plan B. Who cares about the details of the plan if it will never get implemented?

This is where the Tories have some credibility. Harper promised to cut the GST and he did. The last federal government to implement environmental policies and achieve any new reduction in emissions was Mulroney's.

Who owns the environment and the next election are far from decided.

Dion can play the watermelon (green/red) card but it won't work.

It appears to be working so far in Quebec.

The Quebec polls I've seen are small samples. The problems of the Tories in Quebec extend well beyond the environment.

Of all Canadians, Quebecers pay the least attention to federal politics. This can easily change in the next few months.

[Higgly]

The basic dichotomy is between the Bush 'go it alone' approach and the Kyoto 'global' approach. Comments regarding the rise of emissions during the Liberal's time in office should be interpreted in light of the tremendous lag time between policy and effect.

For my money, the global approach is a much better way to to go. It creates a forum in which issues can be discussed and measures agreed upon. What Bush has done (and Harper is just taking a page out of his book, even using the same terminology) is to give countries like China and India an out when international pressure might have been able to bring them into the fold.

[August1991]

For my money, the global approach is a much better way to to go. It creates a forum in which issues can be discussed and measures agreed upon. What Bush has done (and Harper is just taking a page out of his book, even using the same terminology) is to give countries like China and India an out when international pressure might have been able to bring them into the fold.

It's called "global" warming (although I notice the Left has started to change symbols again referring to "climate change"). So of course, it requires a global solution. It makes no sense for one country to reduce its CO2 emissions when another doesn't. This isn't like smog or acid rain that are localized problems.

Kyoto has two fundamental flaws. First, it excluded large emitters such as China and India. In fact, all poor countries are excluded despite the fact that many of them (Indonesia by forest burning) are large emitters. Indeed, there was little in the way of CO2 calculations for poor countries. (Each country was asked to calculate for itself; guess which ones did it diligently.)

Second, Kyoto attempts not only to reduce CO2 emissions (GHG emissions to be exact) but also to solve the problem of world poverty by large scale transfers from the rich north to the poor south. In effect, Kyoto gives ownership of the world's atmosphere to governments in poor countries who then can turn around and sell the atmosphere's use to users in rich countries.

The US understandably walked away from this arrangement.

There is no question that we need a new negotiation of a Kyoto II but one that is not so fatally flawed from the outset. In the meantime, Canada should look at reducing its own CO2 emissions in its own way.

This is not an urgent problem but it is a problem.

[sharkman]

Kyoto is not a global approach so much as it is a wealth transfer approach as most of the leading countries of the world get heavily squeezed and backward countries get to pollute to their hearts' content. A global approach would be when ALL countries cut down on emissions.

[myata]

Kyoto has two fundamental flaws. First, it excluded large emitters such as China and India. In fact, all poor countries are excluded despite the fact that many of them (Indonesia by forest burning) are large emitters. Indeed, there was little in the way of CO2 calculations for poor countries. (Each country was asked to calculate for itself; guess which ones did it diligently.)

That is a fundamental flaw of logic in itself. The West had polluted at will for close to 200 years and it is only natural that it should show the lead in combatting the effects. Not to mention that even now, it's emissions, in absolute terms (forget per capita) by far exceed those of third world countries (source). Unless, of course, we are at our usual self-righteous self.

[Argus]

Dion can play the watermelon (green/red) card but it won't work.

It appears to be working so far in Quebec.

The Quebec polls I've seen are small samples. The problems of the Tories in Quebec extend well beyond the environment.

Of all Canadians, Quebecers pay the least attention to federal politics. This can easily change in the next few months.

The two policies repeatedly cited with regard to falling Tory fortunes in Quebec are the environment (ie, Kyoto) and Afghanistan, neither of which they can honestly be held responsible for. The Liberals failed Kyoto, and the Liberals sent Canadians to Afghanistan to fight.

[jdobbin]

The two policies repeatedly cited with regard to falling Tory fortunes in Quebec are the environment (ie, Kyoto) and Afghanistan, neither of which they can honestly be held responsible for. The Liberals failed Kyoto, and the Liberals sent Canadians to Afghanistan to fight.

The Tories certainly can blame the Liberals for this. They do every day. However, the Conservatives now have their own record on these issues. On Afghanistan, it is the extension and how the war has been fought during the last year. On the environment, it is their Clean Air Act. Try as they might to blame the Liberals for the last year, people will assess the Conservatives based on their own actions.

[Argus]

The basic dichotomy is between the Bush 'go it alone' approach and the Kyoto 'global' approach. Comments regarding the rise of emissions during the Liberal's time in office should be interpreted in light of the tremendous lag time between policy and effect.

Oh come on. The Liberals signed what was arguably the most ambitious undertaking of any of the Kyoto participants given the situation here, and did so with little or no consultation with industry as to what would be needed to meet such an undertaking. They then spent 13 years doing little or nothing, with no coordinated plan for meeting emissions guidelines, and no real environmental policy other than occasional "programs" which popped out here and there with no apparent relationship to each other and no goal in mind. Are you suggesting that if the Liberals were still in power now we'd be closer to meeting our goals? Fourteen years gone and only six remain, and we need to cut our emissions by what, 40%? If anyone has a plan as to how that can be possibly be done in six years do please let us know.

Here's a hint; Close coal power plants. Oh, but wait, first you need to build something to replace them. Oh wait, first you have to have environmental studies, and you have to actually hire someone to draw up plans for the new power station. Oh wait, before that you need to figure out what economic incentives you're going to offer up in order to persuade companies and provinces to replace their coal power plants. Oh wait, first you need to draw up an overall plan figuring out what you need to get done, how to do it, and how much you're going to pay to do it.

After thirteen years of posturing and preening about their environmental conciousness, the Liberals had yet to reach that first planning stage.

[Argus]

The two policies repeatedly cited with regard to falling Tory fortunes in Quebec are the environment (ie, Kyoto) and Afghanistan, neither of which they can honestly be held responsible for. The Liberals failed Kyoto, and the Liberals sent Canadians to Afghanistan to fight.

The Tories certainly can blame the Liberals for this. They do every day. However, the Conservatives now have their own record on these issues. On Afghanistan, it is the extension and how the war has been fought during the last year.

The Tories have absolutely nothing to do with "how the war has been fought". That was negotiated by the Liberal government of the time. The Tories can be held responsible for extending the mission, true. But that affects nothing which has happened up to this point in time.

On the environment, it is their Clean Air Act. Try as they might to blame the Liberals for the last year, people will assess the Conservatives based on their own actions.

And who is to say the Tories' Clean Air Act wouldn't accomplish far and away more than anything the Liberals did or had plans to do? The Liberals always talk a big case about things like the environment and health care, but once in office they really haven't shown much interest in either.

[jdobbin]

The Tories have absolutely nothing to do with "how the war has been fought". That was negotiated by the Liberal government of the time. The Tories can be held responsible for extending the mission, true. But that affects nothing which has happened up to this point in time.

And who is to say the Tories' Clean Air Act wouldn't accomplish far and away more than anything the Liberals did or had plans to do? The Liberals always talk a big case about things like the environment and health care, but once in office they really haven't shown much interest in either.

Once again. you can try and lay the blame at the feet of the Liberals and they will take their share of it. But the Tories are the government now. They own these issues and will be judged accordingly for how they handle things.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Once again. you can try and lay the blame at the feet of the Liberals and they will take their share of it. But the Tories are the government now. They own these issues and will be judged accordingly for how they handle things.

The original commitment, including the rules of engagement, was agreed to by the Liberals. The Conservatives haven't changed the rules of engagement. For the Liberals to walk away from their ownership of that agreement whos how sad and lacking in leadership they really are.

[mikedavid00]

but also to solve the problem of world poverty by large scale transfers from the rich north to the poor south.

I agree. I will not have my money going to international credits. Dion is a theoryis, idealist, he's not in reality and out for the best interst of the people.

Also, Canada with a low population and open land is not a main contributor to C02 levels.

[madmax]

Also, Canada with a low population and open land is not a main contributor to C02 levels.

Who is the largest contributor to Green House Gasses?

Where do we rank in the list?

[geoffrey]

Also, Canada with a low population and open land is not a main contributor to C02 levels.

Who is the largest contributor to Green House Gasses?

Where do we rank in the list?

Our emissions are only one part of it. Canada is arguably the largest carbon sink in the world too. I think we should be nearly excluded on this basis.

[mikedavid00]

Also, Canada with a low population and open land is not a main contributor to C02 levels.

Who is the largest contributor to Green House Gasses?

Where do we rank in the list?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm

[Argus]

Also, Canada with a low population and open land is not a main contributor to C02 levels.

Who is the largest contributor to Green House Gasses?

Where do we rank in the list?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm

This certainly shows how pointless and stupid it is to get worked up over Canada's goals as they're basically meaningless.

Example:

China is the world's second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but as a developing country is not yet required to reduce its emissions.

With China accounting for a fifth of the world's population, increases in its emissions could dwarf any cuts made by the industrialised countries.

Example:

Japan committed to reduce emissions by 6% from 1990 levels, but 2002 figures showed total greenhouse gas emissions had risen 11% above the baseline figure.

Example:

Developing countries like India are not obliged to make any cuts in greenhouse emissions under Kyoto. But as they raise living standards their emissions will increase. India's emissions are estimated to have risen by more than 50% in the 1990s,

[Charles Anthony]

Before this thread snowballs into a scrolling rollercoaster quoting ride, I am stepping in to a point of order: trim and condense your posts, guys!

Again, there continues to be a lot of empty whitespace in the quotes throughout this thread.

Check out #5 of Using the [ Quote ] Feature: Avoid using more too many quotes!

[mikedavid00]

Before this thread snowballs into a scrolling rollercoaster quoting ride, I am stepping in to a point of order: trim and condense your posts, guys!

I peronsally don't think they've been too out of hand. Much of the time I need to read read the sub-discussion to follow the response.

[madmax]

Emissions

USA 6746

EU 4030

China 3650

Russia 1880

India 1228

Japan 1224

Indonesia 904

Canada 740

Mexico 686

Carbon/person, Canada is close to the US

US 24.09

Canada 23.45

China 3.05

EU 10.74

Mexico 7.04

What's this mean

FIIK.

Regardless, We signed a treaty, and I didn't hear Ambrose say that the conservatives were abandoning Kyoto.

She didn't handle herself well at an international conference, but, I hear alot of people talking here as if Kyoto wasn't ratified, or that the Conservatives have pulled out of the treaty like the US did. But as far as I know, they haven't.

Kyoto may well be flawed, so are alot BS that we get like the Lumber Deal, the NAFTA deal, (undermined by the Lumber deal), the War in Afghanistan, etc.

Bad deals are a part of life. I see alot of people arguing that Global Warning is a false science. I see people stating that Kyoto is flawed. I am not a scientist, but I do know that if the Anti Global Warming people are WRONG, then we are in for a rude awaking, if history is any measure. If the Anti Global Warming people are RIGHT, then under Kyoto, we have only cleaned up the environment a degree or two, and our out of pocket some money.

Kyoto is a treaty, not an equality deal. Like Free Trade, it ain't fair, it is a Treaty.

Implement Kyoto, which in environmental terms is doing something, and then work on the again in an international forum or officially pull out.

Any scientists here? Climatogists?